Can you transfer side spin to an OB?

[softshot]

Who cares? Believe what you want. Those who are capable of understanding this already do from what's been posted here so far. Dragging this thread out more would just give you more attention and your "ideas" more credibility, neither of which is deserved.

I, for one, am out.

pj
chgo

Different Ideas are scary

not everyone who disagrees with you is Wrong...

if you re read this thread focused only on my actual points...from MY posts only

you might find we agree on more than you want to admit

but you didn't even watch the video that I included on the first post..... and more alarmingly stated that you refused to watch it... because it threatened what you already hoped to be the truth...

and any threat to your fragile beliefs should be dealt with severely...

you don't understand because you don't WANT to understand...

 

[Poolplaya9]

I am not knocking anyones skill level or their opinion. I am asking for someone to prove this in a video not a diagram or a 2 inch slow motion video. You are making yourself look like a real *****... I would sooner look like a beginner. I even offered money/bet for someone to post video. Since you are the know it all... post the video. I can see the banks going in the sample diagrams and have made those banks. I am questioning transfer from the CB. I looks like a force on the OB that causes spin, like a left or right cue tip hit. I, unlike you, am open to change. I just want to see it done first. If someone posts the video I will even jump on the transfer wagon and try to get softshot to join.

I already posted the video!!! It is the second shot, about 40 seconds in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5cOLa7HtiM&NR=1
That shot offers absolutely indisputable proof beyond any and all doubt.

To argue against that video is just like the people that still try to argue that the earth is flat. Here, check out the "Flat Earth Society", you will fit right in with them (or are you already a member).
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

 

[gunzby]

I already posted the video!!! It is the second shot, about 40 seconds in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5cOLa7HtiM&NR=1
That shot offers absolutely indisputable proof beyond any and all doubt.

To argue against that video is just like the people that still try to argue that the earth is flat. Here, check out the "Flat Earth Society", you will fit right in with them (or are you already a member).
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Better than those videos would be to use two rail banks.
Using side spin makes a two rail bank ten times easier than using no spin at all.

 

[eezbank]

I don't think you can and I offer my Youtube Debut as evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TnSfU2_A7M

try this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R5MnYBphV8&feature=related

 

[Jason Robichaud]

Poolplaya, I understand that collision induced spin occurs. I have posted that anytime I have transfer to OB is during a collision that is offset. The diagram Patrick posted and I replied to, I got the OB to drop in pocket. That proves I can hit them properly. If I played the wrong spin (right) it wouldn't have gone. To do all these sample shots posted, the OB is always struck on the side you need the spin. So, right spin on OB, hit right of center, left spin on OB hit left of center. The spin on the CB has to be Left for right and right for left. I may have worded it wrong in a prev post or you didn't read properly, but I know how to hit them.

I know that spin can be placed on OB to aid in banking. I might think it gets there by different means, but lets try to see what angles we can get spin transfer.

I would like to know the optimized angle for the transfer.

Can tranfer happen on a full ball hit?

Thin hit?

What angle can you get the most applied spin on OB

 

[lfigueroa]

no that is not true

I know, what I know ;-)

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Surprising (and depressing) as it may be, I believe they're sincere. Of course, once they realize how loudly wrong they've been they might claim they were trolling...

pj
chgo

Pat, don't you remember how the snooker players would come to RSB with the same act?

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Finally a sensible (and true) statement by a good solid player.
This whole thread is a fiasco.
The sad thing is, instead of the hardheaded one's learning, it falls on deaf ears.
I don't know how PJ or John or others, have the patience to argue with people who come across as complete novice's and obviously have not learned the simplest basics of pool.

Dick <----has been spinning OB's for 50+ years.

Dick, they're just having some fun. This thing on spin transfer is just a little game that comes up every once in a while. One side plays dumb and unconvinced. The other side trots out all the science and evidence. The other side plays dumber and still unconvinced. If it continues much beyond that, then the fun really starts The Brits use to give us fits on this same subject, years ago on RSB.

