Aparallel CTCP aiming method
- Thread starter LAMas
- Start date
Well why didn't you just say that???!!!J/K. The next question is how do you learn to shift the correct x distance? You could use feel, but the pivot flamers would have your head. You could use a headset from a helicopter gunship to super-impose coordinates on the CB/OB or...wait a minute!!!...you already have a product ready to market. IIRC your line of work deals with laser guidance for armament systems. Is this thread a marketing initiative for a new pool aiming gizmo? If it is I will buy the first one!:grin-square:
All kidding aside, with any aiming system you have to be able to repeat the process. What have you done to make this happen?
Best,
Mike
Mike, as you know, this is an academic activity for I am a double the distance shooter.
I and others here are on a 4 day holiday and I could consult the optics folks at work who work with ray traces, reflecting mirrors, telescopes to find the bad guys - for a more cogent description of what I have failed to explain here.
I don't like the tolerances involved with finding the contact point; center of the CB and OB; and then the parallel or aparallel shift; the sliding of the bridge hand and hip.
I find that this method is fraught with cumlative error, but it is, for pivoting systems, more direct and less vague in determining how far from the CB to place the bridge for a given distance between the CB and OB.
I also find that using the CP on the OB instead of the edge (if different) gets a more direct relationship to the cut angle that is necessary to send the OB to the pocket.
I believe that I can teach this to my G-daughter but I have no ambition to teach for I have a good job that I enjoy more...and am more qualified to do. I can't shoot a lick.
Mikjary said:
"you already have a product ready to market."
Mike,
It's already on the market and just needs to be repackaged - not me though.
It would be a short cylindrical laser pointer with a constant on position that you would aim at the CP (line) and then roll it the short distance at the OB down table until it is now illuminating the center line of that OB.
One would then place the bridge behind the laser pointer with the cue in-line above same, pivot and shoot LOL
Your interest in 90/90 which uses the obverse of the contact point going to the pocket was inspiring.
Thanks for humoring me...much appreciated,
"you already have a product ready to market."
Mike,
It's already on the market and just needs to be repackaged - not me though.
It would be a short cylindrical laser pointer with a constant on position that you would aim at the CP (line) and then roll it the short distance at the OB down table until it is now illuminating the center line of that OB.
One would then place the bridge behind the laser pointer with the cue in-line above same, pivot and shoot LOL
Your interest in 90/90 which uses the obverse of the contact point going to the pocket was inspiring.
Thanks for humoring me...much appreciated,
Last edited:
Can't say I've tried it LAmas. I trust what geometry has to say, even when I'm the one doing it.I know what you are sayin, but at the table, if I aim a dowel at the near end of the table (cue) at the right edge of the OB down at the far end of the table, and then roll the dowel to the left until it is aimed at the center of the small appearing OB, Then the amount that I roll the dowel (parallel?) is very small and nowhere close to the center of the CB.
Rolling the dowel is a parallel roll and one would expect that the dowel rolled as described above would now be centered on the CB....But it isn't...go figure...counter intuative...optical illusion?
It works for me though.
Tried it at the table?
Jim
Jal,
Here is an Aparallel CTCP picture with 5X blow up of what I see with the smaller appearing OB at distance superimposed inside of the top view - why it works for all distances.
I have depicted a 90 degree cut at:
- The bridge remains in the same location
- Bridge 12" from the shooters cyclopsian eye.:wink:
- CB 12" from the bridge
- On the left, small appearing OB 24" (2 feet) down table from the CB.
- On the right, smaller appearing OB 48" (4 feet) down table from the CB
- Aparallel shift is small at 2 feet and smaller at 4 feet.
- The contact point (CP) on OB for cuts less than 90 etc., approach the center of the OB.
Acad is geometrically correct at all centers diameters and intersections etc.
I haven't studied the effect of different eye to bridge, bridge to CB etc., yet.
Thanks for your and mikjary's continued interest and look forward to your geometry.
Here is an Aparallel CTCP picture with 5X blow up of what I see with the smaller appearing OB at distance superimposed inside of the top view - why it works for all distances.
