drivermaker said:Yeh, but what grade are the b- grade math students in?
Anyway, you get my point.
C++ grade obviously!
C++ grade obviously!
Fred Agnir said:
I doubt mine would run perfectly linearly, I mainly meant that to differentiate it from a bell shaped curve, probably a bit sinusoidal or assymtotic (flattening). As we have at least two processes I can think of, both non-linear working working together.
One is the actual force in the direction of the cue ball decreasing as a function of the non-linear change in surface angle of the cue ball.
The other is the relative ratio of forces changing as a function of surface angle. So on a glancing blow, even though the throw inducing force is quite small compared to on thick contacts, the force through the line of centers has reduced by even more. The collision has a larger ratio of grazing.
I think this is why, when I've tested making very fine cuts, I've found around 83-85 degrees is the best i could measure with any confidence. I suspect they contact is happening at approximately 89 degrees (in order to move the ball enough to make a measurement), but the grazing throws the OB off at 5 to 7 degrees.
The best answers would probably come from testing on this. Let me know if you have any links.
btw: I also have some serious reservations about some of Ron Shepard's work on deflection. You can read some of it here if you haven't seen it before:
Part 1
http://www.top147.com/magazine/2004003/2004003061511064564.htm
Part 2
http://www.top147.com/magazine/2004005/2004005063000571287.htm
In part one I made a diagram with an erroneous conclusion. I need to make some adjustments to the article but will do that on another site I am building, but you might find the SPID theory interesting anyway.
F
Fred Agnir
Guest
I had to edit my post, so there's a few things different. Sorry about that.Colin Colenso said:
Fred
drivermaker
Banned
Colin Colenso said:
Just to be fair and let you know that I'm not out to git ya on the aiming stuff and flame you to death...I thought what you came up with on this subject was quite interesting and you brought some things to light which were never discussed before that can have some strong bearing on the entire subject and skew a lot of the pervious writings.
Colin Colenso said:
Excellent Diagram Collen!!! Did you make that yourself? That will help with many Questions! Good Work
This kind of excange is what makes this place Great!
Thank You for sharing
Bluey
btw. Empty your PM box man! I need to flame you privatelychefjeff said:Gawd dammit!...I come here for some flame throwing and suddenly it's like all of you are best friends or something...are gonna lick each other soon, or what?...geez...a guy can't have fun at someone else's expense anymore.
Jeff Livingston
Cheers Bluey,Bluey2King said:
Yeah I made that diagram myself.
You may wan't to check out some other of my articles and diagrams at http://www.top147.com/magazine/2004006/index.php?lan=en
Hope you find something useful.
Colin
Fred Agnir said:
Thanks for the links Fred,
The curves they ended up with don't surprise me too much.
I was quite sure they wouldn't tend toward zero throw at 90 degrees. The shape was hard to predict without some calculations, but I think I spotted the main variables.
With a mathematical analysis it is possible to overlook a contributing variable and that is probably responsible for Bob's tests tailing off rather than being assymtotic as I was thinking and how Dave predicted.
I think the trifurcation at about 15 degrees looks suspiciously like experimental error based on the lack of range on measurement of variation being able to delineate the 3 speeds.
It's good food for thought. What could be causing the tapering down at the right sides. Maybe it's not important to know, or maybe it is experimental error.
I hope Bob and Dave don't mind if I post the diagrams so others can compare. I'll take it down if they're not happy about that. They should get some acclaim for their hard work.
Attachments
Colin Colenso said:
Itis interesting that from 18 degrees to about 38 degrees angle of cut creates the most throw according to Bob's experiments. This is probably the majority of shots, especially if one is good at getting shape.
I think Bob's diagram matches my experience...but I play in crappy bars mostly with dirty balls (not mine, the bars).
Jeff Livingston
chefjeff said:
The amounts of throw measured in this range are also significantly larger that what Dave predicted. I expect he used to low a value for friction, or Bob used rough or dirty balls. It would be interesting to see how different balls compared.
An interesting part of Dave's analysis what the throw caused by outside english, showing quite a bit more variability than I imagined. So you would have to vary to OE considerably at different angles to cancel out the effect of throw.