BTW, did you ever play up in Kalamazoo -- US Open 1pocket -- on the equipment they had up there at the Playground?

Grandy tables, with Rashig balls.

You could do things on that equipment, twisting the balls, that made you look like Houdini

Lou Figueroa

 

[SJDinPHX]

Dick, they're just having some fun. This thing on spin transfer is just a little game that comes up every once in a while. One side plays dumb and unconvinced. The other side trots out all the science and evidence. The other side plays dumber and still unconvinced. If it continues much beyond that, then the fun really starts The Brits use to give us fits on this same subject, years ago on RSB.

BTW, did you ever play up in Kalamazoo -- US Open 1pocket -- on the equipment they had up there at the Playground?

Grandy tables, with Rashig balls.

You could do things on that equipment, twisting the balls, that made you look like Houdini

Lou Figueroa

No Lou, never made it up that way. I always liked to run across a table where you can "twist away" like Chubby Checkers.

Dick

 

[Poolplaya9]

Poolplaya, I understand that collision induced spin occurs.

You may understand that it occurs, but you get the type backwards every time when you comment on a diagram or video. Maybe you really do understand it if you are doing the shot yourself and just get all turned around when you are looking at a shot on video, but for whatever reason, you have gotten it exactly backwards every (many) times in this thread. You claim that the collision induced spin (CIS) helped the shot go in every shot we have shown you, when in fact the CIS was working against the shot in many of them.

I have posted that anytime I have transfer to OB is during a collision that is offset.

Just because there was an offset every time you were able to do it does NOT mean that the offset helped you. In some cases, like Patrick's diagram, the offset worked against you and hurt you. It can be done by hitting the object ball head on too though, and if you made Patrick's shot, you can do it by hitting the object ball head on too, I promise. Try hitting with only half of the maximum amount of english on the cue ball. It may seem counter-intuitive, but using maximum english on the cue ball actually decreases the friction between the two balls and results in less transfer of spin. You may also be hitting too hard. Use just enough speed to get the object ball to the pocket. Finally, try a different table with different balls. The dirtier the balls and the rails, the better it works.

The diagram Patrick posted and I replied to, I got the OB to drop in pocket. That proves I can hit them properly. If I played the wrong spin (right) it wouldn't have gone.

I agree with this. And you should also be able to do this same shot without cutting it, by just shooting the cue ball straight into the object ball with the correct spin/speed. The way that you are cutting the ball in Patrick's diagram was actually working against you and giving you the opposite english (left in this case) than the right english that was needed to make the shot (all your right english came from transfer of spin from the cue ball). If you made the shot in Patricks diagram then you actually got more spin than you would have needed if you had just shot straight into the ball, because you had to cancel out the wrong collision induced left spin first.

To do all these sample shots posted, the OB is always struck on the side you need the spin.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is what I was talking about, where you keep getting the collision induced spin exactly backwards. In Patrick's diagram, the OB is not struck on the side where the english is needed, it is struck on the opposite side, giving you the opposite english of what is needed. You just have to transfer enough of the correct right side spin to overcome the wrong type of collision induced left spin.

Same thing with the second shot (40 seconds in) in the video I posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5cOLa7HtiM&NR=1
In this shot the OB is also struck on the opposite side from the english that is needed. The shot needs right spin, but the OB was hit on the left side, which would have given it left spin except that he overcame the wrong type of left collision induced spin by transferring enough of the correct right side spin.

What you are saying would be correct about the first shot in the video only. In that first shot the OB IS struck on the same side that the english was needed, but not on the second shot. On the second shot (and also on the shot in Patrick's diagram, the same shot you said you made yourself) the OB is struck on the opposite side (the left side) from the side you need the english on (the right side).

So, right spin on OB, hit right of center, left spin on OB hit left of center. The spin on the CB has to be Left for right and right for left. I may have worded it wrong in a prev post or you didn't read properly, but I know how to hit them.

Sounds like you typed it out right here, but you keep getting the collision induced spin exactly opposite and wrong when you see a shot. Like Patrick's diagram, and shot 2 from my video above, where you keep saying the collsion helped to give the spin that was needed when in fact it was exactly the reverse, the collision was trying to give you the opposite spin from what you need.

