iusedtoberich said:
Thanks, iusedtoberich. How much you wanna bet this will be the most ignored post in the thread?
pj
chgo
$100 Spin Challenge
- Thread starter Patrick Johnson
- Start date
Thanks, iusedtoberich. How much you wanna bet this will be the most ignored post in the thread?
pj
chgo
BRKNRUN said:
No, you forgot to use a definition of "more spin" that means something. By your definition you can produce more spin with the same cue.
This has been answered (mikepage's post #102).
pj
chgo
No, what Colin's saying is that it might make it easier for some players who couldn't create normal maximum spin before to finally create the same spin that other players already do.
pj
chgo
iusedtoberich said:
***bump***
Of course, actual testing and learning isn't nearly as much fun as wallowing in ignorance and complaining about every irrelevant detail...
I should probably pay you the $100 for being the only person to actually do something.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
Actually, Pat, some time ago I came up with a spin test that resulted in approximately the same results. Here's what I did: set the cue ball on the spot, and shoot with the maximum amount of spin I could muster at the number one diamond (top left) on the short rail way up table, and try to get the cue ball to go two rails and scratch in the bottom right corner pocket.
I quickly found out that no matter the cue, whether it was a milk-dudded, elkmaster tipped, 10.5mm shafted cue, or a house cue with whatever kind of tip, or a break cue with a white-diamond phenolic style tip, that I ended up with about the same results.
Now, though, there is something I haven't really figured out yet: it's why it's easier to shoot certain spin shots with the milk-dud tipped cue as opposed to other tips. While I don't know why, perhaps it's in my mind, nevertheless I do seem to play better with it, and that's why I use it. Even if it isn't empirically better, I do play better with it. Perhaps it's a confidence issue. Who knows?
Flex
Sans high-speed filming and stroke machine, I think your test is probably the best way of doing it.Patrick Johnson said:
Just to note that looking at iusetoberich's results - "The cue ball landed exactly one ball's width away from the side pocket tittie." - this happens to be very close to what a rough model of the cushion predicts on a 9' table when the cueball has a sidespin to speed ratio (RW/V) of 1.15. This ratio is about what you would expect when hitting at (1/2)R and taking squirt into account. There may be a fair amount of luck involved as the cushion impact is complex and the ratio is increased during speed loss on the way to the cushion.
That aside, this (again, very rough) model predicts that on a 9' table, a 10% change in sidespin/speed ratio from 1.15 should result in a 2" difference in the landing location on the near (opposite) cushion. I think this is a reliable enough guide since errors incurred from using the model tend to cancel each other when making relative comparisons.
Thanks for the feedback, iusetoberich.
Jim
Neil said:I can't believe this ridiculous threas is still going! Patrick's test is so flawed that it is absurd. He has you hitting a ball softly. No worries about cb deflection there, ect.ect.
No where do any of the shaft makers claim that their shaft will produce more spin on a soft shot. They just say that you can get more spin. That means that any test would have to allow you to hit at any speed, and as far out on the cb as you can.
Will the shaft makers be proved right? I don't know. But this test doesn't prove a thing. Except that a number of you fell for it!
Try the test I mention above, and hit the cue ball as hard or as softly as you wish, and see what you come up with...
Flex
Neil said:I can't believe this ridiculous threas is still going! Patrick's test is so flawed that it is absurd. He has you hitting a ball softly. No worries about cb deflection there, ect.ect.
No where do any of the shaft makers claim that their shaft will produce more spin on a soft shot. They just say that you can get more spin. That means that any test would have to allow you to hit at any speed, and as far out on the cb as you can.
Will the shaft makers be proved right? I don't know. But this test doesn't prove a thing. Except that a number of you fell for it!
Actually, I did Patricks test and had to aim differently with a house cue than with my Predator shafts of 10 years. Otherwise I hit the left boundary ball. For MY game the increased deflection of a house cue was definitely observed at even this low speed shot.
iusedtoberich said:
Interesting.
Last year at Derby City, JoeyA tried out my cue, with the 11mm tip, no ferrule, just one of those carbon fibre pads made by OB-1, and a milk dud tip. He set up a shot with the cue ball on the spot, and the object ball straight ahead on the short rail, up table, and shot to cut the ball in, you know the shot, a spin shot where the cue ball hits rail first, contacts the object ball and sends it slowly over to pot in the corner. He set up the shot, and stroked the ball as if it were his Predator shaft. What does he say but, "2/3 less squirt than my 314" or something along that line. Then he said, "I could get used to this..."
Think all cues play the same? I know you don't...
Cheers,
Flex
Last edited:
Just to clarify...
I do believe different cues have to be aimed differently. But once the aim is figured out, the resultant spin on the cue ball is the same, when the cue ball is struck in the same place.
So on Patricks test I performed with both low and high squirt cues, the path of the cue ball and the hit on the cue ball was exactly the same in all cases. Only my initial aim was slightly different between the LS and HS cues.
I do believe different cues have to be aimed differently. But once the aim is figured out, the resultant spin on the cue ball is the same, when the cue ball is struck in the same place.
So on Patricks test I performed with both low and high squirt cues, the path of the cue ball and the hit on the cue ball was exactly the same in all cases. Only my initial aim was slightly different between the LS and HS cues.
What's stopping you?
pj
chgo
It's Patrick.....
