Tap, tap, tap,
I can pocket balls, get shape and run racks more easily than I can get the nuts behind CTE. I won't use it but I am inquisitive as to it's accuracy and utility.
Thanks.
CTE experiment, with civil discussion
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
Tap, tap, tap,
I can pocket balls, get shape and run racks more easily than I can get the nuts behind CTE. I won't use it but I am inquisitive as to it's accuracy and utility.
Thanks.
This I don't get unless you are playing fast and loose with the edge of the ob. I've seen your rotated perspective. In my line of work I deal with rotated perspectives along 3 axes along with compression and offset all at the same time. I don't see how you can shift the perspective and have the same CTEL unless the CTEL is a variable instead of a parameter.
The geometry here, as I understand it, can be described by two congruent triangles. The first triangle is by the offset cue line which is parallel to the CTEL, the line made by the cue after the pivot back to center of CB and the line from the cue offset line to the pivoted tip position. The second triangle is defined by the CTEL, the (strait theoretical) path of the cueball after contact and the line segment from the center of the OB at contact perpendicularly to the CTEL.
The important thing about congruent triangles is that they must be proportional. This means as distance to a ball changes so does the pivot point. For a long shot you have a longer, skinnier triangle in front of the CB. Because of this the triangle behind must be longer and skinnier as well. You accomplish this with a pivot further behind the tip. Conversely, on a very close shot your triangle in front of the CB is shorter and fatter. As such, so must the triangle behind the CB formed by the CTEL and the pivoted cue. Your pivot must be much closer to the CB.
This is all assuming a consistent tip offset from the CTEL.
From what I have described you could mathmatically put together an exact system but I doubt you would like it very much. I've got a very strong suspicion that it involves trig functions if you don't like invoking ghostballs and it must include a variable pivot length.
Last edited:
Beer:30,
Trangulate this:
"...What could the range of my total eye/body movement or offset across the CTEL be for the 500 shots in a line from A to C? Let’s call it a range of 3/8 of an inch. Divide 3/8 by 500 to determine my incremental eye location or visual aim difference for each of the 500 shots. I get .075 of an inch. One’s visual and bodily intelligence can easily manage all 500 shots with uncanny precision. It all comes back to the fact that there are countless shots on a pool table. A great way to handle the vast array of shots is to use CTE...."
Stan S.
All 500 hundred shots perhaps on a Cartesian coordinate system.
I await your graphical matrix.
Thanks in advance.
I doubt that someone could actually be accurate down to 3/4000 of an inch. One thing no one is bringing up is variance. Those 500 shots can be broken down into one or maybe two shots with a margin of error big enough to encompass them all and small enough to still make the pocket.
The effective pocket size = Actual Pocket Width + 2(how ever much you can cheat the pocket per side)
It doesn't matter if the ball is just within one extreme or the other. In the shot you described with the slop associated with the effective pocket, two shots at any table length would probably do it.
Some people hold the cue over an eye. Others hold the cue underneath a spot directly between the eyes. Still others hold the cue underneath one side of their nose, i.e., closer to one eye than another.
But all these people perceive a straight line as though they have an eye directly over the cue. They do this by matching up the two different views of the world that come from the left and the right eye in a complex process.
Cyclops is a one-eyed monster
The cyclopean eye (no "s," my mistake before) is a hypothetical spot that might be between your eyes that is the center of that constructed image.
Mike,
Did you not read the subject line of the thread?
This probably won't lead to a very civil response, because your implications are not very "sensitive." In fact, your post is almost PJ-like. :frown:
I honestly think we have gotten farther in this thread than any of the past CTE threads combined; but, by the nature of the beast, this thread will probably end like all of its predecessors ... in the civility toilette.
Regards,
Dave
Once one masters CTE without regard for the pocket as has been intimated, I forsee problems transfering that art to poolhalls with 4.0" shimmed pockets or 12 foot snooker tables.
Good answer. I call this the "vision center." If Cookie or others want more info on this topic, it can be found here:
Regards,
Dave
Regards,
Dave
Mike,
Did you not read the subject line of the thread?
This probably won't lead to a very civil response, because your implications are not very "sensitive." In fact, your post is almost PJ-like. :frown:
I honestly think we have gotten farther in this thread than any of the past CTE threads combined; but, by the nature of the beast, this thread will probably end like all of its predecessors ... in the civility toilette.
Regards,
Dave
All right.
Sorry
Forget everything I said.
Carry on
I won't forget the brilliant stuff you said ... just the Emerald City stuff.
Regards,
Dave
No, it transfers. You just butcher up shot continuum into maybe 3 or 4 different shots. You're only talking about 3/8". The human brain just doesn't register the infinite number of shots between two points. With pocket sizes being larger than the ball it really doesn't matter if we do as long as our approximation equal a potted ball.
Last edited:
nevermind,you believe what you want to I am not trying to convince you of anything,its a live and learn world
Yes, it does.
Basic shot geometry:
With pre-alignment and pivot, the pivot distance for a successful shot can be determined from bc' and bg'.
