Another thread disappears.

[ENGLISH!]

This is 2016. You still can't buy **** with $0.02 lol

I guess some people just have difficulty learning through the use of analogy, but I'll try again.

I have two workers.

One will work for $100.00 per day.

The other will work for 2 days for $100.

I can get twice as much work or a 100% increase in work done for my investment of the exact same $100.00.

And if the Russian tests that Renfro Chris made reference to is correct...

I might then be able to get 4x or a 400% increase in work done for my $100.

 

[DTL]

......................

 

[Jal]

Jim,

Did you see my 2 innocent clarifying questions?

Rick

Sorry Rick, by the time I got back to admi....I mean, check my post for errors, everything was gone (accidentally, of course!)...and we'll be the judges of whether your questions are either innocent or clarifying.

Let me take this opportunity to add something (most of the details in the other post are irrelevant). If you recall, I arbitrarily chose something like 30 lbs of applied force (by the grip hand) during contact as the beginning of something significant when compared to the hundreds of pounds of force from impact. While the subsequent and admittedly rough calculations showed, I believe, that it's unlikely you could generate that much force, nevertheless, the numbers seemed uncomfortably closer than expected. (I had done much the same calculations a few years and many more neurons ago, and it wasn't even close then.) The reason is that I forgot something very simple but crucial.

Imagine applying a pushing force to two objects joined in tandem, and along the line joining their center-of-masses. Both of them will accelerate at the same rate: A = F/(m1 +m2). Thus, the force on m1 will be m1*A = m1*F/(m1+m2), while the force on m2 will be m2*A = m2*F/(m1+m2). If m2 is the second object (furthest from the applied force), then the force that m2 "sees" is F reduced by the factor of m2/(m1+m2).

In the case of a cue-cueball impact, it's of course true that they are not accelerating in unison; the cue is actually decelerating while the ball accelerates as both are being subjected to the large forces of impact. But, forces and accelerations are vector entities, meaning we can analyze the motion of an object as the (vector) sum of the component motions arising from the individual forces. In other words, we can turn a blind eye, and maybe even a deaf ear, to the impact forces. From this, then, we see that any force applied to the cue by the grip hand during the collision will be reduced by the factor cited above. This is about 1/4 for a center-ball hit with a typical cue, and even smaller for an off-center hit. Thus, most of our 30 lbs of force, even if we could muster it, would be lost on the cueball.

I do have to confess that even though this is Physics 101, more or less, I am a little bit uneasy with that simple "analysis," given the shockwaves, ringing, etc., that take place during the collision. I don't know how to address that concern at this point. But, I am pretty convinced that it (the analysis) is at least substantially true. Perhaps the true engineers here can lend a hand?

Jim

 

[Neil]

I guess some people just have difficulty learning through the use of analogy, but I'll try again.

I have two workers.

One will work for $100.00 per day.

The other will work for 2 days for $100.

I can get twice as much work or a 100% increase in work done for my investment of the exact same $100.00.

And if the Russian tests that Renfro Chris made reference to is correct...

I might then be able to get 4x or a 400% increase in work done for my $100.

I guess some have difficulty with the word "significant". Your analogy is a false premise. Simple logic dictates it. Here's a better one for you- I have to throw a ball 50 yards to get to the catcher of said ball. I throw it, it only goes 5 yards. I then increase the force on the ball by 100%. I throw it again with the increased force, and the ball goes 10 yards.

While the distance doubled, it was completely insignificant to the desired outcome.

To apply to a pool ball, while increased dwell time may increase spin by a 1% of a revolution, the amount is completely insignificant.

All tests have shown no significant increase in benefit. You go ahead and keep clinging to your false premises with no tests to back you up and a refusal to do any tests or even offer any plausible explanation. Your failure to use simple logic does not change the outcome on iota.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

I guess some have difficulty with the word "significant". Your analogy is a false premise. Simple logic dictates it. Here's a better one for you- I have to throw a ball 50 yards to get to the catcher of said ball. I throw it, it only goes 5 yards. I then increase the force on the ball by 100%. I throw it again with the increased force, and the ball goes 10 yards.

While the distance doubled, it was completely insignificant to the desired outcome.

To apply to a pool ball, while increased dwell time may increase spin by a 1% of a revolution, the amount is completely insignificant.

All tests have shown no significant increase in benefit. You go ahead and keep clinging to your false premises with no tests to back you up and a refusal to do any tests or even offer any plausible explanation. Your failure to use simple logic does not change the outcome on iota.

