$100 Spin Challenge

[Jaden]

It is pointless....

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.

Someone will come on with more undeniable proof and he'll say"they have to be the same weight in the first five inches of the shaft. Which eliminates LD technology.

No matter what anyone shows or says, there are no winners..... As has already been stated, based on the original criteria, he should've paid up about 5 times already.

Jaden

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This thread is pointless at this point until you give enough details to work from...

My test setup wasn't detailed enough?

You leave them out and then cry fould when someone comes up with a viable winner.

You must mean iusedtoberich, the one who has actually tested some cues.

pj
chgo

 

[Colin Colenso]

Pat,

Why don't you respond to the reasonable proposals that indicate that your basic assumption is wrong?

I'm not saying you ought pay anyone, for claiming that squirt properties change spin:speed ratios, but you ought to address them.

The fact that you don't, makes you appear disingenuous imho.

Colin

 

[AuntyDan]

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.

View attachment 84275

pj
chgo

This is the exact opposite of what I thought was the case - A harder hit ball will shorten the rebound angle and a softer hit will widen it. (Also a ball with follow will rebound shorter and one with draw will rebound wider.) If you are shooting a bank and need to narrow the rebound angle a bit you hit it harder right?

I'm pretty sure the reason is that by sinking deeper into the rubber of the rail there is more elastic energy pushing back on the ball directly opposite to the angle of impact, so it reduces the rebound angle. (I don't have it handy but IIRC this is all detailed in Koehler's "Science of Pocket Billiards".)

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Pat,

Why don't you respond to the reasonable proposals that indicate that your basic assumption is wrong?

I'm not saying you ought pay anyone, for claiming that squirt properties change spin:speed ratios, but you ought to address them.

The fact that you don't, makes you appear disingenuous imho.

Colin

What reasonable proposals and basic assumption are you talking about?

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

This is the exact opposite of what I thought was the case - A harder hit ball will shorten the rebound angle and a softer hit will widen it. (Also a ball with follow will rebound shorter and one with draw will rebound wider.) If you are shooting a bank and need to narrow the rebound angle a bit you hit it harder right?

I'm pretty sure the reason is that by sinking deeper into the rubber of the rail there is more elastic energy pushing back on the ball directly opposite to the angle of impact, so it reduces the rebound angle. (I don't have it handy but IIRC this is all detailed in Koehler's "Science of Pocket Billiards".)

There's a thread here somewhere in which Bob Jewett shows (maybe with a video) that a harder hit ball goes slightly longer, assuming in both cases the balls are sliding when they hit the rail.

If the ball is rolling when it hits the rail in one case and then, because of being hit harder, is sliding when it hits the rail in another case, then it will rebound short in the second case, but it's because of the lack of "follow" spin in the second case. This has also been shown by experiment (again, by Bob).

I'm not familiar with Koehler's argument, but it doesn't sound correct to me, at least not to a degree that overcomes these other effects.

pj
chgo

 

["T"]

Some posts ago, I wondered about 3 cushion players and their equipment, so I asked an extremely good 3 cushion player if there were cues that spun the the ball more than others.

He said it depended on the player. I asked if there was a difference in the weight of the cue and he told me that he had a 22 ounce cue, but he doesn't use it in tournaments because it get's too heavy over time.

He went on to say that many 3 cushion players use lighter cues because they (paraphrasing) don't want to fatigue their stroke over the length of the tournament.

Still wondering about the original question myself.

 

[Jaden]

yes but you're going to be hitting the ball in a different location.

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.

The problem here is that in relation to the angle of the shot, you will be putting more english on the ball to get the same spin on a higher deflecition shaft.

If it's squirting less, in relation to the angle of the shot, you are hitting closer to center.

Any time you have to change your aim because of squirt and deflection, you are NOT hitting the CB in the same place.

