Break tip and cue weight questions answered by Dr. Dave

How fast a particular person can move cues of different weights depends a lot on that person's arms and coordination. How fast a particular cue stick and tip will move a cue ball for a particular speed is much simpler to figure out. This can be looked at in two steps:

Assuming the tip is ideal and loses no energy in the tip-ball collision, we have:

Vball = Vstick * 2 * Mstick / (Mball + Mstick)
where V is for velocity (or speed) and M is for mass.
If you plug in 6 ounces for the ball and 18 ounces (to make things come out even) for the stick, you get:

Vball = 1.5 * Vstick

If you plug in 24 ounces for the stick, you get:

Vball = 1.6 * Vstick

So the question is whether you lose less than 1/15th of stick speed when you go from 18 ounces to 24 ounces. That depends on your arm and how you practice. If you just make up for the loss of speed with the increased weight of the stick (Vball is the same for 18 as for 24) then you will do better with a weight right between those two (21 ounces) but it won't be by much.

The second part of the deal is to include the "efficiency" of the cue tip. All tips lose energy during the collision. Break tips have less loss than typical playing tips.
 
How fast a particular person can move cues of different weights depends a lot on that person's arms and coordination. How fast a particular cue stick and tip will move a cue ball for a particular speed is much simpler to figure out. This can be looked at in two steps:

Assuming the tip is ideal and loses no energy in the tip-ball collision, we have:

Vball = Vstick * 2 * Mstick / (Mball + Mstick)
where V is for velocity (or speed) and M is for mass.
If you plug in 6 ounces for the ball and 18 ounces (to make things come out even) for the stick, you get:

Vball = 1.5 * Vstick

If you plug in 24 ounces for the stick, you get:

Vball = 1.6 * Vstick

So the question is whether you lose less than 1/15th of stick speed when you go from 18 ounces to 24 ounces. That depends on your arm and how you practice. If you just make up for the loss of speed with the increased weight of the stick (Vball is the same for 18 as for 24) then you will do better with a weight right between those two (21 ounces) but it won't be by much.

The second part of the deal is to include the "efficiency" of the cue tip. All tips lose energy during the collision. Break tips have less loss than typical playing tips.
Bob technically worded my inartful statement. Thanks again, Bob.

Stick weight is only marginally important if you assume the same velocity. BUT if you shoot slower with a heavy stick, you might have a loss of Vball vs the lighter one.

-td
 
Not True...

Agreed. Especially since nothing with any actual mass can travel the speed of light.

Nothing with mass can accelerate to the speed of light. That's not to say that it can't travel the speed of light.

Also, the way that they are discussing traveling at up to warp 10 is rather interesting.

They basically can do so using only 500kg of exotic matter. Prior to the new calculations using a different type of toroidal shape for the drives it was believed you would need exotic matter in the mass equivalent of like Saturn, which makes FTL travel pretty much impossible.

They fold space/time in front of the ship and in back of it at differing vectors after achieving about .03 the speed of light through conventional propulsion.

so they basically move space/time around the ship by manipulating it through extremely strong gravity wells, so they are never accelerating the ship to any where near the speed of light, but would be traveling distances in much less time than traveling at the speed of light.

Jaden
 
How fast a particular person can move cues of different weights depends a lot on that person's arms and coordination. How fast a particular cue stick and tip will move a cue ball for a particular speed is much simpler to figure out. This can be looked at in two steps:

Assuming the tip is ideal and loses no energy in the tip-ball collision, we have:

Vball = Vstick * 2 * Mstick / (Mball + Mstick)
where V is for velocity (or speed) and M is for mass.
If you plug in 6 ounces for the ball and 18 ounces (to make things come out even) for the stick, you get:

Vball = 1.5 * Vstick

If you plug in 24 ounces for the stick, you get:

Vball = 1.6 * Vstick

So the question is whether you lose less than 1/15th of stick speed when you go from 18 ounces to 24 ounces. That depends on your arm and how you practice. If you just make up for the loss of speed with the increased weight of the stick (Vball is the same for 18 as for 24) then you will do better with a weight right between those two (21 ounces) but it won't be by much.

The second part of the deal is to include the "efficiency" of the cue tip. All tips lose energy during the collision. Break tips have less loss than typical playing tips.
if people want to see the math and physics details of all of this, including the effects of cue-ball collision efficiency, it can be found here:

TP A.30 - The effects of cue tip offset, cue weight, and cue speed on cue ball speed and spin

Not many people will be interested in all of the math and physics details, but some people might be interested in the graphs and conclusions at the end of the document, which are very much relate to what is being discussed in this thread.

Enjoy,
Dave

PS: I want to thank Bob for pointing out an inaccuracy in my cue weight resource page. I had an error in how I was interpreting cue momentum and its implications. I've made changes that are more appropriate now. The communication with Bob also encouraged me to add some new stuff to the TP A.30 document analysis and results. Thanks Bob!
 
Stick weight is only marginally important if you assume the same velocity.
That's not exactly true. If you can stroke a heavier cue at the same speed as a lighter cue (which isn't as easy as it sounds), the cue ball speed will be significantly faster with the heavier cue. See the discussion and plots on pages 9-11 in TP A.30.

The type of tip can also make a significant difference. A phenolic tip can provide about 17% more break power/energy than a typical medium-hardness leather tip (see the bottom of page 10 in TP A.30).

Regards,
Dave
 
It's also interesting to note that for most cues the cue ball will end up going faster than the cue stick is moving just before impact. If the tip is ideal, the number is about 150% of cue stick speed. For real tips it is more like 130--140%.

Got proof for this? Last I heard the best cue could only do roughly 90%. Average being more closer to 60%.


Not to plug my own stuff, ok, to plug my own stuff a little bit, this is why my break tips are one of the best available, because it gives really high energy transfer while still providing grip on the ball, so spin or a slight off center hit won't as easily result in lower levels of energy transfer.

Remember when you made claims of developing of a tip that reduced squirt? When it was actually tested by someone else, it was shown to increase squirt. I have a hard time believing your tip does anything you claim anymore. Sorry but facts speak. And they say you're making false claims.

The type of tip can also make a significant difference. A phenolic tip can provide about 17% more break power/energy than a typical medium-hardness leather tip (see the bottom of page 10 in TP A.30).

Regards,
Dave

Have you ever thought about starting with a tip less shaft and testing that for speed. Then installing different tips to see how they change the speed of the cue ball?
 
Have you ever thought about starting with a tip less shaft and testing that for speed. Then installing different tips to see how they change the speed of the cue ball?
I think about testing all sorts of things, but I don't always find time to do them.

FYI, the numbers and plots at the bottom of TP A.30 are based on some cue tip efficiency experiments Bob and I did together. And the plots do show how cue ball speed varies, with cue tip type, cue weight, and cue speed. Check it out. When I can find some time, I'll try to summarize all of the results of the analysis and experiments on the cue tip efficiency and cue weight resource pages.

Regards,
Dave
 
Doc,
Thanks again for the information you sent me and I'm glad it's getting discussed at such length here, looks like some people are getting information that may help them going forward.

Sorry it's caused you more "work" clarifying some of the info that's been presented here. You're an asset to the pool community and it is truly appreciated.

Mattie
 
I think about testing all sorts of things, but I don't always find time to do them.

FYI, the numbers and plots at the bottom of TP A.30 are based on some cue tip efficiency experiments Bob and I did together. And the plots do show how cue ball speed varies, with cue tip type, cue weight, and cue speed. Check it out. When I can find some time, I'll try to summarize all of the results of the analysis and experiments on the cue tip efficiency and cue weight resource pages.

Regards,
Dave

That's in comparisons of only tips. I'm saying get a base speed of no tip, just the ferrule hitting the ball. Then start with soft tips and work towards hard. Basically to see if a tip at a certain point brings the speed back up to the baseline. But I'd be willing to wager this stat is only useful for standard maple shafts with a hard ferrule. LD shafts may have too soft of a ferrule to really get a good baseline.
 
I claimed that the cue ball ends up going faster than the cue stick goes.

Got proof for this? Last I heard the best cue could only do roughly 90%. Average being more closer to 60%. ..
You can get it off pretty much any high speed video of tip-ball collisions. There are lots of those around. Measure pixels/frame movement of the cue stick prior to the collision and pixels/frame for the cue ball after the collision.

The earliest measurement of the speeds that I know of was by Prof. A.D. Moore in the early 1940s. He did his experiments by suspending the cue stick and the cue ball by wires forming swings. The cue stick was pulled back to a certain height and released to hit the middle of the stationary cue ball when the cue stick was at bottom-dead-center. The height the cue ball swung was measured and with a little very simple math the velocities were derived. Moore found the ~130% number for a 22-ounce cue and a carom ball. Here are the measurements from his monograph:

admoore.gif
Of course this is not proof, but you should feel free to try the experiment yourself. It is not hard to do. If you want, I'll send you Moore's full description of his experiments which describes the special care he took to get accurate results.
 
don't take my word for it....

Got proof for this? Last I heard the best cue could only do roughly 90%. Average being more closer to 60%.




Remember when you made claims of developing of a tip that reduced squirt? When it was actually tested by someone else, it was shown to increase squirt. I have a hard time believing your tip does anything you claim anymore. Sorry but facts speak. And they say you're making false claims.



Have you ever thought about starting with a tip less shaft and testing that for speed. Then installing different tips to see how they change the speed of the cue ball?


Well don't take my word for it, read the write up that Chris Renfro did on my break tip based on his tests.

Also, Dave only tested my LD tips with a hard hit, it did not test for average hits which is what I tested them for.

They DO reduce effective squirt but Dave has stated that he does not have the means to do the comprehensive testing for them.

Had I known that his intention was to only do hard hit tests, I would've declined his offer to test. Only hard hits attempts to isolate variables while my intent is to improve the end use for players as they typically use them.

It's the same with worrying about the physics of the break, (no offense meant here Dave), but when Dave can break better than me, then you should take his advice over mine, until then, you should listen to the people who have tried my break tips.

Oscar Dominguez, Rob Saez, and Joey Gray to name a few...All of whom loved them.

Jaden
 
Well don't take my word for it, read the write up that Chris Renfro did on my break tip based on his tests.

Also, Dave only tested my LD tips with a hard hit, it did not test for average hits which is what I tested them for.

They DO reduce effective squirt but Dave has stated that he does not have the means to do the comprehensive testing for them.

Had I known that his intention was to only do hard hit tests, I would've declined his offer to test. Only hard hits attempts to isolate variables while my intent is to improve the end use for players as they typically use them.
All tips have less net CB deflection (the combined effects of squirt and swerve) at slower speeds, especially with a non-level or elevated cue. In fact, with slow enough speed and a slight amount of cue elevation, any tip can be shown to have zero (or even negative) net CB deflection, but that information is not very useful when one's goal is to compare the performance of different tips or shafts.

BTW, the reasons why I test for squirt the way I do are justified in the bullets listed here:

squirt testing and robot test results

When testing for squirt (pure CB deflection), other variables like swerve and cue elevation should be eliminated or reduced as much as possible; otherwise, the comparison of different tips or shafts is not as meaningful (and can even be misleading).

It's the same with worrying about the physics of the break, (no offense meant here Dave), but when Dave can break better than me, then you should take his advice over mine
The quality of advice given often has nothing to do with level of play. Regardless, I'm actually a decent breaker ... better than many good players. Have you seen my break technique advice video (that's me hitting most of the break shots)? If you or anybody else thinks any of the advice in that video is inaccurate or misleading, please let me know. I personally think the advice is very sound and presented in a way that can help people. For those interested, additional break advice from me and others can be found here:

break technique and equipment advice resource page

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
I stopped using phenolic tips on my break cues and went to Samsara.
Stopped that - very little difference - and installed a Kamui Black Hard.
Love that thing on my breaker.
Much more control and life is good again.
I actually use that same tip on my player too.
 
Ok....

All tips have less net CB deflection (the combined effects of squirt and swerve) at slower speeds, especially with a non-level or elevated cue. In fact, with slow enough speed and a slight amount of cue elevation, any tip can be shown to have zero (or even negative) net CB deflection, but that information is not very useful when one's goal is to compare the performance of different tips or shafts.

BTW, the reasons why I test for squirt the way I do are justified in the bullets listed here:

squirt testing and robot test results

When testing for squirt (pure CB deflection), other variables like swerve and cue elevation should be eliminated or reduced as much as possible; otherwise, the comparison of different tips or shafts is not as meaningful (and can even be misleading).

The quality of advice given often has nothing to do with level of play. Regardless, I'm actually a decent breaker ... better than many good players. Have you seen my break technique advice video (that's me hitting most of the break shots)? If you or anybody else thinks any of the advice in that video is inaccurate or misleading, please let me know. I personally think the advice is very sound and presented in a way that can help people. For those interested, additional break advice from me and others can be found here:

break technique and equipment advice resource page

Regards,
Dave


And I still contend that at medium speeds, my tip design actually provides less effective squirt than other tips.

None of the tests that you conducted either verify or contest that point.

As your tests stand though, they erroeneously infer that my tips don't provide less effective squirt on medium velocity shots.

I just want to make sure that the clarification that your tests DO NOT ACTUALLY infer that is understood (not to you, I know YOU understand that, to others who wouldn't understand that on the face).

IOW, I won't accept being called a liar or incapable of determining the difference in squirt. When I made the claims that I did, I had NOT tested for hard struck shots as I was testing for the average shot based on original aim-point, not attempting to isolate end-mass induced squirt.

The reason I did NOT test for really soft shots or really hard shots was that I was and am aware of those shots creating unrealistic changes to initial aim due to increased friction with the cloth for slow shots and increased CIT for angled hard shots.

As I had stated numerous times in the past, I do not care about underlying mechanisms for results as much as I care about the actual results for the average shot.

Your goal is to understand and help others understand the underlying mechanisms, my goal is solely to help people play pool better more easily.

Jaden
 
I claimed that the cue ball ends up going faster than the cue stick goes.

Err, I mixed up what you were trying to say, with what I thought I read. At a weight of 6.8 ounces on average, a cue that weighs three times as much(for simplicity sake) would weight 20.4 ounces. The formulas should state that the cue ball should go X speed with Y speed input. I'm too lazy to do the calculations. Currently the best break cues reach almost 90% of that theoretical X. A proper phenolic tip allows that 90% to be possible. Problem is that due to wood being wood, it has a natural maximum speed it can retain before breaking. Some people can easily swing to that natural maximum speed without the need of a phenolic tip. Meaning potential speed is a bit above the 150% you mention.

They DO reduce effective squirt but Dave has stated that he does not have the means to do the comprehensive testing for them.

As history has shown, every time someone does some testing. The results that are returned do not reflect the original results. The contraptions Meucci, Predator, OB, Kamui and other cue/tip makers have built don't allow for full control over all variables of striking the cue ball. You say your tips reduce squirt, I say it's pixie dust. Just because you don't like the way Dr Dave did his tests doesn't mean you don't get to ignore the data collected. I'm glad you mention average speed. Could you enlighten everyone as to what average is? Or you just wanna admit right now average varies distance and angle wise to the point you didn't really test your tip?

You say you break better than Dave and that's why I should listen to your word over his? Well I'm glad I listen to results, and they say your full of bs trying to claim what you do. Designing a break tip as you're doing is a dead end. Shaft taper has more effect on squirt on the break shot than your tip could ever hope to compensate for. Telling someone to not swing as hard and concentrate more on square straight through contact is better time spent. I doubt your break tip does anything truly better than other tips on the market already. If you're willing to send me a tip, I will be more than willing to test it out and give some proper feedback.
 
I tried being cordial but you're just a troll.

Err, I mixed up what you were trying to say, with what I thought I read. At a weight of 6.8 ounces on average, a cue that weighs three times as much(for simplicity sake) would weight 20.4 ounces. The formulas should state that the cue ball should go X speed with Y speed input. I'm too lazy to do the calculations. Currently the best break cues reach almost 90% of that theoretical X. A proper phenolic tip allows that 90% to be possible. Problem is that due to wood being wood, it has a natural maximum speed it can retain before breaking. Some people can easily swing to that natural maximum speed without the need of a phenolic tip. Meaning potential speed is a bit above the 150% you mention.



As history has shown, every time someone does some testing. The results that are returned do not reflect the original results. The contraptions Meucci, Predator, OB, Kamui and other cue/tip makers have built don't allow for full control over all variables of striking the cue ball. You say your tips reduce squirt, I say it's pixie dust. Just because you don't like the way Dr Dave did his tests doesn't mean you don't get to ignore the data collected. I'm glad you mention average speed. Could you enlighten everyone as to what average is? Or you just wanna admit right now average varies distance and angle wise to the point you didn't really test your tip?

You say you break better than Dave and that's why I should listen to your word over his? Well I'm glad I listen to results, and they say your full of bs trying to claim what you do. Designing a break tip as you're doing is a dead end. Shaft taper has more effect on squirt on the break shot than your tip could ever hope to compensate for. Telling someone to not swing as hard and concentrate more on square straight through contact is better time spent. I doubt your break tip does anything truly better than other tips on the market already. If you're willing to send me a tip, I will be more than willing to test it out and give some proper feedback.

Get out of here with your troll bullshit. You obviously either just want to create animosity or are incapable of understanding what is explained to you.

Jaden

For the first time, I'm actually considering using the ignore feature.
 
And I still contend that at medium speeds, my tip design actually provides less effective squirt than other tips.

None of the tests that you conducted either verify or contest that point.

As your tests stand though, they erroeneously infer that my tips don't provide less effective squirt on medium velocity shots.

