pdcue said:
Exactly what I meant.
A return to tradition
- Thread starter Slasher
- Start date
Exactly what I meant.
Patrick Johnson said:
Patrick Johnson said:
Nice try Patrick. As you often do, you go study up AFTER THE FACT and then post as though you "knew it all along."
Below is the comment you replied to.
Quote:
The tips are, of course, a major factor in imparting spin.
Here was your reply....
"
Patrick Johnson said:
Nice try Patrick. As you often do, you go study up AFTER THE FACT and then post as though you "knew it all along."
Below is the comment you replied to.
Quote:
The tips are, of course, a major factor in imparting spin.
Here was your reply....
I don't think so. If two tips are equally well chalked and hit the same CB contact point I don't see any difference in the amount of spin - and I've done a lot of testing.
Please NOTE: That you conveniently elected not to include the first sentence in your above-quoted reply.
IN FACT...to my comment...your first reply was "I don't think so." which was a direct contradiction to my comment that you cannot now try to duck.
BECAUSE rounder tips CAN contact the CB further from the center, then my comment was EXACTLY CORRECT AS STATEDl i.e. that the tip MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
You correctly stated that spin is influenced by the distance from the center that the tip contacts the OB but by disagreeing with my comment, as written, you demonstrated that you were not aware that rounder tips can make contact further out...which is why I have you the hint..."shape" which either caused you to study up or jogged your memory.
Bottom line...I stated
"The tips are, of course, a major factor in imparting spin. " That statement is irrefutably CORRECT as written.
To which you replied...
"I don't think so. "
Which is therefore, irrefutably INCORRECT as written.
Why don't you just man up and admit when you are wrong...as I have done...even in dialogs with you...instead of dancing around and blowing a lot of smoke after the fact?
(-:
enzo said:
The deflection goes into the shaft instead of the cue ball. The shaft deflects more than a traditional shaft, therefore the cue ball deflects less. Newton's third law.
Patrick Johnson said:
Where do I use the word "vast" or say I've tested "each subject"?
I have described the way I test different cues for their ability to produce spin. I'm sure you can find it here if you look around.
pj
chgo
________________________________________________________
HINT...Include the poster's screen name when you quote them.
I have done vast research on that subject and conclude that it allows the reader to determine who you are quoting without having to review the entire thread.
(-:
It's only true in theory that a rounder tip can make contact farther out - in practice you reach the miscue limit before their extra roundness can help you.
It's true that a rounder tip contacts the CB a little farther out (less than your normal stroke error) for the same amount of shaft offset, and that's why I said "if two tips ... hit the same contact point". But a rounder tip doesn't add significantly to your ability to hit farther out - which, you might recall if you try, is the topic.
It's only true in the same sense that "chalk is a major factor in imparting spin". Was that the kind of information you were trying to contribute to the discussion?
Go take a look at the RSB archives. You'll see that this very thing has been discussed (by me, among others) for years - along with lots of other interesting and useful things. You might even learn something, if you can get over your distaste for anything I have to say.
pj
chgo
Patrick, you must be in excellent phsycal shape for all the dancing you do.
LOL
Patrick
No, it is not theory Patrick...it is a fact that can easily be demonstrated geometrically. Re-read Science of Pocket Billiards.
Given that a cb is 2.25 " then there is only a 1.125" distance from the center. Therefore ALL distances from the center are little. And refer to the following:
"First let's assume that you already know that the shape or radius of the tip is of utmost importance and must be maintained at all times during gameplay. That very important shape that I just mentioned is the radius of a dime (roughly) or a "0.375" radius. In other words, hold a dime edgewise up to your tip and look over the top... If it does not match the shape or radius of a dime on the top of your tip, you've already got a problem.
When the ball is struck by the tip, the portion of the tip that takes the force is no more than an eighth of an inch offcenter in all directions. This is true regardless of whether you've struck the cue ball a sixteenth off center, or a full tip off center. What this radius does is generate the force, regardless of where it is struck, to the center of the tip and down through the center of your cue."
But the above quote is from Bob Meucci and what the heck does HE know about cues and cue tips??
http://r8m.org/articles/sports/14978_All_About_Pool_Cue_Tips.html
And just for the record, I do not have a distaste for everything you say...not even those comments of yours that are incorrect as several others here have pointed out.
