I say .0006 seconds is a HUGE amount of time. Prove me wrong. How much time is necessary to make a noticeable difference in spin?
Cue Tip Contact Myth-Busting Truths in Super Slow Motion
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
xX-Wizard-Xx
Well-known member
i think you guys are thinking needlessly way to hard .... Burn all the 7 foot tables and replace with 9ft tables ...then circle back around to this mess
you related to justnum?? seriously bro you need help. your endless obsession on something that has zero effect on actually playing the game is nothing more that mental masturbation. happy strokin and bu-bye.
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
If you read old books you will see the advice CM follows (again, even tho he knows that the physics of what is actually happening are different). Lee Travino was no idiot and that is how he saw it....tho to be fair he just mostly played his push fade no matter what. Michelson uses this method too if you check out his instructional video. CM's was the overwhelmingly most popular method used by pros in the era before slow mo showed us what was actually going on. You can also add Justin Rose to the list of guys that still use the old ways. All these guys understand the physics. They also understand that this method of curving shots has worked for generations of players in the past and also works for them...even tho it is based on a faulty premise. If it works, use it. Who cares if what is actually happening is different from what you set up for and feel. As long as the ball does what you want it to, the method works, and there is no need to scrap it.
You have "degree's" in what, bro?
dendweller
Well-known member
Hell, I'm still trying to come to terms with the idea that the amount of cue ball deflection is the same no matter how hard you hit the ball.
Last edited:
This is hilarious. In a real scientific setting a variance of +/- 50% from the initial starting point will never be described as negligible. How the hell can one tip literally double the contact time from another tip, and that time is decided as a non-factor? Something smells like bullshit will all these assumptions.
- 1 millisecond (1 ms) – cycle time for frequency 1 kHz; duration of light for typical photo flash strobe; time taken for sound wave to travel about 34 cm; repetition interval of GPS C/A PN code
- 1 millisecond - time taken for light to travel 204.19 km in a single mode fiber optic cable for a wavelength of 1550nm (frequency : 193 THz).
- 1.000692286 milliseconds – time taken for light to travel 300 km in a vacuum
- 134 milliseconds – time taken by light to travel around the Earth's equator
Millisecond - Wikipedia
The “hard tip is no different than soft tip” argument to me fails at the extremes. No one is using a phenolic playing tip, and to take it to a further extreme if the claim is that the only thing that matters is contact point, than using something ridiculous like an aluminum tip should make no difference in shot ability or spin produced.
It’s obvious than that the coefficient of friction between the tip and the cue ball is at least relevant, and if it can be seen that there is compression (and increased contact surface area) between the tip and the cue, and that this is inversely proportional (-ish) to tip hardness, it may just be that since soft/medium/hard occur in a fairly narrow range so all things considered we can’t measure the difference for the same cue action.
Then this might get into Human Factors engineering principles. It may be that players feel more comfortable (naturally) accelerating through a stroke with a soft tip, because part of the recoil of the cue ball is dampened by the compression of the softer tip. This may then allow a smoother overall stroke and better performance as far as the player is concerned.
It’s obvious than that the coefficient of friction between the tip and the cue ball is at least relevant, and if it can be seen that there is compression (and increased contact surface area) between the tip and the cue, and that this is inversely proportional (-ish) to tip hardness, it may just be that since soft/medium/hard occur in a fairly narrow range so all things considered we can’t measure the difference for the same cue action.
Then this might get into Human Factors engineering principles. It may be that players feel more comfortable (naturally) accelerating through a stroke with a soft tip, because part of the recoil of the cue ball is dampened by the compression of the softer tip. This may then allow a smoother overall stroke and better performance as far as the player is concerned.
I will add this - A harder stroke is required to move the rock the same distance with a soft tip than with a hard tip. I think everyone can agree on that. Therefore, The soft tip will create more spin, not because of contact time, but because you are hitting the rock with increased stroke velocity, which is what is actually creating the greater spin.
Anytime we talk about the interaction between tip and cue ball we accept a bunch of assumptions and conclusions are based on those assumptions. It is clearly shown that the contact time can be fifty percent or more longer depending on the tip, and the ferrule which escapes these discussions. We can argue that the absolute difference in time isn't significant but nobody can argue that a lot happens in a .001 of a second if we don't hit the cue ball dead center. Why shouldn't up to fifty percent more happen if we increase dwell time to .0015 second? Five ten-thousandths of a second doesn't sound like a lot, fifty percent more contact time sounds like a bunch!
Nowhere have I seen any information concerning the effectiveness of the interface between cue ball and tip. If we hit off center there has to be some slippage. Is that slippage 2%, 20%, more? We can discuss tips, chalk, even ferrules, shafts, and further back on a cue but if we don't know what we are dealing with to begin with, how can we say what is significant?
By eyeball we can double contact time and increase the contact patch many times, just for a number say twenty times although again by eye it looks more like fifty or a hundred times. The gut tells me there is the potential for a lot more transfer with a soft tip. If we have 80% slippage during a particular shot there is potential for a huge improvement. If we have 5% slippage then nothing we can do is going to increase the transfer more than 5% no matter how large the potential increase in transferred forces is. To nitpick there is always some slippage so we have less than five percent in play in this example.
Nowhere have I ever seen real numbers concerning the quality of energy transfer between tip and cue ball. Without a starting number, nothing else means much.
HU
dendweller
Well-known member
she's made of wood?
does she float?
I have known a bunch of old farmers and cattlemen that weren't nearly as edjemicated as me. I suspected they were sometimes wrong about why something worked but when they told you something about cause and effect you could get a hammer and chisel and write it on a rock!
Hu
actually in sports you aim where it works for you.
in golf you aim the club face in the position that gives you the best chance with your swing for it to become square at impact.
meaning you adjust to what your swing will do. the average guy tries to adjust his swing all the time to mimic the pros and never gets better.
same in pool you aim in the spot wherever that may be for you that brings your tip to where you want it to go. and that comes unconsciously.
if you have to think about it then it means you will never be good.
why you get more spin with a soft tip... you know a hard tip will miscue more out to the sides because most dont meticulously chalk properly and it holds less chalk. so being more scared of a miscue they unconsciously move it a tiny bit towards center when stroking.
it like riding a motor cycle if you look way ahead of where you want to go, the bike automatically goes that way. those that dont and look close in are the ones that go straight off the side of the road on sharper turns.
in golf you aim the club face in the position that gives you the best chance with your swing for it to become square at impact.
meaning you adjust to what your swing will do. the average guy tries to adjust his swing all the time to mimic the pros and never gets better.
same in pool you aim in the spot wherever that may be for you that brings your tip to where you want it to go. and that comes unconsciously.
if you have to think about it then it means you will never be good.
why you get more spin with a soft tip... you know a hard tip will miscue more out to the sides because most dont meticulously chalk properly and it holds less chalk. so being more scared of a miscue they unconsciously move it a tiny bit towards center when stroking.
it like riding a motor cycle if you look way ahead of where you want to go, the bike automatically goes that way. those that dont and look close in are the ones that go straight off the side of the road on sharper turns.
Yes. That is fact per the info here:
No. There is only one force between the tip and CB. For a given tip offset from center, this force imparts both speed (translation) and spin (rotation) by the same proportion at all cue speeds and for all tip types (although, both the CB speed and spin will be less at the same proportion for softer tips).
The term "effective deflection" might help your visualization - CB deflection minus swerve. There's even a word for it: squerve (squirt/swerve).
pj
chgo
Prove yourself right. I've posted a simple test in this thread (which I've done many times).
pj
chgo