Thanks but Hals system called the grail works great. Bob I am intrested in a carom system of hals. Got his PA phone # is he well to take calls. Please pm me or email at tobyclem@yahoo.com
Last edited:
aiming
- Thread starter berlowmj
- Start date
Thanks but Hals system called the grail works great. Bob I am intrested in a carom system of hals. Got his PA phone # is he well to take calls. Please pm me or email at tobyclem@yahoo.com
Bob Jewett said:
Well I'm still hoping there is a reference.
But I did notice there's no hyphen between "receding" and "sphere." Maybe, just maybe, we're not reading it correctly. Maybe it's not the sphere that's receding?
It could be receding modifies the second word, like in
"receding Nawlins crawdad."
It sure could.PKM said:
It's completely arbitrary. For instance, if you divide the playing surface into a relatively course grid of 1" squares, and position the cueball and object ball in the exact center of each square, and limit the possibilities to one target pocket per shot, you get roughly 20 million shots. Granted, you may want to divide this by two because half are the same except for the pocket.
If you reduce the grid to 1/8" squares, the number jumps to over a billion. And if you now start dividing the cueball up into a grid for different tip offsets, and multiply these by the number of different shot speeds - dividing this up into some reasonable number of increments - now you're talking big, in the sense of huuge.
But another way of looking at it is to say that there are about 90 different cut angles, and maybe 16 tip positions in each of the horizontal and vertical directions, and perhaps 260 shot speeds (10 per mph from 0 to 26 mph), which gives you 90x16x16x260= 5,990,400 possible shots. Hmmm, he was close...but no cigar.
Jim
Scott Lee said:Don...Einstein figured out in 1918 that there are 6 million shots and angles on a 9' pool table. Fortunately only 6 go to a pocket. If you have a repeatable stroke ANY aiming system will work for you. If you don't, NO aiming system will work. For SAM to work you have to believe it will...I do, and IT does!
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
Are you sure there isn't a misunderstanding there? Much of Einstein's work dealt with billiards as a type of collision between very small particles. In one application, to microwaves, it turns out that there are a very finite number of paths that the waves concentrate on. Frequently billiard balls are referenced in discussions on this study as an example of something that WOULD NOT have a finite number of paths.
I'd love to see a link to this.
Cheers,
RC
p.s. As a further case for the misunderstanding, this paper was written in 1917.
EDIT:
Or, could he mean that for any given location of the CB there are 6 million shots and only 6 lead directly to a pocket. But those six would change with every change in CB & OB position.
Also, could the 'receding spheres' theory refer to the retreating huevos of a certain poster?
Last edited:
Andrew Manning said:
Andrew...It is there. Einstein wrote a thesis on billiards called the Receding Sphere Theory (possible that it's not that exact name, but I'll find out). You just have to know where to look...and NO Bob, I am not kidding.
Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com
In physics for the last hundred years people have referred to collisions between molecules using what's called a hard-sphere potential as "billiard ball collisions" because its easy for people to understand what you're saying.
Einstein would have used this terminology for his description of brownian motion most likely, because he considered hard-sphere collisions. But this is not really about billiard ball collisions.
Einstein would have used this terminology for his description of brownian motion most likely, because he considered hard-sphere collisions. But this is not really about billiard ball collisions.
sixpack said:
I think the real key to this system was originally developed by Franz Mesmer and perfected by James Braid. Mesmer lived in Paris at the same time as Francois Minguad, the French army officer who invented the leather tip. Once you can hit the ball accurately -- with Mingaud's new leather "proce'de'" as the French called it -- the next logical step is to aim more accurately. So the system is almost as old as real pool.breakin8 said:
If you don't believe me, check Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org
Last edited:
There are two issues: the physics/math of aiming systems, and the psychology of aiming systems.
Mathematically speaking, there are an infinite number of possible angles and thus an infinite number of possible shots. Period. You can classify them into a finite number of categories if you want, but that's only an approximation. You can have coarser or finer approximations, and the "total number of shots" will vary accordingly, but at the end of the day, the number of possible shots is infinite (without getting into quantum physics or other such issues which are entirely irrelevant to this discussion).
Now, if you want to explicitly use finite approximations in practice, you are going to need (far) more than 6 angles between 0 and 90 degrees. It's not very hard to roughly estimate how many angles you need ... it doesn't take Einstein, it takes trigonometry.
E.g., let's say the OB is 20 inches from the pocket, and the pocket is twice as wide as the ball. To pocket the ball cleanly, that gives you one half ball's width of margin off of dead center on either side, otherwise you catch the rail. That's a total of one ball width--but let's be generous and say 3 inches.
The length of a 180 degree arc of radius 20 is 20*pi which is about 63, but you can't actually cut a ball quite 90 degrees, so let's say there is an arc of length 60 inches, which consists of all possible targets at distance 20 inches from the current location of the OB.