For any of these tests to be valid the distance from center of the CB that the tip strikes HAS to be measured based on the angle of the shot, NOT the relation of the angle off center of the shaft in line with the CB.

Jaden

 

[iusedtoberich]

The problem here is that in relation to the angle of the shot, you will be putting more english on the ball to get the same spin on a higher deflecition shaft.

If it's squirting less, in relation to the angle of the shot, you are hitting closer to center.

Any time you have to change your aim because of squirt and deflection, you are NOT hitting the CB in the same place.

For any of these tests to be valid the distance from center of the CB that the tip strikes HAS to be measured based on the angle of the shot, NOT the relation of the angle off center of the shaft in line with the CB.

Jaden

No.

I did it the way you are saying is proper. In each case, I placed the striped cue ball on the table in the same orientation - exactly opposite the object ball. The cue ball was not angled differently for different shafts.

And on each shaft I used, I checked my chalk mark and it was exactly on the little centennial triangle. Even when my approach angle of my shaft was different, I made sure to hit the mark. And some of the shafts were different diameters. In each case, I made sure the chalk mark left on the cue ball was exactly on the triangle. This took a few practice attempts, but then it was very easy to repeat on each particular shaft.

Try it and see for yourself.

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

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.

If you search the google archives for rec.sport.billiards, Patrick and I (and others) had a debate about what the best (most effective) break in 8 ball was, the head on break or the second ball break. Patrick didn't think there would be any benifit to the second ball break. We agreed to try it out and record our results.

Patrick held his end of the bargain and posted the results. His initial findings were that the second ball break produced better results. He even mentioned something about eating crow! I dont' remember how many racks he broke but it seemed like a lot to me when I read the post.

Since I also said I would do some testing, I went down to my basement hit a few racks and then got bored.

 

[Jaden]

I don't think you're fully understanding what I'm saying...

No.

I did it the way you are saying is proper. In each case, I placed the striped cue ball on the table in the same orientation - exactly opposite the object ball. The cue ball was not angled differently for different shafts.

And on each shaft I used, I checked my chalk mark and it was exactly on the little centennial triangle. Even when my approach angle of my shaft was different, I made sure to hit the mark. And some of the shafts were different diameters. In each case, I made sure the chalk mark left on the cue ball was exactly on the triangle. This took a few practice attempts, but then it was very easy to repeat on each particular shaft.

Try it and see for yourself.

You have to look at the ball initially as though you're not going to put any spin on it whatsoever.

Look at that angle or aimline.

If you are using a LD shaft, then when you put spin on the ball, you will have to adjust your aim a little bit to still make the ball (it would be better here to say to still have the OB go in the same direction that it would if struck with no english, because there is play in the pocket depending on the pocket size and you can be hitting it at a different angle and still make the ball).

If you are using a shaft with a normal amount of deflection, then you will have to adjust more.

This changes the initial aimline. So even though you are appearing relative to the adjusted aimline to hit the CB in the same place, you are NOT hitting the CB in the same place relative to the initial non adjusted aimline.

EDITED: (Let me correct this) You are hitting the ball in the same place relative to the initial unadjusted aimline, you are not, however, hitting in the same place relative to the actual aimline which is the adjusted aimline. It will be easier to understand when I scan in the image that I drew out and explain the image. The image shows examples of what has generally been accepted, (even by Patrick) and with an explanation will show EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

end EDITED PORTION

I wish the wei table still worked. I'm not used to using the Cuetable yet and therefore can't illustrate it.

I'll draw it out on paper and scan it when I get home so you can see what I'm saying.

Jaden.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I do think I am doing what your are asking.

Anyway, the original Wei table still works. Here is the link:

http://cuetable.com/WeiTable/

Maybe if you sketch out what you are thinking we will be understanding each other.