An example of the above as applied to CTE. This includes a determination of the corresponding pivot distance margin of error required to hold the object ball within some directional error.
Jim
Last edited:
You're most welcome. If you missed a glorious example of graphs generated by them, see post #87 (page 6 of this thread).
Jim
EDIT: AGHHH my first diagram disappeared so all you guys saw was page 2.
Here we go again, but with a slightly different perspective. Let's work backwards from the ball going into the hole, to post pivot, to pre pivot. Say the first diagram is a successful CTE shot. We're visually aiming center-to-edge before the pivot, and after the pivot we have a good line of aim and make the ball.
What I'm hearing is the pivot is the same every single time. Like you might pivot exactly 4.5 degrees every time, assuming bridge length didn't have to change. So in the 2nd shot, we moved the pair of balls, and they're now further north of the desired pocket.
The final line of aim (the one that puts the ball in the hole) is shown as diagrammed. Working backwards, we "unpivot" the exact same 4.5 degrees as before. The pre-pivot line is different as you'd expect.
Now spidey is saying two contradictory things here that drive me nuts:
1. You are aiming center to edge pre-pivot, and the entire system works on known quantities... you don't have to estimate or guess because the center of ball A and the edge of ball B are easy to see visually.
2. He's saying your perspective changes depending on how you address the shot. True. But if we address the 2nd shot differently (in a way that causes the 4.5 degree pivot to end up RIGHT ON the line of aim)... then the initial line of aim does NOT visually pass through the cue ball center, and does NOT visually pass through the object ball edge. It passes through unknown points in space that would be hard to estimate/judge/imagine.
In fact, there appears to be NOTHING concrete a person can use to choose the correct line of address... the correct "edge" if you will. Addressing the shot is a complex process with many variables.. where you plant your feet, how much you turn your hips, where you place your bridge hand... this not a step-by-step concrete process you can teach to a kid. Getting that kid on the correct line of aim will require estimates and guessing. Then he has to successfully pivot, like a robot, the same 4.5 degrees. Not a small feat.
Here we go again, but with a slightly different perspective. Let's work backwards from the ball going into the hole, to post pivot, to pre pivot. Say the first diagram is a successful CTE shot. We're visually aiming center-to-edge before the pivot, and after the pivot we have a good line of aim and make the ball.
What I'm hearing is the pivot is the same every single time. Like you might pivot exactly 4.5 degrees every time, assuming bridge length didn't have to change. So in the 2nd shot, we moved the pair of balls, and they're now further north of the desired pocket.
The final line of aim (the one that puts the ball in the hole) is shown as diagrammed. Working backwards, we "unpivot" the exact same 4.5 degrees as before. The pre-pivot line is different as you'd expect.
Now spidey is saying two contradictory things here that drive me nuts:
1. You are aiming center to edge pre-pivot, and the entire system works on known quantities... you don't have to estimate or guess because the center of ball A and the edge of ball B are easy to see visually.
2. He's saying your perspective changes depending on how you address the shot. True. But if we address the 2nd shot differently (in a way that causes the 4.5 degree pivot to end up RIGHT ON the line of aim)... then the initial line of aim does NOT visually pass through the cue ball center, and does NOT visually pass through the object ball edge. It passes through unknown points in space that would be hard to estimate/judge/imagine.
In fact, there appears to be NOTHING concrete a person can use to choose the correct line of address... the correct "edge" if you will. Addressing the shot is a complex process with many variables.. where you plant your feet, how much you turn your hips, where you place your bridge hand... this not a step-by-step concrete process you can teach to a kid. Getting that kid on the correct line of aim will require estimates and guessing. Then he has to successfully pivot, like a robot, the same 4.5 degrees. Not a small feat.
Last edited:
I'm wanting to get at the truth of this whole matter, Mike, so please don't apologize for telling the truth as you see it. And please don't stop defending it, either.
Roger
The Graphic ROCKS!
Wow Jim you put a lot of work in to this, is is easy to see your point, and the Graphic ROCKS!
I dabbled a little more with CTE today on a 5' x 10' Snooker Table with POOL BALLS! There is something there, and I just need to give it more time, but I think CTE is the REAL DEAL. Maybe in a couple of week I will try it in a small tournament, to see if I can pull off a win, or place in the GREEN.
Wow Jim you put a lot of work in to this, is is easy to see your point, and the Graphic ROCKS!
I dabbled a little more with CTE today on a 5' x 10' Snooker Table with POOL BALLS! There is something there, and I just need to give it more time, but I think CTE is the REAL DEAL. Maybe in a couple of week I will try it in a small tournament, to see if I can pull off a win, or place in the GREEN.
Last edited:
CreeDo, I don't think the pivot is the same degree for all 3 shots, I think it takes more rotation to get center CB for shot B than A, and more for C. But that doesn't really matter. It is the EDGE that changes for all 3 shots. Pivot is in same place because CB/OB distance is same. I think CTE is nothing more than a means to fine tune your aim. You still have to initially pick the correct EDGE to aim at. And then the shift and pivot fine tunes your shot. Least that how I see it.