I have depicted a 90 degree cut at:
- The bridge remains in the same location
- Bridge 12" from the shooters cyclopsian eye.:wink:
- CB 12" from the bridge
- On the left, small appearing OB 24" (2 feet) down table from the CB.
- On the right, smaller appearing OB 48" (4 feet) down table from the CB
- Aparallel shift is small at 2 feet and smaller at 4 feet.
- The contact point (CP) on OB for cuts less than 90 etc., approach the center of the OB.
Acad is geometrically correct at all centers diameters and intersections etc.
I haven't studied the effect of different eye to bridge, bridge to CB etc., yet.
Thanks for your and mikjary's continued interest and look forward to your geometry.
Last edited:
Jal,
Here is an Aparallel CTCP picture with 5X blow up of what I see with the smaller appearing OB at distance superimposed inside of the top view - why it works for all distances.
I have depicted a 90 degree cut at:
- The bridge remains in the same location
- Bridge 12" from the shooters cyclopsian eye.:wink:
- CB 12" from the bridge
- On the left, small appearing OB 24" (2 feet) down table from the CB.
- On the right, smaller appearing OB 48" (4 feet) down table from the CB
- Aparallel shift is small at 2 feet and smaller at 4 feet.
- The contact point (CP) on OB for cuts less than 90 etc., approach the center of the OB.
View attachment 139422
Acad is geometrically correct at all centers diameters and intersections etc.
I haven't studied the effect of different eye to bridge, bridge to CB etc., yet.
Thanks for your and mikjary's continued interest and look forward to your geometry.
LAMas,
I might not remember because you've covered so much ground on this proof, but a detail I thought about was the actual contact point versus the aimed contact point on the OB. We know about the ghostball meeting the OB at the CP and we are aiming at this point with the CB center. Since we already know the contact point one could say just shoot at it and forget the offset and pivot. But as we know this will not pocket the OB unless we allow for the added size of the CB to get to the ghostball position.
So further, the shift you are using equalling the aparallel line to center OB is also allowing for the additional size of the CB to achieve the ghostball position. Because if you actually pivoted back to the contact point you would not cut the ball thin enough.
Just a thought about what the shift is doing.
Mike,
You pivot back to the center of the CB as in CTE.
It is the contact/impact point that the ghost ball (GB) must impact to send the OB to the pocket. The system would be too difficult and vague if it were predicated on finding the GB center. If one can find the GB center then just shoot at it without the shift or pivot.
The nut is, when down on the shot, that once you determine where the CP is, you then "parallel" shift the cue and bridge to the center of the small OB. It is this calibrated shift that gives you a shot angle after you pivot, from your bridge, to the center of the CB. The CB then travels toward the OB (outside of the CP) and contacts the OB where the GB would/should.
The system thus "doubles the distance" from the CP to the center of the small OB. My problem with double distance aiming for cuts from 31 to 90 degrees is that the aim spot is off of the OB on the felt or rail etc..
I hope this helps.
Mike,
You pivot back to the center of the CB as in CTE.
It is the contact/impact point that the ghost ball (GB) must impact to send the OB to the pocket. The system would be too difficult and vague if it were predicated on finding the GB center. If one can find the GB center then just shoot at it without the shift or pivot.
The nut is, when down on the shot, that once you determine where the CP is, you then "parallel" shift the cue and bridge to the center of the small OB. It is this calibrated shift that gives you a shot angle after you pivot, from your bridge, to the center of the CB. The CB then travels toward the OB (outside of the CP) and contacts the OB where the GB would/should.
The system thus "doubles the distance" from the CP to the center of the small OB. My problem with double distance aiming for cuts from 31 to 90 degrees is that the aim spot is off of the OB on the felt or rail etc..
I hope this helps.
Yes, I know about the pivot to center. I was making the point about aiming to the CP and the pivot taking you to the GB center. Is this a double the distance after the pivot?
Mike,
Yes, you are correct sir.
It is the parallel shift to the OB center that moves the bridge to the side to create one side of a triangle; the pivot back to the center of the CB creates the other side of a triangle (equilateral) with the third short side being equal to double the distance from the CP to the center of the OB;
Included in this short side is same distance from the CP to ther center of the OB but on the other side of the CP away from the center of the OB.
This then doubles the distance and is where the CB is sent at the shot.....to the required GB location.