I know that spin can be placed on OB to aid in banking. I might think it gets there by different means, but lets try to see what angles we can get spin transfer.

You keep attributing the success of every example we give you to CIS, and that simply is just not true in many of the cases. Again, if you will look at Patrick's diagram and also shot 2 in my video, CIS would give you the opposite spin from what was needed. You made the shot in Patrick's diagram solely with the transfer of side spin, and in fact you even had to overcome the fact that the collision itself actually tried to put the wrong, opposite, reverse, type of spin from what you needed.

I would like to know the optimized angle for the transfer.

I will defer to the more scientific experts for that answer, but my guess is that for side spin transfer, a full hit is best and the more angle you have the less the spin will transfer. For collision induced spin I would have to guess that about a 1/2 ball hit would give the maximum and that it lessens from there the further away you get from a half ball hit whether it is thicker of thinner.

Can tranfer happen on a full ball hit?

Side spin can absolutely be transferred on a full ball hit, and in fact this is probably the ideal angle. Obviously there cannot be any collision induced side spin on a full ball shot.

Thin hit?

The thinner the hit, the more negligible the effect of side or collision induced spin, but it's still there.

What angle can you get the most applied spin on OB

Once again I defer to the more scientific experts but I would guess a 1/2 ball hit is close to ideal if you get both the CIS and the transfer of spin from the cue ball both working in tandem together instead of against each other.

 

[dr_dave]

I would like to know the optimized angle for the transfer.

I will defer to the more scientific experts for that answer, but my guess is that for side spin transfer, a full hit is best and the more angle you have the less the spin will transfer. For collision induced spin I would have to guess that about a 1/2 ball hit would give the maximum and that it lessens from there the further away you get from a half ball hit whether it is thicker of thinner.

Your guesses are very good. For more info, see:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/throw.html#maximum​

Maximum spin transfer and maximum throw go hand in hand. For even more details (and lots of interesting plots), see:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-27.pdf​

Regards,
Dave

 

[Jason Robichaud]

You may understand that it occurs, but you get the type backwards every time when you comment on a diagram or video. Maybe you really do understand it if you are doing the shot yourself and just get all turned around when you are looking at a shot on video, but for whatever reason, you have gotten it exactly backwards every (many) times in this thread. You claim that the collision induced spin (CIS) helped the shot go in every shot we have shown you, when in fact the CIS was working against the shot in many of them.


Just because there was an offset every time you were able to do it does NOT mean that the offset helped you. In some cases, like Patrick's diagram, the offset worked against you and hurt you. It can be done by hitting the object ball head on too though, and if you made Patrick's shot, you can do it by hitting the object ball head on too, I promise. Try hitting with only half of the maximum amount of english on the cue ball. It may seem counter-intuitive, but using maximum english on the cue ball actually decreases the friction between the two balls and results in less transfer of spin. You may also be hitting too hard. Use just enough speed to get the object ball to the pocket. Finally, try a different table with different balls. The dirtier the balls and the rails, the better it works.


I agree with this. And you should also be able to do this same shot without cutting it, by just shooting the cue ball straight into the object ball with the correct spin/speed. The way that you are cutting the ball in Patrick's diagram was actually working against you and giving you the opposite english (left in this case) than the right english that was needed to make the shot (all your right english came from transfer of spin from the cue ball). If you made the shot in Patricks diagram then you actually got more spin than you would have needed if you had just shot straight into the ball, because you had to cancel out the wrong collision induced left spin first.


Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is what I was talking about, where you keep getting the collision induced spin exactly backwards. In Patrick's diagram, the OB is not struck on the side where the english is needed, it is struck on the opposite side, giving you the opposite english of what is needed. You just have to transfer enough of the correct right side spin to overcome the wrong type of collision induced left spin.