 

[Drop The Rock]

I guess some have difficulty with the word "significant". Your analogy is a false premise. Simple logic dictates it. Here's a better one for you- I have to throw a ball 50 yards to get to the catcher of said ball. I throw it, it only goes 5 yards. I then increase the force on the ball by 100%. I throw it again with the increased force, and the ball goes 10 yards.

While the distance doubled, it was completely insignificant to the desired outcome.

To apply to a pool ball, while increased dwell time may increase spin by a 1% of a revolution, the amount is completely insignificant.

All tests have shown no significant increase in benefit. You go ahead and keep clinging to your false premises with no tests to back you up and a refusal to do any tests or even offer any plausible explanation. Your failure to use simple logic does not change the outcome on iota.

Thank you! Which was the point I was trying to make. A "significant" increase to anything that is so insignificant that it is undetectable to human senses, is not significant.

It takes 0.1 seconds for a human to blink. This is a good scale to reference my point. An involuntary action that requires the brain to send a signal to a muscle or other part of the body is about .3 seconds. So if we look at the scheme of things .001 seconds to .002 seconds is an insignificant increase. To a super hi speed camera, maybe not but to the human eye and sensory systems, definitely.

 

[Straightpool_99]

I guess some have difficulty with the word "significant". Your analogy is a false premise. Simple logic dictates it. Here's a better one for you- I have to throw a ball 50 yards to get to the catcher of said ball. I throw it, it only goes 5 yards. I then increase the force on the ball by 100%. I throw it again with the increased force, and the ball goes 10 yards.

While the distance doubled, it was completely insignificant to the desired outcome.

To apply to a pool ball, while increased dwell time may increase spin by a 1% of a revolution, the amount is completely insignificant.

All tests have shown no significant increase in benefit. You go ahead and keep clinging to your false premises with no tests to back you up and a refusal to do any tests or even offer any plausible explanation. Your failure to use simple logic does not change the outcome on iota.

All I know for sure is that when the timing of a shot is perfect, the impact seems to last longer. If I can't physically detect the difference in impact time, then I have no explanation as to why it feels so different. As far as spin goes, it's hard to think up any test of spin to speed ration etc. that a layman could do, that would not be instantly dismissed on methodological grounds. You'd need expensive equipment, cameras etc..It just cannot be done. Also I don't really care a great deal about a (im)possible minute difference, having control is more important to me anyway.

A lot of the physicists findings seem to go against every instinct a player has. According to Dr. Dave, a perfectly level cue is better than a slightly elevated one to get maximum draw and has a higher spin to speed ratio than an angled cue up to 20 degrees of elevation. I am in no way disputing that finding, but when the rare occation arises that the cue could be completely leveled out for a draw shot, for instance a slightly angled shot where you need to draw to avoid colliding with another ball, the last thing I'd try to do is to level my cue. When I have tried to do so, inevitably the cueball goes sideways rather than back, and hits the obstruction every time, even if I lower the cue down in gradual steps to the miscue point. Oh, and I seem to get more miscues as well.

I get draw, don't get me wrong, but not a good spin to speed ratio. I can't make that physics finding work for me, no matter how hard I try. Obviously there is a human factor, something about my physiology or perception that influences the success or failure of these kinds of shots, and so I shoot pretty much every draw shot the same, (except those close to the rail, which require extreme elevation) without making a special effort to level my cue on the occations where that is possible.

 

[Drop The Rock]

All I know for sure is that when the timing of a shot is perfect, the impact seems to last longer. If I can't physically detect the difference in impact time, then I have no explanation as to why it feels so different. As far as spin goes, it's hard to think up any test of spin to speed ration etc. that a layman could do, that would not be instantly dismissed on methodological grounds. You'd need expensive equipment, cameras etc..It just cannot be done. Also I don't really care a great deal about a (im)possible minute difference, having control is more important to me anyway.

A lot of the physicists findings seem to go against every instinct a player has. According to Dr. Dave, a perfectly level cue is better than a slightly elevated one to get maximum draw and has a higher spin to speed ratio than an angled cue up to 20 degrees of elevation. I am in no way disputing that finding, but when the rare occation arises that the cue could be completely leveled out for a draw shot, for instance a slightly angled shot where you need to draw to avoid colliding with another ball, the last thing I'd try to do is to level my cue. When I have tried to do so, inevitably the cueball goes sideways rather than back, and hits the obstruction every time, even if I lower the cue down in gradual steps to the miscue point. Oh, and I seem to get more miscues as well.

I get draw, don't get me wrong, but not a good spin to speed ratio. I can't make that physics finding work for me, no matter how hard I try. Obviously there is a human factor, something about my physiology or perception that influences the success or failure of these kinds of shots, and so I shoot pretty much every draw shot the same, (except those close to the rail, which require extreme elevation) without making a special effort to level my cue on the occations where that is possible.