Does this help a bit more?
Mike,
Yes, you are correct sir.
It is the parallel shift to the OB center that moves the bridge to the side to create one side of a triangle; the pivot back to the center of the CB creates the other side of a triangle (equilateral) with the third short side being equal to double the distance from the CP to the center of the OB;
Included in this short side is same distance from the CP to ther center of the OB but on the other side of the CP away from the center of the OB.
This then doubles the distance and is where the CB is sent at the shot.....to the required GB location.
Does this help a bit more?
Where is the doubled distance? Are you saying that you are doubling the numerical difference (1/8th ball, 1/3rd ball, etc.) or are you doubling the aparallel x distance? This is what I've been looking at and trying to point out about the pivot compensating for your smaller aparallel shift.
I tried it on my table, but I couldn't stop visualizing the double the distance out of habit. :grin:
Mike,
Short answer:
I am using the CP and center of the small OB (what ever that distance is for the cut angle desired [not 1/4, 1/8 etc.]) of the CB to create a path for it to the GB and that is at the doubled distance of the actual size OB and GB when viewed from above which is actual..... and not perceived and affected by perspective.
Long answers:
First, in my last diagram, do you recognize that there is a GB and a OB with a smaller OB inside that is touching the larger to the right at 3:00?
The smaller OB is the relative size from the "EYE" when down on the shot in perspective/fore shortened.
In this 90 degree cut example, the CP and 3:00 on both OBs just happen to be the same point.
The aparallel shift is shown on the smaller OB by the 2 verticle lines. The bridge, as a result is shifted away from the center of the CB by this small anount. The cue is then pivoted to the center of the CB which results in a line (from the top) to the base of the GB.
This is, thus, a way to create a path to the double distance location - regardless of the distance between the CB and OB.
Phrased differently:
The bridge has to move from the original CTCP line bridge location - or any pivot from that location would be back to the same location - center of the CB.
The aparallel shift (when down on the shot in perspective) that is established by sighting the center of the CB at the CP and then shifting to the center of the small OB down table creates the axis for an arc/pivot that when aimed back at the center of the CB (from the top view) is aimed at the center of the GB location. In order for this to be correct, it has to send the CB (from the top view) to the doubled distance.
It does get you to the double distance location for the GB...it is unfortunate that you know where that is and seem to say that you are jaded by that knowledge.
If you didn't know double distance or GB, you might hit the OB correctly with the CB and say WOW that shot fell into the pocket that I was aiming for.
You tried it and it seeems that the mechanics work...It works for me.
Don't ask me to give you the mathematics of the geometry next - I am not that interested in this academic discussion.
As I said before, I could teach it to my 10 year old Grand Daughter - perhaps quicker than "double the distance" or "ghost ball" which to me takes some imagination and not discrete points of aim as in Aparallel CTCP.
Next question before I get too drunk....:boring2:
Last edited:
Mike,
First, in my last diagram, do you recognize that there is a GB and a OB with a smaller OB inside that is touching the larger to the right at 3:00?
The smaller OB is the relative size from the "EYE" when down on the shot in perspective/fore shortened.
In this 90 degree cut example, the CP and 3:00 on both OBs just happen to be the same point.
The aparallel shift is shown on the smaller OB by the 2 verticle lines. The bridge, as a result is shifted away from the center of the CB by this small anount. The cue is then pivoted to the center of the CB which results in a line (from the top) to the base of the GB.
This is, thus, a way to create a path to the double distance location - regardless of the distance between the CB and OB.
Phrased differently:
The bridge has to move from the original CTCP line bridge location - or any pivot from that location would be back to the same location - center of the CB.
The aparallel shift (when down on the shot in perspective) that is established by sighting the center of the CB at the CP and then shifting to the center of the small OB down table creates the axis for an arc/pivot that when aimed back at the center of the CB (from the top view) is aimed at the center of the GB location. In order for this to be correct, it has to send the CB (from the top view) to the doubled distance.
It does get you to the double distance location for the GB...it is unfortunate that you know where that is and seem to say that you are jaded by that knowledge.
If you didn't know double distance or GB, you might hit the OB correctly with the CB and say WOW that shot fell into the pocket that I was aiming for.