I'd like to add that with any of the shafts, once the cue ball leaves the stick, it takes the same straight line path (neglecting slight swerve). So it doesn't matter how I compensated my stick angle for the different deflection characteristics of the shaft. I hit the same spot on the cue ball (relative to the shot angle, not the stick angle), the cue ball started in the same place, the cue ball hit the same place on the first rail, and the cue ball hit hte same placce on the second rail.

The PATH of the cue ball was the same in all the shots, and the chalk mark on the cue ball was the same on all shots. It doesn't matter what the stick angle was.

 

[alstl]

I will pay $100 to the first person who proves that any shaft produces more cue ball spin than another.

pj
chgo

I just proved it on my table at home. Do you need my paypal address?

 

[cookie man]

If you search the google archives for rec.sport.billiards, Patrick and I (and others) had a debate about what the best (most effective) break in 8 ball was, the head on break or the second ball break. Patrick didn't think there would be any benifit to the second ball break. We agreed to try it out and record our results.

Patrick held his end of the bargain and posted the results. His initial findings were that the second ball break produced better results. He even mentioned something about eating crow! I dont' remember how many racks he broke but it seemed like a lot to me when I read the post.

Since I also said I would do some testing, I went down to my basement hit a few racks and then got bored.

PJ must be getting cranky in his old age.

 

[Jaden]

yes that is correct.....

I do think I am doing what your are asking.

Anyway, the original Wei table still works. Here is the link:

http://cuetable.com/WeiTable/

Maybe if you sketch out what you are thinking we will be understanding each other.


I'd like to add that with any of the shafts, once the cue ball leaves the stick, it takes the same straight line path (neglecting slight swerve). So it doesn't matter how I compensated my stick angle for the different deflection characteristics of the shaft. I hit the same spot on the cue ball (relative to the shot angle, not the stick angle), the cue ball started in the same place, the cue ball hit the same place on the first rail, and the cue ball hit hte same placce on the second rail.

The PATH of the cue ball was the same in all the shots, and the chalk mark on the cue ball was the same on all shots. It doesn't matter what the stick angle was.

What isn't being taken into consideration though in everything you just stated is the effective aimline which to be accurate must allow for the bridge position as the true aimiline. Once I upload my drawing and explain it, you will see what I'm talking about. I couldn't truly do it even with the wei table.

The effective aimline is a line between the intersection of the shaft where the bridge is, going straight through the center of the CB.

This is what allows for BHE to work. The bridge is held at the equilibrium point where the effective aimline is equal to the apparent aimline or initial aimline.

Jaden

Jaden

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The problem here is that in relation to the angle of the shot, you will be putting more english on the ball to get the same spin on a higher deflecition shaft.

If it's squirting less, in relation to the angle of the shot, you are hitting closer to center.

Any time you have to change your aim because of squirt and deflection, you are NOT hitting the CB in the same place.

For any of these tests to be valid the distance from center of the CB that the tip strikes HAS to be measured based on the angle of the shot, NOT the relation of the angle off center of the shaft in line with the CB.

Jaden

You're saying that when the cue is angled to correct for squirt its "effective tip offset" is greater because the "effective CB center" moves with the direction of the cue. This makes intuitive sense, but it's wrong for a subtle reason (I only came to understand it recently from something Mike Page said in post #102 in this thread - another example of why to listen carefully to what the scientists say). The subtle reason this is wrong is that the effective tip offset isn't measured by where the cue points, but by where its force is directed, which, as we know, are different because of squirt.

Because of squirt, your cue's "net force" on the CB is the combined effect of two components: the main force is in the direction your cue is traveling (the red lines in the drawing below) and the smaller squirt force is sideways to that. The "net combined direction" of these two forces is, of course, the direction the cue ball actually goes - and the amount of spin you get is exactly as if you hit the cue ball with a totally squirtless cue aimed parallel to the cue ball's actual path (the black lines in the drawing below).