Same thing with the second shot (40 seconds in) in the video I posted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5cOLa7HtiM&NR=1
In this shot the OB is also struck on the opposite side from the english that is needed. The shot needs right spin, but the OB was hit on the left side, which would have given it left spin except that he overcame the wrong type of left collision induced spin by transferring enough of the correct right side spin.

What you are saying would be correct about the first shot in the video only. In that first shot the OB IS struck on the same side that the english was needed, but not on the second shot. On the second shot (and also on the shot in Patrick's diagram, the same shot you said you made yourself) the OB is struck on the opposite side (the left side) from the side you need the english on (the right side).


Sounds like you typed it out right here, but you keep getting the collision induced spin exactly opposite and wrong when you see a shot. Like Patrick's diagram, and shot 2 from my video above, where you keep saying the collsion helped to give the spin that was needed when in fact it was exactly the reverse, the collision was trying to give you the opposite spin from what you need.


You keep attributing the success of every example we give you to CIS, and that simply is just not true in many of the cases. Again, if you will look at Patrick's diagram and also shot 2 in my video, CIS would give you the opposite spin from what was needed. You made the shot in Patrick's diagram solely with the transfer of side spin, and in fact you even had to overcome the fact that the collision itself actually tried to put the wrong, opposite, reverse, type of spin from what you needed.


I will defer to the more scientific experts for that answer, but my guess is that for side spin transfer, a full hit is best and the more angle you have the less the spin will transfer. For collision induced spin I would have to guess that about a 1/2 ball hit would give the maximum and that it lessens from there the further away you get from a half ball hit whether it is thicker of thinner.

Side spin can absolutely be transferred on a full ball hit, and in fact this is probably the ideal angle. Obviously there cannot be any collision induced side spin on a full ball shot.


The thinner the hit, the more negligible the effect of side or collision induced spin, but it's still there.


Once again I defer to the more scientific experts but I would guess a 1/2 ball hit is close to ideal if you get both the CIS and the transfer of spin from the cue ball both working in tandem together instead of against each other.

Thanks for the post. Here is an example of the stumbling block I have on the whole transfer thing and what I meant by the CIS causes the spin. Watch the very first shot when the red hits the yellow... Is this transfer not possible in pool?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC6Dap35B_Y

 

[Jason Robichaud]

Also the CIS spin I keep getting wrong, this why I said hitting right for right spin or hit the side you want to spin toward.

CueTable Help

To me it looks like the CB is hitting the right side of the potting line not the left like you state... Does it really hit left on the potting line or left on the cue tip placement?

 

[Poolplaya9]

Thanks for the post. Here is an example of the stumbling block I have on the whole transfer thing and what I meant by the CIS causes the spin. Watch the very first shot when the red hits the yellow... Is this transfer not possible in pool?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC6Dap35B_Y

Yes, this is CIS and it happens in pool too. I'm really not sure what the confusion is though?? In the video, looking the same direction they are throwing in, the red hits the yellow on the right side and the yellow then gets right spin. If the red had hit the yellow on the left side instead, then the yellow would have picked up left spin. It happens the same way in pool.

However, in this very same shot one on your curling video, if the yellow one would have had the ideal amount of right spin (which transfers left spin to the red one, "the OB"), it could have transferred enough of that side spin to cancel out and overcome the right collision induced spin (CIS) and the yellow one would have had left spin after the contact instead. This is precisely the way it happens in shot 2 of the video or in Patrick's diagram.

Where you always seem to get confused, is that when the object ball ends up with right spin after contact, but was actually hit on the left side (as in shot 2 of the video, or as in Patrick's diagram), you say that the collision helped to give the object ball the (right) spin. That is absolutely impossible because the object ball was hit on the left side, so the collision could only give left english. So what happened to that left CIS then, and how did the object ball end up with the right spin? You transferred enough right spin from the spinning cue ball that it cancelled the collision induced left spin and left only right spin on the object ball. Basically, the object ball got a little bit of left spin from the collision (CIS), and a lot of right spin from the transfer of the cue ball's side spin, and you netted right spin. You had both left and right english acting on the OB but since there was more right english it cancelled out the left and the OB ended up with the right. Is this making any more sense?

