And another new hi-tech shaft on the market...

[Jal]

It's an interesting approach but I'm not sure it yields the right answer. See what you think.

...

b¹**2 = R**2 * b**2

I think you meant b1**2 = R**2 - b**2???

wt/Vt = b* M/I * [1 *( sqrt ( R**2 * b**2))* sin(t) / b] / sqrt[1 + (sin(t)**2)]

I believe this should be, substituting a minus for the asterisk in two places:

wt/Vt = b* M/I * [1 - ( sqrt ( R**2 - b**2))* sin(t) / b] / sqrt[1 + (sin(t)**2)]

If you agree with the above changes, and use tan(t) instead of sin(t) (although they're virtually the same), and using sin(theta) = b/R, you get:

w/v = (5/2)(1/R)[sin(theta)-cos(theta)]sin(t)

whereas I get (see above post to Fred):

w/v = (5/2)(1/R)sin(theta - t)

Jim

 

[Jal]

It's an interesting approach but I'm not sure it yields the right answer. See what you think.

I think you meant b1**2 = R**2 - b**2???

I believe this should be, substituting a minus for the asterisk in two places:

wt/Vt = b* M/I * [1 - ( sqrt ( R**2 - b**2))* sin(t) / b] / sqrt[1 + (sin(t)**2)]

If you agree with the above changes, and use tan(t) instead of sin(t) (although they're virtually the same), and using sin(theta) = b/R, you get:

w/v = (5/2)(1/R)[sin(theta)-cos(theta)]sin(t)

whereas I get (see above post to Fred):

w/v = (5/2)(1/R)sin(theta - t)

My mistake. Your formula, with the above substitutions, is equivalent to:

w/v = (5/2)(1/R)sin(theta - t)

Jim

 

[skins]

w/h = (o/c)/(a/r)[es(about-this)].....

 

[9ball_in_MN]

wow all we need is a rocket to the moon now

 

[Craig Fales]

LOLz....this is when things are getting out of control with math equations, pivot points, low squirt, high squirt whatever....I'll stick with my solid maple shaft that I carved out with my Buck Henry pocket knife while sitting in the cheap seats....
________

 

[Jal]

Weren't there enough "what tip should I buy" and "which pro should I worship" threads to keep you guys distracted?

Jim

 

[mikepage]

w/h = (o/c)/(a/r)[es(about-this)].....

Interesting approach, but I'm not sure it yields the right answer.

The (a/r) should actually be squared, and the minus should be a *. When you make these changes the above becomes., after a little manipulation,

"Hey buddy, here we are deep in the bowels of a high-technology shaft thread talking about... about shaft technology stuff.... Granted, there's a small audience for this, but It ain't like we made a freakin sticky out of it."

 

[mikepage]

My mistake. Your formula, with the above substitutions, is equivalent to:

w/v = (5/2)(1/R)sin(theta - t)

Jim

Good, so we agree....

So we've argued that for a given tip offset, the low-squirt stick get's a little more spin. And if all sticks have the same maximum offset before miscue, a low-squirt stick gets a little more maximum spin.

But here's another wrinkle. Because the force for a high-squirt stick is directed more toward the center of the ball, perhaps the miscue point for a high-squirt stick is greater. Maybe these things cancel out.

 

[Jal]

Interesting approach, but I'm not sure it yields the right answer.

The (a/r) should actually be squared, and the minus should be a *. When you make these changes the above becomes., after a little manipulation,

"Hey buddy, here we are deep in the bowels of a high-technology shaft thread talking about... about shaft technology stuff.... Granted, there's a small audience for this, but It ain't like we made a freakin sticky out of it."

Mockery? Wasn't my admission of error enough?

Jim

 

[cuetechasaurus]

Can anyone explain what a 'universal smart shaft' is? Is it a laminated shaft, how much does it cost, and is it worth the price, etc. Thanks

 

[TannerPruess]

Can anyone explain what a 'universal smart shaft' is? Is it a laminated shaft, how much does it cost, and is it worth the price, etc. Thanks

It is suppose to fit on any type of joint,but I don't think it will fit on a Schuler or Layani joint. People like them, but some have had trouble with them breaking near the joint and ferrule.

 

[Jal]

...But here's another wrinkle. Because the force for a high-squirt stick is directed more toward the center of the ball, perhaps the miscue point for a high-squirt stick is greater. Maybe these things cancel out.

Sounds likely to me, but now I hesitate to come to any rash conclusions.

One thing that perplexes me is that you've reported pivot points for the Predator shafts around 30" or so (correct me if I'm wrong), and I think other technically savy people like Ron Shepard have measured them up to around 40-50". I've measured my own cue (cheapo) at 18" using two different tests: aim-and-pivot and something else. But there is another camp, which includes, I believe, Colin Colenso, that get values of, say, 12-14" or thereabouts for the low squirt (I think) shafts. And some people have said that they can use backhand english quite successfully with the "low squirt" shafts.

Predator's data as well as that of Platinum Billiard's supports the shorter distance. I tend to believe them because of the nature of thier tests and the fact that Predator would have a strong incentive to stretch their numbers out if they could.

Have you figured out the cause of this discrepancy? I mean we're talking a factor of three to four here!

Jim

 

[mikepage]

Mockery? Wasn't my admission of error enough?

Jim

lol. I'm not mocking *you.*

I'm mocking the other guy in an effort to get an entry in the "AZBers in twenty words or (sic) less" thread.

 

[mikepage]

[...]
One thing that perplexes me is that you've reported pivot points for the Predator shafts around 30" or so (correct me if I'm wrong), and I think other technically savy people like Ron Shepard have measured them up to around 40-50". I've measured my own cue (cheapo) at 18" using two different tests: aim-and-pivot and something else. But there is another camp, which includes, I believe, Colin Colenso, that get values of, say, 12-14" or thereabouts for the low squirt (I think) shafts. And some people have said that they can use backhand english quite successfully with the "low squirt" shafts.

Predator's data as well as that of Platinum Billiard's supports the shorter distance. I tend to believe them because of the nature of thier tests and the fact that Predator would have a strong incentive to stretch their numbers out if they could.

Have you figured out the cause of this discrepancy? I mean we're talking a factor of three to four here!

Jim

I'm completely baffled by this.