A good friend described what you are talking in the simplest terms possible: the quicker you hit it the faster the English takes. Is your tip the same distance from the cue-ball with a level cue as it is with an elevated cue?

 

[ENGLISH!]

Sorry Rick, by the time I got back to admi....I mean, check my post for errors, everything was gone (accidentally, of course!)...and we'll be the judges of whether your questions are either innocent or clarifying.

Let me take this opportunity to add something (most of the details in the other post are irrelevant). If you recall, I arbitrarily chose something like 30 lbs of applied force (by the grip hand) during contact as the beginning of something significant when compared to the hundreds of pounds of force from impact. While the subsequent and admittedly rough calculations showed, I believe, that it's unlikely you could generate that much force, nevertheless, the numbers seemed uncomfortably closer than expected. (I had done much the same calculations a few years and many more neurons ago, and it wasn't even close then.) The reason is that I forgot something very simple but crucial.

Imagine applying a pushing force to two objects joined in tandem, and along the line joining their center-of-masses. Both of them will accelerate at the same rate: A = F/(m1 +m2). Thus, the force on m1 will be m1*A = m1*F/(m1+m2), while the force on m2 will be m2*A = m2*F/(m1+m2). If m2 is the second object (furthest from the applied force), then the force that m2 "sees" is F reduced by the factor of m2/(m1+m2).

In the case of a cue-cueball impact, it's of course true that they are not accelerating in unison; the cue is actually decelerating while the ball accelerates as both are being subjected to the large forces of impact. But, forces and accelerations are vector entities, meaning we can analyze the motion of an object as the (vector) sum of the component motions arising from the individual forces. In other words, we can turn a blind eye, and maybe even a deaf ear, to the impact forces. From this, then, we see that any force applied to the cue by the grip hand during the collision will be reduced by the factor cited above. This is about 1/4 for a center-ball hit with a typical cue, and even smaller for an off-center hit. Thus, most of our 30 lbs of force, even if we could muster it, would be lost on the cueball.

I do have to confess that even though this is Physics 101, more or less, I am a little bit uneasy with that simple "analysis," given the shockwaves, ringing, etc., that take place during the collision. I don't know how to address that concern at this point. But, I am pretty convinced that it (the analysis) is at least substantially true. Perhaps the true engineers here can lend a hand?

Jim

Hi Jim,

At least your post of the 'last 5' is not completely laughable.

My questions were...

1. What exactly do you think Renfro Chris meant with his stone hands / closed mind comment that you made the subject matter?

&

2. Do you think that he or anyone was saying that an action could be consciously initiated after contact begins & then execute that action before contact ends?

You could make a mistake in a formula & I would not know as it is not yet even to any point of formulas I have read right through them.

Were not plugging in any numbers. It's about the principles & concepts.

Some seem to not understand time.

Best 2 Ya.

 

[ENGLISH!]

All I know for sure is that when the timing of a shot is perfect, the impact seems to last longer. If I can't physically detect the difference in impact time, then I have no explanation as to why it feels so different. As far as spin goes, it's hard to think up any test of spin to speed ration etc. that a layman could do, that would not be instantly dismissed on methodological grounds. You'd need expensive equipment, cameras etc..It just cannot be done. Also I don't really care a great deal about a (im)possible minute difference, having control is more important to me anyway.

A lot of the physicists findings seem to go against every instinct a player has. According to Dr. Dave, a perfectly level cue is better than a slightly elevated one to get maximum draw and has a higher spin to speed ratio than an angled cue up to 20 degrees of elevation. I am in no way disputing that finding, but when the rare occation arises that the cue could be completely leveled out for a draw shot, for instance a slightly angled shot where you need to draw to avoid colliding with another ball, the last thing I'd try to do is to level my cue. When I have tried to do so, inevitably the cueball goes sideways rather than back, and hits the obstruction every time, even if I lower the cue down in gradual steps to the miscue point. Oh, and I seem to get more miscues as well.

I get draw, don't get me wrong, but not a good spin to speed ratio. I can't make that physics finding work for me, no matter how hard I try. Obviously there is a human factor, something about my physiology or perception that influences the success or failure of these kinds of shots, and so I shoot pretty much every draw shot the same, (except those close to the rail, which require extreme elevation) without making a special effort to level my cue on the occations where that is possible.

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

It's sort of like in golf where the ball is 'pinched'.

I generally use as level a cue as I can get but when I want quick draw without too much effort, I change the angle of the cue to like you say.

CJ talked about quick action. Spin to 'speed' ratio.

Too many times matters/parameters are over isolated is these 'discussions'.