It is certainly not unfeasable that other systems, such as have been discussed here could work better or more easily at reducing the effect of throw as a variable.
It is certainly not unfeasable that other systems, such as have been discussed here could work better or more easily at reducing the effect of throw as a variable.
O
onepocketchump
Guest
JasonDevanney said:Would you mind sharing these systems with us "bangers"?
They are described all over the forums. I don't even try and explain them online anymore. There are others that are far more qualified and articulate that have done so.
I just relate my personal experiences as one of the people who honestly tried the "hit a million shots" method of getting better.
I could have cared less for Hal Houle and aiming systems in general. Nor did I pay much attention to diamond systems for kicking and banking. I did manage to lose a lot of money though.
I am going to drop some names here:
Jimmy Reid showed me the double the distance method for one rail kicks. Works GREAT. Rafael Martinez showed me the importance of speed and three different strokes. Hal Houle showed me the importance of having more than one way to check the line-up on the ball. One of jam-up road player friends confirmed Houle's methods and expanded on them. Another of my road player friend's confirmed more of Houle's systems. Rodney Morris confirmed fractional aiming systems and backhand english with me.
Here is what it comes down to for me;
There is no way that I can practice every shot with every possible combination of speed and spin. There are literally millions of shots on a pool table when you consider that each shot is a unique combination of angle, spin, speed, and position, throw, and deflection. I tried. I really tried. Using a different method to aim than "find a contact point and make the right adjustments", I am now able to treat each shot the same and just focus on speed and spin. My pocketing percentage has soared, my position play is more accurate, and it is easier to see the paths now. All I can say is that had I been shown 18 years ago what I know now then I have no doubt that I would have become a world class pool player.
If you are reading this and you have the opportunity to get personal instruction from any good player who knows and uses aiming systems then do so. Buy books and DVDs that show and teach them. Over the last five years there are more and more of these available.
John - still learning.
drivermaker said:
I think I missed this reply before DM.
I also think the SPID system Surface Property Induced Deflection can help us to make more sense of the cause of squirt (CB deflection).
It provides a mechanism for explaining 2 common observations. 1. Increased squirt with power and 2. Increased squirt with bad tip (shape, material, chalk).
btw: I never thought you were out to get me. Not in any sense that upset me anyway. Nothing like a good hardy debate to keep me on my toes
I do make mistakes and put my foot in my mouth on occassion, but that is how you learn sometimes. You gotta put your foot forward to make a step forward. It's like playing pool...you gotta try and try with confidence, and when you stuff up, you gotta learn from that.
I understand the skepticism about aiming systems, but a lot of people seem to claim that aiming is trivial. If that is the case, are all of your missed shots due to a crooked stroke? Or is it because of misjudging deflection?
I think one misconception is that being able to pick out the contact point when you're in front of the object ball is different than knowing how to aim from across the table or from a difficult angle when you're addressing the cue ball. You have to deal with the change in perception of the shot.
I think one misconception is that being able to pick out the contact point when you're in front of the object ball is different than knowing how to aim from across the table or from a difficult angle when you're addressing the cue ball. You have to deal with the change in perception of the shot.
John Barton
New member
Roll-Off said:
I suggest you take a raw beginner and try to teach them how to play. I suspect that neither of you will get very far with "just make the friggin' ball".
All this "garbage", is merely different methods to arrive at the same conclusion. And that is being on the right and only line to make the shot. If a person can't get to that line consistently then they aren't going to making many balls.
The big deal about aiming is that it is essential to the whole point of playing pool which is to pocket balls. All the power draw in the world doesn't matter if you can't make balls. How many times have you thought you were dead on to make the ball and you missed? You were probably not lined up properly. That's aiming.
Snake oil? Nah. Magic? Nah. Different? Yes. Aiming systems are not "point and shoot". What they do however is train muscle memory so that you begin to instinctively see and get down on the right line to make the shot. Some people lock into this line without any help, they just see it. Others need to retrain their body and eyes to find the right line.
That's why aiming systems (methods) help.