You tried it and it seeems that the mechanics work...It works for me.
Don't ask me to give you the mathematics of the geometry next - I am not that interested in this academic discussion.
As I said before, I could teach it to my 10 year old Grand Daughter - perhaps quicker than "double the distance" or "ghost ball" which to me takes some imagination and not discreet points of aim as in Aparallel CTCP.
Next question before I get too drunk....:boring2:
LAMas,
I appreciate your detailed responses. They are well written and are explaining your point perfectly. The reason I say that is because i have understood your aiming technique since you first posted it.
I am trying poorly to bring up a point or two for you to to think about, not to have you explain it again. I apologize for making you do that 6 different ways already. :grin:I am interested in having you look closer at the doubling distance after the pivot and how the pivot does this. What is the shift distance ratio to pivot distance and is it a constant?
Perspective I have always believed is the root of all pivot systems. Some say it is in the bridge length or the pivot. Others say it is in the offset or finding center CB. I believe it is in your perspective or rather how you look at the shot. This the first discussion I've had on perspective that made sense. Thank you for that. I don't need 2D geometry or trig functions to look at in my 4D world. Any thoughts or do you need to ask me some questions now?:grin-square:
Best,
Mike
PS You're probably saying that about your granddaughter because she's just as sharp as you are.:wink:
LOL. Crawfish, go back to your own aiming thread and let them keep basting your a$$. I know your secretly an aiming thread junkie, but man, get ahold of yourself! :grin-square:
Mike,
I'm not quite drunk so...
On any shot or cut down table. the included angle from the center of the CB to the center of the OB to the CP is smaller/narrower than when the OB is close to the CB.
I say this for in order to double the distance from the CP to the center of the OB, one has to take both into account. As the OB goes down table, that distance gets smaller due to perspective and the shooter has to deal with it - why far shots are harder than medium distances between the CB and OB.
I won't talk about the real close shots that you can't double the distance accurately.
Logic told me that in order to narrow the included angle from the center of the OB and its CP, I could/must respect/use the image presented by the smaller appearance of the OB to narrow the angle ...or the CB wil be sent away from the GB...what dr_dave has asked the CTE folks to solve and reveal.
It was you that pointed me to 90/90 and while playing around with that system, as I undertood it, that is a different pivot system that is based on a logical relationship to the CP and not to "one tip" or "1/2 ball" from CTEL that results in one aim/angle without secreted tweeking.
Though 90/90 doesn't have the center of the OB as part of it's equation, it has a variation of bridge distance from the CB for different distances between the CB and OB that is, to me, inconvenient and vague.
In Acad, the relationship was linear i.e., the OB is perceived as 1/2 the diameter of the CB when the CB is the same distance from the eye - 2 feet from the eye to the CB and 2 feet from the CB to the OB and 1/4 the diameter when the OB is 4 feet away from the CB.
Since this is a linear relationship and constant...so will the distance from the CP to the center of the smaller OB be proportionally smaller.
With these assumptions. I did some "what if scenarios", in Acad, with aparallel shifting using these two discrete points (CP and center of OB [regardless of feature size]) and a one foot distance for the bridge behind the CB; and the intersect from the GB to the center (from above) of the CB resulted in the eye being 1 foot behind the bridge.
I then went to the table and did imperical testing to validate the geometry.
I will not put in the many hours to get proficient at this A'CTCP method for "double the distance" is more parsimonious, but like CTE, it is a method of teaching a novice another way to address a shot.
Thanks for your persistance....now where's that cold one?
I'm not quite drunk so...
On any shot or cut down table. the included angle from the center of the CB to the center of the OB to the CP is smaller/narrower than when the OB is close to the CB.
I say this for in order to double the distance from the CP to the center of the OB, one has to take both into account. As the OB goes down table, that distance gets smaller due to perspective and the shooter has to deal with it - why far shots are harder than medium distances between the CB and OB.
I won't talk about the real close shots that you can't double the distance accurately.
Logic told me that in order to narrow the included angle from the center of the OB and its CP, I could/must respect/use the image presented by the smaller appearance of the OB to narrow the angle ...or the CB wil be sent away from the GB...what dr_dave has asked the CTE folks to solve and reveal.