My only distaste is the arrogance with which you often express yourself and your unwillingness to admit when you are in error.
Regards,
Jim
LOL
Patrick
No, it is not theory Patrick...it is a fact that can easily be demonstrated geometrically. Re-read Science of Pocket Billiards.
Given that a cb is 2.25 " then there is only a 1.125" distance from the center. Therefore ALL distances from the center are little. And refer to the following:
"First let's assume that you already know that the shape or radius of the tip is of utmost importance and must be maintained at all times during gameplay. That very important shape that I just mentioned is the radius of a dime (roughly) or a "0.375" radius. In other words, hold a dime edgewise up to your tip and look over the top... If it does not match the shape or radius of a dime on the top of your tip, you've already got a problem.
When the ball is struck by the tip, the portion of the tip that takes the force is no more than an eighth of an inch offcenter in all directions. This is true regardless of whether you've struck the cue ball a sixteenth off center, or a full tip off center. What this radius does is generate the force, regardless of where it is struck, to the center of the tip and down through the center of your cue."
But the above quote is from Bob Meucci and what the heck does HE know about cues and cue tips??
http://r8m.org/articles/sports/14978_All_About_Pool_Cue_Tips.html
And just for the record, I do not have a distaste for everything you say...not even those comments of yours that are incorrect as several others here have pointed out.
My only distaste is the arrogance with which you often express yourself and your unwillingness to admit when you are in error.
Regards,
Jim
So demonstrate it.
Less than you think - he's wrong about a couple of things in this one statement, for instance:
1. You don't have a problem if you don't have a dime shaped tip. In fact, dime shapes tend to become nickel or quarter shapes very quickly, so very few players play with one for long.
2. The cue ball often contacts the tip more than 1/8" from the tip's center. This is easily seen by putting your 13mm tip against the ball where you'd hit it for maximum english. The tip's contact point is almost on its edge, nearly twice that far from its center.
But more importantly, even if he was completely correct, this statement doesn't support anything you've said. You seem to think it does, so please go ahead and explain how. Maybe I'll learn something.
pj
chgo
Patrick...
1. Is just utter...blithering...NONSENSE. Have you every heard of a tip shaper?? The Ultimate Tip Tool allows for MAINTAINING either a dime or nickel shape. Or your friendly cue tech will be happy to maintaint that shape for you.
2. THE CUE BALL CONTACTS THE TIP??? WOW REALLY?? And all these years, I thought that the tip contacted the cue ball!! ROFLMAO! And besides your response was yet another non sequitor...a type of response you seem to be fond of when a sensible response is unavailable to you.
With respect to your learning something...fat chance...but hope springs eternal! (-:
Dr. Dave
TP A.22 analyzes the effects of cue stick elevation, tip curvature, and tip size on tip offset and table clearance. The most obvious result is that using a smaller and rounder tip allows one to achieve larger offsets while maintaining ample table clearance. It turns out that for a thin tip (e.g., 11 mm) with dime radius, the maximum possible cue tip offset with an average cue stick elevation is about 0.66R, which is much larger than the maximum recommended value (0.5R), so additional cue stick elevation is not necessary.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2006/july06.pdf
Predator research has clearly shown that a dime radius (or shape of a dime) will produce 5 percent to 10 percent less cue ball deflection than the more commonly used nickel shape. The cue ball deflection is reduced because the dime radius centralizes the hit to the center, or strong part, of the shaft.
http://www.predatorcues.com/predator_cues_tech_tips.html
1. Is just utter...blithering...NONSENSE. Have you every heard of a tip shaper?? The Ultimate Tip Tool allows for MAINTAINING either a dime or nickel shape. Or your friendly cue tech will be happy to maintaint that shape for you.
2. THE CUE BALL CONTACTS THE TIP??? WOW REALLY?? And all these years, I thought that the tip contacted the cue ball!! ROFLMAO! And besides your response was yet another non sequitor...a type of response you seem to be fond of when a sensible response is unavailable to you.