 

[Jal]

Also the CIS spin I keep getting wrong, this why I said hitting right for right spin or hit the side you want to spin toward.

CueTable Help

To me it looks like the CB is hitting the right side of the potting line not the left like you state... Does it really hit left on the potting line or left on the cue tip placement?

It hits on the left side of an imaginary line drawn between the centers of the cueball and 1-ball as they sit in their pre-shot resting positions. Without any sidespin on the cueball, that would impart left-spin on the 1-ball. This imparted spin from CIS (cut-angle induced spin) always depends on which side of this "line-of-centers" the cueball contacts the object ball. Left-side imparts left, right-side imparts right. Sidespin on the cueball can change that, as someone may have suggested.

(Not to butt in on the efforts put forth by so many just as the source of the confusion might be coming clear. I just wanted to get that line between ball centers thing in.)

Jim

 

[Poolplaya9]

Also the CIS spin I keep getting wrong, this why I said hitting right for right spin or hit the side you want to spin toward.

CueTable Help

To me it looks like the CB is hitting the right side of the potting line not the left like you state... Does it really hit left on the potting line or left on the cue tip placement?

Potting line? Tip placement? Here is all you have to do to be able to tell which way you are cutting the ball. Look at the direction the object ball was hit in Patrick's diagram. Is this to the left or to the right of where the object ball would have gone if you had just shot it straight ahead with a full ball hit? If it is to the right of straight ahead (and it is) then that means that you cut the OB to the right, which means that the OB had to have been struck on the left side, which means that it could only have picked up left CIS since it was struck on the left side.

Even though it has left CIS, the OB can also still pick up either left or right spin from the side spinning cue ball depending on which type of spin you had put on the cue ball (the cue ball's spin obviously transfers to the OB in reverse). If the OB picked up left side spin from the spinning cue ball, then the transferred left side spin + the left CIS = lots of left spin on the object ball. If the OB instead picks up right side spin from the spinning cue ball, then the transferred right side spin + left CIS = whichever spin there was more of will be what is left over on the object ball. In Patrick's diagram, the cue ball is hit with the proper amount of left english so that enough right english is transferred to the OB to cancel out the left CIS and still have enough right spin left on the OB to make it rebound to the right and bank in the corner.

If the cueball had been shot with center ball in Patrick's diagram, the OB would have only picked up the collision induced left spin (just like in the first shot in the curling video)and it would have rebounded from the rail going to the left because it would have only have had that left english. The way Patrick diagrammed it though, you have to hit the cue ball with the proper left english to transfer plenty of right english onto the OB. Now the OB has both the left spin due to the cut/collision, and the right spin that was transferred from the spinning cue ball. If you hit the shot good then there was more right english than left so the left CIS was cancelled out and the object ball kept the leftover right spin and rebounded to the right and banked in the corner.

 

[Jason Robichaud]

"Potting line? Tip placement? Here is all you have to do to be able to tell which way you are cutting the ball. Look at the direction the object ball was hit in Patrick's diagram. Is this to the left or to the right of where the object ball would have gone if you had just shot it straight ahead with a full ball hit? If it is to the right of straight ahead (and it is) then that means that you cut the OB to the right, which means that the OB had to have been struck on the left side, which means that it could only have picked up left CIS since it was struck on the left side."

I think this is the problem. We have to look at the potting line here not the aiming line. the CB is hitting below/right of the potting line. I know this point is left of the aiming line and you are saying that this is the opposite of what is needed, but, I think the spin places force here (right of potting line). It makes it a right side hit on the OB not left like you are saying. This is why you are saying I was wrong in every example. I was talking about left or right of potting line.

I understand now where the difference in opinions are coming from and why this is so confusing.

 

[sde]

"Potting line? Tip placement? Here is all you have to do to be able to tell which way you are cutting the ball. Look at the direction the object ball was hit in Patrick's diagram. Is this to the left or to the right of where the object ball would have gone if you had just shot it straight ahead with a full ball hit? If it is to the right of straight ahead (and it is) then that means that you cut the OB to the right, which means that the OB had to have been struck on the left side, which means that it could only have picked up left CIS since it was struck on the left side."