It was you that pointed me to 90/90 and while playing around with that system, as I undertood it, that is a different pivot system that is based on a logical relationship to the CP and not to "one tip" or "1/2 ball" from CTEL that results in one aim/angle without secreted tweeking.
Though 90/90 doesn't have the center of the OB as part of it's equation, it has a variation of bridge distance from the CB for different distances between the CB and OB that is, to me, inconvenient and vague.
In Acad, the relationship was linear i.e., the OB is perceived as 1/2 the diameter of the CB when the CB is the same distance from the eye - 2 feet from the eye to the CB and 2 feet from the CB to the OB and 1/4 the diameter when the OB is 4 feet away from the CB.
Since this is a linear relationship and constant...so will the distance from the CP to the center of the smaller OB be proportionally smaller.
With these assumptions. I did some "what if scenarios", in Acad, with aparallel shifting using these two discrete points (CP and center of OB [regardless of feature size]) and a one foot distance for the bridge behind the CB; and the intersect from the GB to the center (from above) of the CB resulted in the eye being 1 foot behind the bridge.
I then went to the table and did imperical testing to validate the geometry.
I will not put in the many hours to get proficient at this A'CTCP method for "double the distance" is more parsimonious, but like CTE, it is a method of teaching a novice another way to address a shot.
Thanks for your persistance....now where's that cold one?
Last edited:
Mike,
On third thought, since you are good with 90/90 which takes the implied first step, center of CB to center of OB out of the equation; add aparallel shift to 90/90.
Start with center of CB to center of OB, aparallel shift to the obverse CP ala 90/90 and then pivot to the center of the CB from the new bridge location.
In order to do this, as you know, pay no attention to where the tip of your cue is pointing at on the CB as in dr_dave's diagram in colostate - where the 90 at the OB is the same 90 at the CB.
I will look into this tomorrow as another academic persuit.
I'm still awake...I need another cold one I guess...or anot....
On third thought, since you are good with 90/90 which takes the implied first step, center of CB to center of OB out of the equation; add aparallel shift to 90/90.
Start with center of CB to center of OB, aparallel shift to the obverse CP ala 90/90 and then pivot to the center of the CB from the new bridge location.
In order to do this, as you know, pay no attention to where the tip of your cue is pointing at on the CB as in dr_dave's diagram in colostate - where the 90 at the OB is the same 90 at the CB.
I will look into this tomorrow as another academic persuit.
I'm still awake...I need another cold one I guess...or anot....
LAmas, sorry for the delayed response (still learning Sketchup).Jal,
Here is an Aparallel CTCP picture with 5X blow up of what I see with the smaller appearing OB at distance superimposed inside of the top view - why it works for all distances.
I have depicted a 90 degree cut at:
- The bridge remains in the same location
- Bridge 12" from the shooters cyclopsian eye.:wink:
- CB 12" from the bridge
- On the left, small appearing OB 24" (2 feet) down table from the CB.
- On the right, smaller appearing OB 48" (4 feet) down table from the CB
- Aparallel shift is small at 2 feet and smaller at 4 feet.
- The contact point (CP) on OB for cuts less than 90 etc., approach the center of the OB.
View attachment 139422
Acad is geometrically correct at all centers diameters and intersections etc.
I haven't studied the effect of different eye to bridge, bridge to CB etc., yet.
Thanks for your and mikjary's continued interest and look forward to your geometry.
I appreciate the meticulous care with which you've made your drawings and I understand what you're trying to illustrate. It's very clear that the parallel offset to OB center is different at the two different CB-OB separations...in the drawings. But there's a problem.
Overall, your diagrams consist of a top view 'orthographic projection' (I think that's the right term). But you're also mixing in a perspective projection as well by using the "proportionately" smaller OB. That's sort of mixing apples and watermelons. In the top view, to be fair, the OB would have to be the same size as the CB.
On the other hand, if the diagrams were a perspective view, then true parallel lines with respect to the cloth/table would appear to be converging forward in the image plane (the screen in this case and as per my earlier diagrams...I know you know). If in this perspective view (large CB, small OB), you drew them as parallel in the image plane, then moved the camera to an overhead position and switched to and orthographic view (see below), you would see them as diverging in the forward direction. Rearward then, they would converge at a point. Here are those diagrams, though they're not of any particular shot, unlike yours.