With respect to your learning something...fat chance...but hope springs eternal! (-:
Dr. Dave
TP A.22 analyzes the effects of cue stick elevation, tip curvature, and tip size on tip offset and table clearance. The most obvious result is that using a smaller and rounder tip allows one to achieve larger offsets while maintaining ample table clearance. It turns out that for a thin tip (e.g., 11 mm) with dime radius, the maximum possible cue tip offset with an average cue stick elevation is about 0.66R, which is much larger than the maximum recommended value (0.5R), so additional cue stick elevation is not necessary.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/bd_articles/2006/july06.pdf
Predator research has clearly shown that a dime radius (or shape of a dime) will produce 5 percent to 10 percent less cue ball deflection than the more commonly used nickel shape. The cue ball deflection is reduced because the dime radius centralizes the hit to the center, or strong part, of the shaft.
http://www.predatorcues.com/predator_cues_tech_tips.html
Jim, this stuff doesn't mean what you think. Dr. Dave is saying a thinner tip can get closer to the table surface for draw shots so you can hit lower without jacking up, not that you can hit farther from center generally (yes, Jim, I know that lower is farther from center - that's not his point). He also acknowledges here that you can't hit more than 1/2 radius from center with any tip, but I'm sure that's lost on you too.
I don't really mind you misunderstanding all this stuff, because you're just on a petty personal vendetta and getting things right is less important to you than proving me wrong about something. But you've sunk to apparently not even trying to understand the stuff you cut and paste - as long as it sounds vaguely like it might somehow contradict me you'll toss it onto the screen.
I'd only be enabling your silliness by responding to more of it here. Stalk me in another thread.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
Dr. Dave wrote..."The most obvious result is that using a smaller and rounder tip allows one to achieve larger offsets while maintaining ample table clearance."
Yep Patrick..."smaller and ROUNDER" just means thinner...just like you said...and Bob Meucci doesn't know what he's talking about and Preditor research is junk.
Yup...you hold on to that. And you might want to check with someone on your feelings of persecution. I have psoted to you in no way different than you have to me.
Cuebacca said:
First, I'mm not sure how impartial you are since your first post in the infamous thread contained a picture of a Wizard with a legend to the effect that..."If you don't follow my mojo you must fail."
Of course, you didn't state who that was directed to so it could have been either Patrick or me...but still, the parody was hardly impartial in any event.
Nevertheless, I respect you right to your opinion and would only note that others have opinions in opposition to yours.
In addition, a review of the thread suggests that your recollections are not accurate.
Quote: av84fun
With respect, both you and Mr. Johnson are incorrect and I suggest that actual attempts and not intuitive responses should be posted.
PJ
Respect back at ya, but there's nothing intuitive about my response and, more importantly, it's right. If your system is limited to 6 (or any small number of) precise CB/OB alignments, then most shots will fall somewhere between them, even after taking into account the ability to cheat all the pockets. Been there; done that to death.
Actual attempts are not a reliable way to test systems like this - we too easily fool ourselves about how we actually aim. You have to set up controlled tests or rely on the geometry (which is convincing).
pj
chgo
Av84fun
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson
Respect back at ya, but there's nothing intuitive about my response
Sorry to disagree with you but you haven't tested the system (which I just posted moments ago) and therefore, your response was intuitive by definition.
_________________________________________________________
So, up to this point, Patrick's argument demonstrates that he doesn't understand the meaning of the word "intuitive."
11/29
Yes, in fact I have tested the system - it's no different from several other "limited angles" systems which have been tested endlessly both practically (shooting actual shots) and theoretically (making diagrams and calculating angles), both of which I and others have done repeatedly.
___________________________________________________________
As will be established below, A) he had NOT "tested the system" which BTW, had not even been published in full!
11/29
Quote:av84fun
...the shot is aimed using ONE SINGLE AIMING METHOD and it goes...EVERY TIME....DEAD CENTER
..the CBs stike the OB at 4 different POINTS OF CONTACT USING ONE SINGLE METHOD OF AIM.
PJ
Simply put, it's utter nonsense that you can hit the OB on 4 different points of contact and it will hit the center of the pocket each time.
I'm frankly amazed that you can convince yourself of such a thing.
pj
chgo
11/29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson
I'll do my best to grasp this.
No, it's not. That contact area acts just as if it was a contact point located (I think) at the center of the area. This is what I meant when I said you may have some incorrect notions about what's necessary to make shots. I'm not saying you can't shoot; I'm saying your ideas about what's going on at the level of CB/OB interaction are mistaken.
pj
chgo
Now, Cuebacca, please note the tenor and content of my reply. No low blows yet, sir.