Since the pocket can be anywhere, and you have 3 inches total margin, that means you need 60/3=20 possible angles -- or 10 on each side -- to be able to make every possible 20 inch shot.
And that's only if the OB is 20 inches from the pocket. In other words, using only 6 shots is not nearly enough, even if you are playing on a 6-foot bar box with buckets.
On a 9-footer, allowing for shots up to say 5 feet (60 inches), you're looking at 30 total "possible angles". Tighten up the pockets and you get to about 50. And you're still going to be aiming to unintentionally cheat the pocket most of the time, often by a substantial amount. And you can forget about cheating the pocket on purpose, or shooting combinations, or any number of other factors I haven't taken into account.
That's the math. The psychology is different. Maybe it's good to pretend that there are only 6 angles, and subconsciously compensate, using the "shot angle number" as a reference point. Maybe it's even good to falsely believe that 6 angles is mathematically sufficient. E.g., some people claim that they can draw the ball to one side or another using side English -- in reality they are cheating the pocket without knowing it, but they are still able to accomplish the goal. Maybe ignorance is bliss.
But, in a rational discussion about aiming systems, it's simply not the case that there are "only six shots".
Mathematically speaking, there are an infinite number of possible angles and thus an infinite number of possible shots. Period. You can classify them into a finite number of categories if you want, but that's only an approximation. You can have coarser or finer approximations, and the "total number of shots" will vary accordingly, but at the end of the day, the number of possible shots is infinite (without getting into quantum physics or other such issues which are entirely irrelevant to this discussion).
Now, if you want to explicitly use finite approximations in practice, you are going to need (far) more than 6 angles between 0 and 90 degrees. It's not very hard to roughly estimate how many angles you need ... it doesn't take Einstein, it takes trigonometry.
E.g., let's say the OB is 20 inches from the pocket, and the pocket is twice as wide as the ball. To pocket the ball cleanly, that gives you one half ball's width of margin off of dead center on either side, otherwise you catch the rail. That's a total of one ball width--but let's be generous and say 3 inches.
The length of a 180 degree arc of radius 20 is 20*pi which is about 63, but you can't actually cut a ball quite 90 degrees, so let's say there is an arc of length 60 inches, which consists of all possible targets at distance 20 inches from the current location of the OB.
Since the pocket can be anywhere, and you have 3 inches total margin, that means you need 60/3=20 possible angles -- or 10 on each side -- to be able to make every possible 20 inch shot.
And that's only if the OB is 20 inches from the pocket. In other words, using only 6 shots is not nearly enough, even if you are playing on a 6-foot bar box with buckets.
On a 9-footer, allowing for shots up to say 5 feet (60 inches), you're looking at 30 total "possible angles". Tighten up the pockets and you get to about 50. And you're still going to be aiming to unintentionally cheat the pocket most of the time, often by a substantial amount. And you can forget about cheating the pocket on purpose, or shooting combinations, or any number of other factors I haven't taken into account.
That's the math. The psychology is different. Maybe it's good to pretend that there are only 6 angles, and subconsciously compensate, using the "shot angle number" as a reference point. Maybe it's even good to falsely believe that 6 angles is mathematically sufficient. E.g., some people claim that they can draw the ball to one side or another using side English -- in reality they are cheating the pocket without knowing it, but they are still able to accomplish the goal. Maybe ignorance is bliss.
But, in a rational discussion about aiming systems, it's simply not the case that there are "only six shots".
Scott Lee said:
SL,
While I'm positive that truer words have never been spoken; this is going to come as sad news to those seeking the magic bullet (and isn't that really what most of the aiming threads are really about on some level?).
Thanks for your input. I have always thought that the SAM would be something I would love to see demonstrated (since I have spent most of my brief pool career in search of a decent stroke).
I have had 2 sessions with "Houle-igans" who were never able to really adequately demonstrate the utility of the systems they were using (anything counter-intuitive is especially difficult for me to grasp); but I have definite plans to call Hal if and when I ever develop an excellent and repeatable stroke (I think I'm getting close). Perhaps I should also get a dose of SAM as well.
OK, how about this. First is a 30 deg cut requiring a 50% overlap between ghost ball and object ball (note that ghost ball is just the position of the CB at contact, the little red x is the contact point). Second is a 36 deg cut, and the overlap is now 42 % instead of 50. Does your aiming system tell you that the aim points are the same for these shots? If so, are you trying to send the OB to the center of the pocket? Or do you claim that these numbers are inaccurate, because of throw or some other factor, and the difference would make the system work?
Last edited:
Sure - I'm talking about the visual center of whatever vertical face can be seen (like the cushion facing for shots down the rail into the corners). That "center" moves around but remains directly over the "intersection of the gutters" center - for the corner pockets at least.