By that I mean, things that are in one's mind & the overall intentions of EVERYTHING for a given shot are not taken into account.

Can this be done by this too. Yes... but then that. So... the other way is better.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

PS I'm glad you stayed around & did not let those guys drive you away a while back.

 

[Straightpool_99]

A good friend described what you are talking in the simplest terms possible: the quicker you hit it the faster the English takes. Is your tip the same distance from the cue-ball with a level cue as it is with an elevated cue?

I always try my very best to get the tip as close to the cueball as possible on my forward pause. It was one of the most important things I was taught in coaching, and something I'd encourage anyone to try for themselves. I know some part of my stroke mechanics must change when the cue is level, but it's hard to determine exactly what and how. I figure it might be smart to keep everything the same as much as possible, anyway.

 

[Banks]

:angry:

I would say that you got lucky........ but I now know how much wood I have to chop, so it worked out ok..... :thumbup:

Get chopping! Just keep one cue so you can still play.

Still liking the cue without the bolt, thanks. :thumbup:

 

[Tony_in_MD]

I have no problem with StraightPools posts. I find them insightful.

Yours on the other hand......

:thumbup2::thumbup2::thumbup2:

It's sort of like in golf where the ball is 'pinched'.

I generally use as level a cue as I can get but when I want quick draw without too much effort, I change the angle of the cue to like you say.

CJ talked about quick action. Spin to 'speed' ratio.

Too many times matters/parameters are over isolated is these 'discussions'.

By that I mean, things that are in one's mind & the overall intentions of EVERYTHING for a given shot are not taken into account.

Can this be done by this too. Yes... but then that. So... the other way is better.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick

PS I'm glad you stayed around & did not let those guys drive you away a while back.

 

[LIAKOS27]

I guess some people just have difficulty learning through the use of analogy, but I'll try again.

I have two workers.

One will work for $100.00 per day.

The other will work for 2 days for $100.

I can get twice as much work or a 100% increase in work done for my investment of the exact same $100.00.

And if the Russian tests that Renfro Chris made reference to is correct...

I might then be able to get 4x or a 400% increase in work done for my $100.

And then pay the workers with counterfeit money you really get some massive % increase in work!

 

[Jal]

...At least your post of the 'last 5' is not completely laughable.

Huh?

My questions were...

1. What exactly do you think Renfro Chris meant with his stone hands / closed mind comment that you made the subject matter?

It's not absolutely clear (just as my post wasn't 100% laughable) what he meant, but from the lead in:

"Treating the impact of the tip and ball as a solid impact is flawed.. As is saying the contact time is too short for for anything to be done by the player because the ball is already gone.. Maybe not in reaction but that's why we practice. To rehearse and gain that ability to alter things during contact.."

then:

"Granted stone hands and a closed mind likely won't allow it to be even considered...."

strongly suggests that something can be done, whether initiated during contact or not, to significantly affect a shot, and that something is not simply propelling your cue forward. No one would argue, obviously, that shoving your cue toward the cueball affects a shot. So what is it that a "closed mind likely won't allow it to be even considered"? Certainly it's not that (shoving), but something else.

2. Do you think that he or anyone was saying that an action could be consciously initiated after contact begins & then execute that action before contact ends?

Perhaps it was just loose language, but "alter things during contact" could very well be interpreted to mean beginning after impact begins. Alternately, it could mean the continuation of some manipulation begun before impact, but having a significant effect during it (other than propelling the cue forward).

Jim

 

[ENGLISH!]

Huh?

It's not absolutely clear (just as my post wasn't 100% laughable) what he meant, but from the lead in:

"Treating the impact of the tip and ball as a solid impact is flawed.. As is saying the contact time is too short for for anything to be done by the player because the ball is already gone.. Maybe not in reaction but that's why we practice. To rehearse and gain that ability to alter things during contact.."

then:

"Granted stone hands and a closed mind likely won't allow it to be even considered...."

strongly suggests that something can be done, whether initiated during contact or not, to significantly affect a shot, and that something is not simply propelling your cue forward. No one would argue, obviously, that shoving your cue toward the cueball affects a shot. So what is it that a "closed mind likely won't allow it to be even considered"? Certainly it's not that (shoving), but something else.

Perhaps it was just loose language, but "alter things during contact" could very well be interpreted to mean beginning after impact begins. Alternately, it could mean the continuation of some manipulation begun before impact, but having a significant effect during it (other than propelling the cue forward).

Jim

Hi Jim,

Firstly,

The laughable reference had NOTHING to do with your post or You.

Now, your post makes clear what the misunderstandings were.

Firstly, Renfro/Chris manufactures tips & chalk.