Cuemaster, It's Patrick we're talking about here, do you think that anyone that has posted anything contrary to what Patrick has posted (within the first two days of his starting to post) has ever thought that he would admit that he's wrong about anything?????
Jaden
p.s. In case someone is thinking of calling the pot black, I have admitted to Colin and to others that they were right and I was wrong before.
Cuemaster98 said:That's why this challenge is already won by many. It's again a general statement that doesn't scientifically consider variables that may affect outcome (very ironic isn't it....this challenge is suppose to be scientific LOL).
"I will pay $100 to the first person who proves that any shaft produces more cue ball spin than another."
If it's not stated in the challenge...why should these variables be considered? As the general statement above suggest....prove that 2 different shafts will produce two difference spin on the object ball by the same person (that how I read the challenge).
So my test was give the person the 2 different shafts and with 1 of the shaft he will produce more spin...using my center ball spin test! Or any...see which can produce more RPM (distance). Two different shaft with different type of tip will produce difference result...(regardless of variables). (force x weight x tip )= Amount of Spin... any variable changes give you a different result as logic and deduction would suggest. (even if the force is constant and delivery of shaft is constant)
If PJ pick up 2 different shaft and hit the ball with either he'll find that one will spin the ball more/longer than the other...I would think if he had one of My Magic Premium Layered Molavia tip installed on one of those shaft...he would dare to say it plays so much better and accurate
Anyway, there's nothing in the challenge for the $100 that say you need to hit the ball in the same spot...da..da...da. of course PJ constantly add new limitation to cover his flaws as he ask people to provide proof...which they do and he adds more and more limitation that doesn't even apply to the challenge. Should just be clear and scientific from the start...IMO.
"Like hitting the ball at the same spot" which you can't do with or without a machine. You can even have each shaft in a tube directed at the cue ball and it wouldn't hit the same spot.
So in my mind....this is not a scientific challenge. This challenge is flawed in many ways and test devised is also flawed. How can you ask someone to pick up 2 different or "any shaft" implying is for playing pool only and have them hit the cue ball at the exact same spot and with the same force??? This is not scientific at all.....if you have a scientific challenge...do some analysis and present the challenge more appropriately than a general statement that really lead to arguement thread about what is and isn't true. This is supposely to enlighten us and further our understanding of pool physic...comn guys..you can do better than this.
I would think a more appropriate challenge would be to take two shaft with different variables (weight, type of tips, etc)....ensure that tips curvature are the same...ensure that force is calibrated to be the same....test to see first if both shaft will hit the same spot, etc. (this is really tough already)
Anyway, there's nothing scientific about this nor is there any value to anyone....as much as there is an honest interest to learn or further understanding...I've learned nothing.
Chinese have an old saying....the more you learn, they more you realize you haven't learned anything and that really there isn't anything to learn. LOL. In that spirit... I say just hit them balls and drive them dead into the pocket!!! The only person that know the different is you when it comes to cues...just try them out. Some cues just plays better than other (Not all cues are created equal)....just so I have some value in this posting....
PLEASE CHECK OUT MY PREMIUM LAYERED MOLAVIA TIPS!!!! These are the best tips in the World....wil improve you game...less miscue...and yes allow you to produce more spin as you navigate the tip to the extreme realm.
Thanks and Happy Holidays to all.
www.customcuesandtips.com
\
Cuemaster, It's Patrick we're talking about here, do you think that anyone that has posted anything contrary to what Patrick has posted (within the first two days of his starting to post) has ever thought that he would admit that he's wrong about anything?????
Jaden
p.s. In case someone is thinking of calling the pot black, I have admitted to Colin and to others that they were right and I was wrong before.
Why Does Speed Matter (a little)?
One thing I've noticed while doing these tests over the years is that speed makes a difference in the rebound angle. This isn't a difference between cues; it's true for all of them to the same degree. With the same tip offset the cue ball rebounds a little shorter at slower speeds and a little longer at higher speeds, within a limited range that's the same for all cues.
Does anybody have a theory for why that's true? Is ball/rail friction increased with a harder impact? Is it just that more sidespin is lost before the CB hits the rail on a slow shot?
pj
chgo
One thing I've noticed while doing these tests over the years is that speed makes a difference in the rebound angle. This isn't a difference between cues; it's true for all of them to the same degree. With the same tip offset the cue ball rebounds a little shorter at slower speeds and a little longer at higher speeds, within a limited range that's the same for all cues.
Does anybody have a theory for why that's true? Is ball/rail friction increased with a harder impact? Is it just that more sidespin is lost before the CB hits the rail on a slow shot?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Here's one reason: a harder hit ball sinks into the cushion more and travels farther along the rail (from spin or angled approach) before rebounding.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
I am agreeing with the masses...This thread is pointless at this point until you give enough details to work from...You leave them out and then cry fould when someone comes up with a viable winner.
You admitted that a heavier cue will produce different results (when each cue is struck at the same speed)...but you say that does not count....
Now you above say that the angle off the rail is "longer" ...(at least you threw in a "undetermined limited range"
That is kind of crucial informaion don't you think?.... Based on your diagram above how can you really prove it is the extended time on the rail and not the "swerve" of the CB before it makes impact with the rail causing a different impact point on the rail and a longer angle?
From low speed to high speed (even with right hand english) I belive a frimly struck ball "shortens" the angle....especially on "grabby" rails that reduce the amount of spin at impact......but again...this is all worthless since we don't have any set speed amounts to determin results.