These lines look reasonably close to parallel (best I could do) from the shooter's point of view (image plane):
The same diagram (unmolested) from the top view:
As indicated in an earlier post, that point where they meet (not shown above) depends on where your eye is positioned, which can be variable, and is in fact variable for different cut angles and CB-OB distances if you want to perform the final pivot to CB center (CTCP) at a fixed distance behind it.
Which view represents reality, the top one or the shooter's? I think the balls care about the relative positions of things on the cloth, i.e., as seen from above. No?
Back over to you.
Jim
(I haven't had a chance to read the exchanges between you and Mikjary yet).
Last edited:
LAMas,Mike,
I'm not quite drunk so...
On any shot or cut down table. the included angle from the center of the CB to the center of the OB to the CP is smaller/narrower than when the OB is close to the CB.
I say this for in order to double the distance from the CP to the center of the OB, one has to take both into account. As the OB goes down table, that distance gets smaller due to perspective and the shooter has to deal with it - why far shots are harder than medium distances between the CB and OB.
I won't talk about the real close shots that you can't double the distance accurately.
Logic told me that in order to narrow the included angle from the center of the OB and its CP, I could/must respect/use the image presented by the smaller appearance of the OB to narrow the angle ...or the CB wil be sent away from the GB...what dr_dave has asked the CTE folks to solve and reveal.
It was you that pointed me to 90/90 and while playing around with that system, as I undertood it, that is a different pivot system that is based on a logical relationship to the CP and not to "one tip" or "1/2 ball" from CTEL that results in one aim/angle without secreted tweeking.
Though 90/90 doesn't have the center of the OB as part of it's equation, it has a variation of bridge distance from the CB for different distances between the CB and OB that is, to me, inconvenient and vague.
In Acad, the relationship was linear i.e., the OB is perceived as 1/2 the diameter of the CB when the CB is the same distance from the eye - 2 feet from the eye to the CB and 2 feet from the CB to the OB and 1/4 the diameter when the OB is 4 feet away from the CB.
Since this is a linear relationship and constant...so will the distance from the CP to the center of the smaller OB be proportionally smaller.
With these assumptions. I did some "what if scenarios", in Acad, with aparallel shifting using these two discrete points (CP and center of OB [regardless of feature size]) and a one foot distance for the bridge behind the CB; and the intersect from the GB to the center (from above) of the CB resulted in the eye being 1 foot behind the bridge.
I then went to the table and did imperical testing to validate the geometry.
I will not put in the many hours to get proficient at this A'CTCP method for "double the distance" is more parsimonious, but like CTE, it is a method of teaching a novice another way to address a shot.
Thanks for your persistance....now where's that cold one?
I'm running out the door, but I read your post. I'll clarify what I'm getting at later. I'm trying to tie in the pivot relationship with ghostball and other systems. I've got a few thoughts I would like to discuss and expand on your method possibly. Hence, all my questions.
One thing jumps out at me with your answer. 90/90 does not vary the bridge length or use any CP at all in its setup. You must use a consistent bridge distance and vary the 3 aiming points on the OB (edge, center, opposite edge) not use a CP (as in ghostball aiming). There is some adjustment or tweeking only on very close to OB shots which is done with almost all systems.
Are you saying that you understand it?:scratched:
I only have one degree and don't plan on getting 2 more just to understand it. I gave up after the first sentence and then really got confused by the next post with the diagram.
I think I will stick with my line up the shot and shoot method. All of these gimmicks for shooting are like those infomercials to get a 6 pack ab and lose weight. We should get Penn and Teller to do a their BS show on them. Or Myth Busters could be another.
Hi Jal,
What you show is correct and the "aparallel" shift is not parallel to the converging perspective lines in the cloth on the slate.
I contend though that, when down on the shot with the eye behind the bridge, and CB, and further down table the OB, that you can move the cue the same short distance on the smaller appearing OB, say from the CP to the center of the OB, at the tip and butt and it will be parallel by definition, but "aparallel" when viewed in perspective.
Thanks