This means that if you hit the same CB contact point and the CB ends up going in the same direction, then you get the same amount of spin no matter how much your cue is angled for squirt correction.



pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

You're saying that when the cue is angled to correct for squirt its "effective tip offset" is greater because the "effective CB center" moves with the direction of the cue. This makes intuitive sense, but it's wrong for a subtle reason (I only came to understand it recently from something Mike Page said in post #102 in this thread - another example of why to listen carefully to what the real scientists say). The subtle reason this is wrong is that the effective tip offset isn't measure by where the cue points, but by where its force is directed, which, as we know, are different because of squirt.

Because of squirt, your cue's "net force" on the CB is the combined effect of two components: the main force is in the direction your cue is traveling (the red lines in the drawing below) and the smaller squirt force is sideways to that. The "net combined direction" of these two forces is, of course, the direction the cue ball actually goes - and the amount of spin you get is exactly as if you hit the cue ball with a totally squirtless cue aimed parallel to the cue ball's actual path (the black lines in the drawing below).

This means that if you hit the same CB contact point and the CB ends up going in the same direction, then you get the same amount of spin no matter how much your cue is angled for squirt correction.

View attachment 84791

pj
chgo

LOL

I can't believe people are engaging you, PJ. I can't stop laughing. I knew your initial post was a horseshit bet to begin with since it can't be proven with a human being. Way to grow a heart, buddy. Maybe MIT will assemble their competition robotics team and come after your $100.

Outside of actually playing well and aiming correctly, no one can hang with you brother.

The moment you came out of your shell for $100 unprovable wager, I knew it was like the Borg. Arguing/resistance was futile. The answer was already there.

Happy New Year PJ.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If you search the google archives for rec.sport.billiards, Patrick and I (and others) had a debate about what the best (most effective) break in 8 ball was, the head on break or the second ball break. Patrick didn't think there would be any benifit to the second ball break. We agreed to try it out and record our results.

Patrick held his end of the bargain and posted the results. His initial findings were that the second ball break produced better results. He even mentioned something about eating crow! I dont' remember how many racks he broke but it seemed like a lot to me when I read the post.

Since I also said I would do some testing, I went down to my basement hit a few racks and then got bored.

It was either 100 or 200 breaks (I forget which), half hitting the head ball and half hitting the second ball. After each break I counted how many balls went into which pockets, how many balls ended up in which 1/3 of the table, and how far the 8-ball moved.

I admitted many more errors on RSB than I have here, but only because I knew less then and because RSB had generally more knowledgable posters to correct me than AZB does. Some here still carry a grudge since being corrected by me back on RSB. I was less charming and saintly then than I am now, but this is a bigger swamp with more mosquitos.

pj
chgo

P.S. I was wrong about 8-ball breaks, but not by a lot. I still don't think the second ball break is enough better to use it exclusively, and I think players who aren't very accurate with their break shots should not use it at all.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I knew your initial post was a horseshit bet to begin with since it can't be proven with a human being.

I've detailed a test to prove or disprove it. I take it you haven't tried it (or we'd have seen the video by now), and since, as you frequently say, you're not just an internet sniper but an open minded student of the game hungry for knowledge and willing to give everything a try, I can only assume that's because you see some glaring flaw in it. I'd appreciate you telling us exactly what it is.

By the way, the post you responded to has nothing to do with it.

pj
chgo

 

[SpiderWebComm]

I've detailed a test to prove or disprove it. I take it you haven't tried it (or we'd have seen the video by now), and since, as you frequently say, you're not just an internet sniper but an open minded student of the game hungry for knowledge and willing to give everything a try, I can only assume that's because you see some glaring flaw in it. I'd appreciate you telling us exactly what it is.

pj
chgo

PJ

I didn't read the thread - didn't know you made a test (I jumped to the very end).

Personally, I wouldn't bet because I think you're right without even testing. I don't think the shaft matters, all things being equal.

Will we see a PJ video in 2009?

I know the post I responded to had nothing to do with it... I was just instigating PJ. Happy New Year, CHGO