Can you overcut an object ball frozen to the rail?

Neil said:
if that ob compresses the rail at all, it will rebound and miss the pocket. While I agree that the english helps, it will not completely negate the fact of the ob hitting into the rail. And, if you think it doesn't, think about how you can make the ob at slightly different speeds and english. For the ob to be thrown perfectly parallel to the rail without bouncing off it at all would require a non'human precision.
Click to expand...
Good summary!

Neil said:
High speed cameras would be the only real way to prove either of our theories. If Dr. Dave cares to take the time to prove it one way or the other, that would be fine. But, personally, I don't know why he would bother to. The important thing is just learning how to make the ball. Not all the scientific stuff that goes with it.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. I don't think it is now worth the extra "bother" (unless people really still want to see more). Here's my quote from earlier in the thread, which is already enough "proof" for me.

HSV A.137 clearly shows an overcut caused by ball contact during cushion compression. If the OB were far enough from the pocket and/or if the pockets were "tight," this shot could miss by a lot. The running (inside) English might actually help the OB stay close to the rail. The spin-induced throw is towards the rail, compensating for the over cut. If reverse (outside) English were used instead, the OB could be over-cut even more.​

Regards,
Dave
 
12310bch said:
What if the rail was solid stainless steel and non-compressable could the object ball be overcut then?:wink:
Click to expand...
The short answer: yes. :)

...unless by "overcut" you mean actually failing to pocket the OB on a normally dimensioned table.

...and not taking the term "non-compressible" literally (everything is compressible).

Jim
 
Last edited:
dr_dave said:
HSV A.137 clearly shows an overcut caused by ball contact during cushion compression. If the OB were far enough from the pocket and/or if the pockets were "tight," this shot could miss by a lot. The running (inside) English might actually help the OB stay close to the rail. The spin-induced throw is towards the rail, compensating for the over cut. If reverse (outside) English were used instead, the OB could be over-cut even more.​

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Nice. You can also see the effect of spin transfer from the running english. If there were no english I'd expect the spin on the OB to go the other way due to throw. However the running english definitely imparts the other spin to the OB.
 
Quatsch83 said:
dr_dave said:
HSV A.137 clearly shows an overcut caused by ball contact during cushion compression. If the OB were far enough from the pocket and/or if the pockets were "tight," this shot could miss by a lot. The running (inside) English might actually help the OB stay close to the rail. The spin-induced throw is towards the rail, compensating for the over cut. If reverse (outside) English were used instead, the OB could be over-cut even more.
Click to expand...
Nice. You can also see the effect of spin transfer from the running english. If there were no english I'd expect the spin on the OB to go the other way due to throw. However the running english definitely imparts the other spin to the OB.
Click to expand...
Actually, with no English, I would still expect a similar result (counterclockwise spin on the OB due to throw towards the rail), because the rail would impart spin to the CB (in the natural English direction) during cushion compression. To get clockwise spin on the OB, and throw away from the rail (increasing the over-cut even more), you would need outside (reverse) English on the CB.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
Actually, with no English, I would still expect a similar result (counterclockwise spin on the OB due to throw towards the rail), because the rail would impart spin to the CB (in the natural English direction) during cushion compression. To get clockwise spin on the OB, and throw away from the rail (increasing the over-cut even more), you would need outside (reverse) English on the CB.

Regards,
Dave
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is true. The rail does impart running english to the CB.
 
big ball ?

Robert Raiford said:
This is definitely possible. For example, with a 2-3/8"D big cue ball and 2-1/4"D object ball, the centers are aligned ~1.6 degrees into the rail when both are frozen to the cushion and to each other. You can easily hit the ball before the rail and throw it the 2-3 degrees or so needed to send it down the rail into the pocket, especially with fuller hits. Clean balls and higher speeds make it tougher, though.

Btw, the center spin is used because throw is maximized when using stun (follow and draw both reduce throw.)

Robert
Click to expand...

I play where Samiel plays and there are no over-sized rocks! There are
plety of worn out red circles that need inspection with a magnifying
glass to ascertain that they are "red circles". Since they are quite
undersized-what Samiel asked is not only possible but likely:grin:
 
Related to this question is a practical shot. Freeze the nine ball on the cushion a diamond from the pocket. Put the one ball frozen on that same cushion a chalk's-width from the nine ball. An easy combination. But suppose there is a blocker, such as the 2 ball, which forces you to shoot the one ball into the cushion at about a 45-degree angle. The combination can still be made -- just shoot hard.

This shot has surprised more than one good player and might win you some bar bets.
 
Samiel said:
If an object ball is frozen to the rail, can you over cut it and miss the pocket completely? ...
Click to expand...
To summarize the answer, it's yes in three ways:

The cue ball can contact the cushion and the ball at the same instant and outside side spin can cause an over cut (throw shot). (This applies even to steel cushions.)

If the cue ball contacts the cushion first and sinks into the cushion and contacts the object ball while still well into the cushion, the object ball can be shot enough away from the cushion to miss.

A small enough cue ball can cut the object ball away from the cushion by simple geometry.
 
Bob Jewett said:
To summarize the answer, it's yes in three ways:
Click to expand...

What do you think about a 4th way being a jump shot, Bob? I can imagine getting the CB to land on top of the OB before touching the cushion with a straight enough angle to stay on the table but cutting the OB away from the cushion, but I've never tried it. This sounds like the tricky kind of shot you might be familiar with :)

Robert
 
Robert Raiford said:
What do you think about a 4th way being a jump shot, Bob? I can imagine getting the CB to land on top of the OB before touching the cushion with a straight enough angle to stay on the table but cutting the OB away from the cushion, but I've never tried it. This sounds like the tricky kind of shot you might be familiar with :)

Robert
Click to expand...
Keeping the cue ball on the table would be the tricky part.

Mike Massey has a trick shot in which he spots two balls on the foot spot (a common situation in one pocket), and makes the back ball directly into the corner pocket with a jump shot. The jump allows him to get more cut angle than seems physically possible.
 
I think he is asking shooting normally not trick shots. Shooting normally and same size balls with OB froze to rail it can't be over cut.
 
Jason Robichaud said:
I think he is asking shooting normally not trick shots. Shooting normally and same size balls with OB froze to rail it can't be over cut.
Click to expand...
I think both the outside english shot and the rail first shot qualify as shooting normally. Most people who make the "frozen ball down the rail" shot will be hitting rail first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top