I think this is the problem. We have to look at the potting line here not the aiming line. the CB is hitting below/right of the potting line. I know this point is left of the aiming line and you are saying that this is the opposite of what is needed, but, I think the spin places force here (right of potting line). It makes it a right side hit on the OB not left like you are saying. This is why you are saying I was wrong in every example. I was talking about left or right of potting line.

I understand now where the difference in opinions are coming from and why this is so confusing.

Jason I thought this post by Jal made it very clear and easy to understand.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=1753802&postcount=175

Steve

 

[SJDinPHX]

"Potting line? Tip placement? Here is all you have to do to be able to tell which way you are cutting the ball. Look at the direction the object ball was hit in Patrick's diagram. Is this to the left or to the right of where the object ball would have gone if you had just shot it straight ahead with a full ball hit? If it is to the right of straight ahead (and it is) then that means that you cut the OB to the right, which means that the OB had to have been struck on the left side, which means that it could only have picked up left CIS since it was struck on the left side."

I think this is the problem. We have to look at the potting line here not the aiming line. the CB is hitting below/right of the potting line. I know this point is left of the aiming line and you are saying that this is the opposite of what is needed, but, I think the spin places force here (right of potting line). It makes it a right side hit on the OB not left like you are saying. This is why you are saying I was wrong in every example. I was talking about left or right of potting line.

I understand now where the difference in opinions are coming from and why this is so confusing.

Jason,

I admire you for trying to learn what all the experts have been trying to tell you.
I just can't understand your obstinence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I get the feeling you still think you are half right.
That is not a good path to learning what is true and factual.
Be just a little humble and admit you were way off base.

Dick <--- I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong.

 

[Poolplaya9]

"Potting line? Tip placement? Here is all you have to do to be able to tell which way you are cutting the ball. Look at the direction the object ball was hit in Patrick's diagram. Is this to the left or to the right of where the object ball would have gone if you had just shot it straight ahead with a full ball hit? If it is to the right of straight ahead (and it is) then that means that you cut the OB to the right, which means that the OB had to have been struck on the left side, which means that it could only have picked up left CIS since it was struck on the left side."

I think this is the problem. We have to look at the potting line here not the aiming line. the CB is hitting below/right of the potting line. I know this point is left of the aiming line and you are saying that this is the opposite of what is needed, but, I think the spin places force here (right of potting line). It makes it a right side hit on the OB not left like you are saying. This is why you are saying I was wrong in every example. I was talking about left or right of potting line.

I understand now where the difference in opinions are coming from and why this is so confusing.

I for the world of me don't have any idea what you mean by "potting line," especially considering that the object ball is being intentionally shot into the rail. It really doesn't matter what it means or how you are arriving at your determination though. If it leads you to any other conclusion in Patrick's diagram other than that the OB is being struck left of center (which causes left CIS) and cut to the right then you are not looking at it the right way and are coming to an incorrect conclusion. You simply MUST look at it one of the two ways below in order to see it correctly.

If the object ball goes to the right of where it would have gone if you had just shot it straight ahead with a full ball hit (as it does in the diagram), then you obviously cut the object ball to the right by striking it on the left, and that imparts left collision induced spin (unless counteracted by side spin transfer from the cue ball). Any other determination is simply wrong.

The way JAL explains it is equally correct as is the same thing explained a different way. Draw an imaginary line from the middle of the cue ball through the middle of the object ball. If the object ball goes to the right of that imaginary line, then you obviously cut the object ball to the right by striking it on the left, and that imparts left collision induced spin (unless counteracted by side spin transfer from the cue ball). Any other determination is simply wrong.

(Before somebody calls me on it, for the purposes needed here, in both examples I simplified and intentionally ignored the obvious exception of being able to hit the object ball full and throwing it slightly left or right of the center line just by using english on the cue ball and without having to cut it. I left that out since we are only discussing cuts at the moment.)