Can things be done in those areas to effect contact?

Secondly... his comment...

"Maybe not in reaction but that's why we practice. To rehearse and gain that ability to alter things during contact.."

... is rather clear to me.

Can you feel the cue ball on the end of your cue through the tip?

Or are you merely slugging the ball with an inanimate object?

Did you read StraightPool99's post about the difference for him between playing with a hard leather tip vs playing with a softer one & the feedback that he gets with the softer one to none with the hard one.

In golf, before Ping came along, almost all irons were made of soft forged steel that allowed 'feel' & feed back. Then Ping came along with hard cast irons that virtually eliminated 'feel' & that immediate feedback.

One hit either in pool or golf can not be saved by any conscious effort after contact has started. In golf one can sense that a swing error is in the process & one can sometimes save that swing by making a conscious modification or sometimes a subconscious modification & one can 'feel' what is going on during contact. Is the face opening or closing or going through square/ Was the hit on the toe or in the heel or on the sweet spot?

The altering of the outcome is ONLY made during contact.

Also, on the driving range one can feel & see the results of a bad hit, maybe once, twice, three time & then feel & see a good hit. Then maybe a bad one & another bad one & then that good one. Then a bad one & a good one. Then a good one & a good one & a good one & then a bad one. Then a good one, a good, etc.

What did Renfro Chris say? "To rehearse and gain that ability to alter things during contact..."

From the bad ones to the good ones. Timing! Feel & Timing.

I hope you can see & understand the misunderstandings that were made.

Best Wishes,
Rick

 

[Jal]

Hi Jim,

Firstly,

The laughable reference had NOTHING to do with your post or You.

Now, your post makes clear what the misunderstandings were.

Firstly, Renfro/Chris manufactures tips & chalk.

Can things be done in those areas to effect contact?

Secondly... his comment...

"Maybe not in reaction but that's why we practice. To rehearse and gain that ability to alter things during contact.."

... is rather clear to me.

Can you feel the cue ball on the end of your cue through the tip?

Or are you merely slugging the ball with an inanimate object?

Did you read StraightPool99's post about the difference for him between playing with a hard leather tip vs playing with a softer one & the feedback that he gets with the softer one to none with the hard one.

In golf, before Ping came along, almost all irons were made of soft forged steel that allowed 'feel' & feed back. Then Ping came along with hard cast irons that virtually eliminated 'feel' & that immediate feedback.

One hit either in pool or golf can not be saved by any conscious effort after contact has started. In golf one can sense that a swing error is in the process & one can sometimes save that swing by making a conscious modification or sometimes a subconscious modification & one can 'feel' what is going on during contact. Is the face opening or closing or going through square/ Was the hit on the toe or in the heel or on the sweet spot?

The altering of the outcome is ONLY made during contact.

Also, on the driving range one can feel & see the results of a bad hit, maybe once, twice, three time & then feel & see a good hit. Then maybe a bad one & another bad one & then that good one. Then a bad one & a good one. Then a good one & a good one & a good one & then a bad one. Then a good one, a good, etc.

What did Renfro Chris say? "To rehearse and gain that ability to alter things during contact..."

From the bad ones to the good ones. Timing! Feel & Timing.

I hope you can see & understand the misunderstandings that were made.

Best Wishes,
Rick

Thanks for the interpretation, Rick.

I guess I'll have to count myself among the close-minded, or at least skeptical, because it's not clear what tactile feedback can do for you that your eyes can't. Before responding though, be forewarned that having put up yet another long-winded post essentially arguing with myself, that Kill button is looking awfully tempting again.

Jim

 

[DTL]

...................

 

[MahnaMahna]

This is getting just silly now.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Thanks for the interpretation, Rick.

I guess I'll have to count myself among the close-minded, or at least skeptical, because it's not clear what tactile feedback can do for you that your eyes can't. Before responding though, be forewarned that having put up yet another long-winded post essentially arguing with myself, that Kill button is looking awfully tempting again.

Jim

Thanks for the Chuckle, Jim.

Raymond Floyd can immediately feel one extra layer of tape under a golf grip. I can't feel it until it's 3... maybe 2.

John Havlechek (spelling?) can tell that the goal is a 1/2 inch too low by shooting a few warm up free throws to it.

Neither can tell just by looking at them.

Ted Williams said that he could smell the bat burning the leather of the baseball when he hit it. I doubt that he could see it, but... I don't know maybe he could.

I guarantee you that if you hit golf balls with a forged muscle back golf iron that you would feel your bad hits & know, feel, the difference from the good ones, especially if it is cold.

Best to You & Thanks for the Civil Exchange, Jim.
Rick