Hey...fight fair!! (-: Actually, I don't view this as a fight AT ALL...just kidding.
But you left out the central thesis of my comments to you which was why I put the word "practical" in bold. The human eye and physical coordination will not allow a player to aim at microscopic increments so there IS a LIMITED number of contact points that can be PRACTICALLY aimed at.
But as noted in another of my posts to you, the system has nothing to do with aiming at contact points and so we should probably drop this line of inquiry as moot.
Regards,
Jim
11/29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson
Wrong again. The same OB contact point must be struck to send the OB on the same path.
I'm more amazed than ever.
pj
chgo
Now, please note that when Patrick pointed out that I had clearly made a misstatement (however unintentional) I immediately admitted to that and "ate crow" No low blow yet, sir.
Av84fun
Of course...you are totally correct. My bad entirely!!! Eating crow after so much turkey is especially bad!
What I MEANT to say was just the opposite of what I did say. What I meant is that the SAME "aiming method" WILL cause a hit on the exact same point of contact in spite of the fact that the CB has moved a significant distance.
The OVERRIDING point that I so badly buthered in my post to you was that my system has nothing to do with aiming at contact points and that, therefore, the number of aiming points that must be contacted to pocket all shots is irrelevant to my system.
Stated another way...by using one of the 6 AIMING METHODS, according to the diamond-related rules, will result in the OB striking the correct contact point on the OB.
Sorry for having opened mouth and inserted foot. I've been getting quite a few comments and clearly didn't give sufficient time to considering your last one.
Regards,
Jim
Then Patrick clearly insults my intelligence. You will decide how high or low a blow that might be in your own mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curdog
I'm starting to get a bit confused. Does this diagram infer that the contact point is the same for A & B?
No, that's what av84fun claims. This diagram tries to show him why he's wrong, but he hasn't understood that yet and I don't know if he ever will.
pj
chgo
PJ
11/30
OK, OK, I tried the shots (I can't believe I wasted this time), at least 5 times each with little white donuts and everything. The results are unsurprising - follow the colored lines to see where shots from each of the 4 CB positions went:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Please note CUEBACCA that he states on 11/30 that he had FINALLY actually tried the shots which shows that his earlier statement that he had tested the system was disingenuous. And please also note his reference to feeling that he had "wasted his time." Again, I don't know where you draw the line on what constitutes a "low blow" but I suspect you would dislike such a remark as much as I did.
Moreover, as the thread shows conclusively, Patrick insisted on repeatedly attaching diagrams that show cut shots going dead center nor nearly so when struck on the geometric contact point and just utterly refused to admit and in fact, hotly debated that "raw geometry" does NOT predict the actual CB path due to CIT which will alter the geometric path by 4-11 degrees on most cut angles.
Finally, up to the above date, I had not even posted the elements of the full system...that included Exceptions... so he was bashing a system as a waste of time that he had never even read in full.
But again, thanks for your opinion but please accept my opinion that your either was not impartial or was based on a flawed recollection of the flow of the thread.
Regards,
Jim
Dude, get a hobby or a girlfriend.
pj
chgo
How about those low deflection shafts? Aren't they swell?
(Topic back on track)
(Topic back on track)
cdmexposer
Banned
On softer shots I feel that the spliced shaft creates unintended spin. It seems that the energy that would have gone into deflection winds up as more spin on the cueball as the shaft slips of the side of the ball. If you use one you should get well used to it before betting on it. Try straight in shots many times and you will see what I mean. Merry Christmas.
cdmexposer said:
That was my experience as well. I also had a hard time with the feel of dead center ball, where the shaft is taking the maximum mass of the cue ball and literally bouncing off the ball.
As a side note, I have been at it a week with the new cue and really love the feel and Andy Gilbert has done a great job on these shafts, the adjustment has been minimal to say the least. And thats coming back from playing with a a Z2 shaft for the last 18 months.
Do you mean low deflection shafts bounce off the ball too much when you hit centerball?
pj
chgo
Do you mean you get unintended sidespin when you're trying to hit centerball, or more sidespin than you expected when hitting offcenter?
pj
chgo