For the side pockets, it doesn't seem that the point in the gutter at the center of the pocket will be the "center" for all angles. That's one reason I like to think of the center of the pocket as simply the center of the opening (midway between the pocket points from whatever angle you're shooting). I think this works from every angle for every pocket, and it's the easiest and most intuitive thing to see.
pj
chgo
PKM said:OK, how about this. First is a 30 deg cut requiring a 50% overlap between ghost ball and object ball (note that ghost ball is just the position of the CB at contact). Second is a 36 deg cut, and the overlap is now 42 % instead of 50. Does your aiming system tell you that the aim points are the same for these shots? If so, are you trying to send the OB to the center of the pocket? Or do you claim that these numbers are inaccurate and the difference would affect the aiming?
The aim point is identical for all of your shots above. Center pocket for each. This kept me up all night as well. Your game tends to improve when you sight one aim over and over for the next few decades, instead of infinite angles described above. Silver bullet? Well, if you combine SAM (not sure what this is, but I assume the end result is a straight stroke) with the single aim system - I'd call that a silver bullet.
I almost wish I hadn't posted anything. I just encourage people to do their own research, find the people in the know and decide for yourself. Maybe there are subconscious adjustments. Maybe not. What does it matter when the ball fires into the pocket, right?
some of these aiming posts simply defy logic. i know very intelligent, good players who use these systems, but i still just don't understand how one can think on any given shot, if you hit it with left, right, hard, soft, high, low... etc, your aiming is going to be at the same spot..... how can you think that????
for instance, i aim center ball on a certain shot, i line it up correclty and i know its gonna go, i then aim to hit some inside english on that shot and the aiming point wont stay the same (on most shots, maybe on a thin cut it may).... how can you think it will..... there is friction?? anyway, i try to stay out of these becasue like i said the discussions defy logic, but here ive opened my mouth again. tell me this for my own personal satisfaction.... (i should set up a poll thread), do the people that think aiming system work, did you guys vote for bush.... if so, a lot of things will start to make sense.
for instance, i aim center ball on a certain shot, i line it up correclty and i know its gonna go, i then aim to hit some inside english on that shot and the aiming point wont stay the same (on most shots, maybe on a thin cut it may).... how can you think it will..... there is friction?? anyway, i try to stay out of these becasue like i said the discussions defy logic, but here ive opened my mouth again. tell me this for my own personal satisfaction.... (i should set up a poll thread), do the people that think aiming system work, did you guys vote for bush.... if so, a lot of things will start to make sense.
If possible, please find the authors, the title, the publication, the date and the page numbers (usually including the volume). Better would be a pointer to a PDF of the article. (It was probably not a "thesis" in the usual sense of that word.)Scott Lee said:
My suspicion is that there is some confusion because as Mike Page mentioned, "billiard ball collisions" are used in many contexts in physics that have nothing at all whatsoever to do with spheres rolling on cloth. Like this:
The structure of the general, inhomogeneous solution of (bosonic) Einstein-matter systems in the vicinity of a cosmological singularity is considered. We review the proof (based on ideas of Belinskii-Khalatnikov-Lifshitz and technically simplified by the use of the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner Hamiltonian formalism) that the asymptotic behaviour, as one approaches the singularity, of the general solution is describable, at each (generic) spatial point, as a billiard motion in an auxiliary Lorentzian space. For certain Einstein-matter systems, notably for pure Einstein gravity in any spacetime dimension D and for the particular Einstein-matter systems arising in String theory, the billiard tables describing asymptotic cosmological behaviour are found to be identical to the Weyl chambers of some Lorentzian Kac-Moody algebras. In the case of the bosonic sector of supergravity in 11 dimensional spacetime the underlying Lorentzian algebra is that of the hyperbolic Kac-Moody group E(10), and there exists some evidence of a correspondence between the general solution of the Einstein-three-form system and a null geodesic in the infinite dimensional coset space E(10)/K (E(10)), where K (E(10)) is the maximal compact subgroup of E(10).
Scott Lee said:
The proper 'spot' to be hit, can be determined for any shot.
Sometimes this is simple, sometimes complicated due to spin,
swerve, speed, and all the factors that can modify where that
proper spot is located. Good shotmakers are good at both
determining where to contact the Object Ball, and executing
so that the Cue Ball hits that target.
There is actually a range, not a single spot, because virtually
no shots require a perfect contact in order to be pocketed.
Dif players employ dif methods to aim. Some use point-to-point,
some favor line-of-the-CB-center, etc. There are several tha work well.
A very wise person once wrote:
The Ball doesn't know where you are looking - The ball doesn't know
what you are thinking - The ball only knows where you hit it.
The idea that 6 shots define all of pool indicates a lack of sophistication
that is, well, troubling.
Dale
Sorry, I can only hold three physics nerds in my head at one time, and I was already full up. You were beat out by Einstein, Lorentz, and Page. I have to approximate you by "Page" with a little english on the "Lorentz" side.sixpack said: