Ron Swanson
Banned
Bob jewett is a national champion? In what?
Anyway, the point here is the science guys are essentially enthusiasts and hobbyists. Nobody is denying their contribution but let's not overlook that.
Calling All Pool Scientists
- Thread starter HawaiianEye
- Start date
Bob jewett is a national champion? In what?
Anyway, the point here is the science guys are essentially enthusiasts and hobbyists. Nobody is denying their contribution but let's not overlook that.
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
Per your example, if I had 0 pieces of rice instead of 1, that wouldn't change how hungry I felt either.
Ipso facto, if the contact time is 0/1000 sec. there is no change in the effect of the cueball.
Maybe doubling the contact time doesn't affect things much. Maybe it is actually worse, maybe not. I am not convinced by anything I've yet read.
I'm wasn't arguing whether or not that change in contact time made any significant difference (although I have very serious doubts that it does for the record). What I was arguing was that your contention that if some measurement doubles, that it necessarily means that it has a great impact on something. It doesn't, but I think you already know that. :thumbup:
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
Okay, we are basically on the same page.
I don't know if the contact time matters, I haven't seen enough evidence to say. I had a problem with Mr. Lee saying it was insignificant without citing source material.
I never meant to insinuate that I believed that doubling the contact time made a huge difference. I intended to say that I have no idea whether it does or not.
Have fun!
Pool. He both knows more and plays better than you. Lots more. Lots better.
I suppose you could learn those things, given enough years (theoretically). But he's also well regarded and likeable.
pj
chgo
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
I'd argue that it is more correct to use the term 'theory' in this case, but when not talking to those well versed in science, it is more effective to use the term 'fact'.
Semantics.
Dave knows better than you or SilverCue (or me) the difference between fact and theory.
There are lots of known facts about pool, and pretty much all of them are on Dave's website. Theories would be the explanations that link them and make them knowledge - some (but not a lot) of those are still in question.
pj
chgo
But the Earth wouldn't.
Except in this circumstance you've eliminated contact. There is no contact time and that IS significant.
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
No, the earth wouldn't know the difference which is my point exactly. The age of the earth has no bearing on whether his extra 80 years are significant to him.
This all started because Mr. Lee called the contact time insignificant. It isn't insignificant because that is all there is in regards to contact time. Perhaps doubling the contact time (which is a significant amount...based on contact time) will have insignificant effects on the outcome, but doubling the contact time is still a significant increase.
I don't get how people will argue this kind of stuff on a different frame of reference.
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
I think there is a double negative in there somewhere...
Significant isn't about quantity - it's about importance. If it doesn't change the outcome, it's not important (not significant) in pool.
pj
chgo
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I already explained that I am not convinced that it doesn't change the outcome. I respect many of the people who have done some work on this, but I remain unconvinced until I review it more.
So I am taking the stance that it might be significant.
I've explained this. In this thread. You do this often. You choose one stupid thing that you can argue to make yourself feel good and try to debase people who admit they are simply unconvinced.
Just like the theory thing. Scientific language has defined the scientific use of the term 'theory' and I believe that the person you jumped on used it correctly. Nothing against Dr. Dave, he has done amazing work. The fact is, tho, that all of that work is based off of scientific laws and theories and all of it is therefore theory.
Edit to add: This is why I have a very hard time taking you seriously. Scientists call things theories for a reason. There are theories that have stood every test, yet they are still called theories because scientists by nature and training keep their minds open to new possibilities. Your mind is like a bear trap, you can never open it to any other ideas.
Last edited:
Contact time is not all there is during contact time. As the time is increased, the force is decreased. It pretty much evens itself out.
Try looking at it like punching someone with and without boxing gloves on. (padded gloves same size as the hand) Which one will stay in contact longer, and which one will provide the most force?
All you have is speed of stroke, angle of cue at contact, and location on cb of contact. If the last two stay the same, all you have left is speed. Some of the speed is lost compressing the tip. That is made up by longer contact time. But, longer contact time in itself adds nothing of consequence because you can't just add time without decreasing speed or force.
If one could add contact time by itself, there would be a difference. As is seen with spinning a basketball on your finger. But, with a cue and a cb, that can't be done. Some think it can be done with swiping, but fail to understand the tip is still on the cb for the same amount of time. It doesn't increase time on the cb like they think it does because the mass of the cue and tip and the cb doesn't change.
ElCorazonFrio
Banned
I agree with much of your posts...but...
...as contact time increases, there are certainly more variables and it is very apt that you cite the force as being different. Most of the calculations I am familiar with being used to describe this use elastic collision equations. As the contact time becomes longer because of the energy lost in the compression of the tip, these equations become less accurate.
Last edited:
My understating of impulse, which I believe this discussion falls under, is only so-so.
From a purely observational standpoint, however, I have done experiments comparing sticks with phenolic tips, and sticks with regular tips. They all made the CB do the same thing, when:
1) the contact mark from the chalk was held to the same spot on the CB
2) the stroke speed was adjusted to make the CB go the same distance
3) the stick sideways angle (but not contact point) was adjusted depending on the cue's squirt characteristics.
Patrick and others here have done these same experiments. (I got the test from Patrick). Its easy to see that the tip hardness has no measurable affect on the CB path, as long as it does not miscue.
Try for yourself
From a purely observational standpoint, however, I have done experiments comparing sticks with phenolic tips, and sticks with regular tips. They all made the CB do the same thing, when:
1) the contact mark from the chalk was held to the same spot on the CB
2) the stroke speed was adjusted to make the CB go the same distance
3) the stick sideways angle (but not contact point) was adjusted depending on the cue's squirt characteristics.
Patrick and others here have done these same experiments. (I got the test from Patrick). Its easy to see that the tip hardness has no measurable affect on the CB path, as long as it does not miscue.
Try for yourself
Ron Swanson
Banned
Cor! All that from asking what he is a champion in? Every day's an education...
I could be off on the year, but if memory serves it was the 1975 ACUII National Straight Pool Championships. Puts him on a short list that includes Nick Varner, David Uwate (from the forum), Dan Louie etc.