I just want to make sure that the clarification that your tests DO NOT ACTUALLY infer that is understood (not to you, I know YOU understand that, to others who wouldn't understand that on the face).
Jaden,

If I hadn't already imposed on my local cue technician in a major way, I would ask you to send me another tip with which I could do a more-complete round of tests. In the future, when the cue technician "owes me one" and when I have a big chunk of time available, maybe I'll contact you. Although, if I did comparative tests at slower speeds, I would want to do so with either a level-cue machine tester or manually with an end rail removed from a table (with the cue as level as possible) so the measurements would involve CB deflection (squirt) only, and not swerve, which varies with exact cue elevation, speed, and cloth conditions. With all of these variables, it would difficult to get consistent and meaningful comparative results.

Concerning my previous set of experiments (in NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt)), the only conclusions that can be made are the conclusions evident in the video, given the test conditions in the video. Based on the current physical understanding of what causes squirt, I have no reason to believe the conclusions would be different at different speeds; but as you point out, I did not test for this.

Regards,
Dave
 
Last edited:
my break tip doesn't lower squirt.

Err, I mixed up what you were trying to say, with what I thought I read. At a weight of 6.8 ounces on average, a cue that weighs three times as much(for simplicity sake) would weight 20.4 ounces. The formulas should state that the cue ball should go X speed with Y speed input. I'm too lazy to do the calculations. Currently the best break cues reach almost 90% of that theoretical X. A proper phenolic tip allows that 90% to be possible. Problem is that due to wood being wood, it has a natural maximum speed it can retain before breaking. Some people can easily swing to that natural maximum speed without the need of a phenolic tip. Meaning potential speed is a bit above the 150% you mention.



As history has shown, every time someone does some testing. The results that are returned do not reflect the original results. The contraptions Meucci, Predator, OB, Kamui and other cue/tip makers have built don't allow for full control over all variables of striking the cue ball. You say your tips reduce squirt, I say it's pixie dust. Just because you don't like the way Dr Dave did his tests doesn't mean you don't get to ignore the data collected. I'm glad you mention average speed. Could you enlighten everyone as to what average is? Or you just wanna admit right now average varies distance and angle wise to the point you didn't really test your tip?

You say you break better than Dave and that's why I should listen to your word over his? Well I'm glad I listen to results, and they say your full of bs trying to claim what you do. Designing a break tip as you're doing is a dead end. Shaft taper has more effect on squirt on the break shot than your tip could ever hope to compensate for. Telling someone to not swing as hard and concentrate more on square straight through contact is better time spent. I doubt your break tip does anything truly better than other tips on the market already. If you're willing to send me a tip, I will be more than willing to test it out and give some proper feedback.


UMMM...you're talking out of your ass.

My break tip doesn't lower squirt, they are TWO completely different things.

The LD tip is NOT the jump/break tip...

The only thing about the jump/break tip is it's made of a material (a type of galvanized rubber) that is really hard, provides excellent energy transfer and still gives good grip on the ball.

Again, anyone who's curious read the thread that Chris Renfro wrote on the tests he did on the jump break tip. edit: here's the thread http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=365937&highlight=target+tips+break

Jaden
 
Last edited:
, so spin or a slight off center hit won't as easily result in lower levels of energy transfer.

Jaden

So here you're not trying to imply that an accidental applying of right or left spin won't reduce squirt? Then how am I still able to hit square on the head ball with spin without bringing squirt into the conversation? If you're not hitting the head ball square, assuming you lined up straight for a square hit. You're losing energy no matter what and no tip will automatically turn everything into a square hit. Dr Dave has done the work to show how much energy is lost in transfer on non square hits/cuts. I'm sure you're familiar with this so I won't link.

UMMM...you're talking out of your ass.

My break tip doesn't lower squirt, they are TWO completely different things.

The LD tip is NOT the jump/break tip...

The only thing about the jump/break tip is it's made of a material (a type of galvanized rubber) that is really hard, provides excellent energy transfer and still gives good grip on the ball.

Again, anyone who's curious read the thread that Chris Renfro wrote on the tests he did on the jump break tip. edit: here's the thread http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=365937&highlight=target+tips+break

Jaden

Explain then how you can make a statement saying that accidental spin on the cue ball doesn't lose energy. The standard understand is that hitting left or right of vertical center produces cue ball squirt in the opposite direction. So what becomes so hard to understand is, how you can infer that the off center hit and resulting spin and squirt. Creating an off square hit on the head ball during the break can be simply negated by using your break tip. Your words imply that the break tip is indeed too, a LD tip. You think I'm trolling? I'm just asking you to provide evidence as to your claims not just words. Specially since your words seem to be misleading as it.
 
Back
Top