Deflection, Endmass and Shaft Design

[Jon]

I think.........

Black-Balled,

I agree.
But the scary thing is, at that angle, i almost thought it was me LOL.
I mean, i think i have a shirt just like that around here somewhere LOL.
The goatee is pretty much right on.
Can anyone tell me if i passed out on that table this weekend?
Cause i can't remember....

LOL...

 

[drivermaker]

Black-Balled,

I agree.
But the scary thing is, at that angle, i almost thought it was me LOL.
I mean, i think i have a shirt just like that around here somewhere LOL.
The goatee is pretty much right on.
Can anyone tell me if i passed out on that table this weekend?
Cause i can't remember....

LOL...

I think it was your brother Daryl...or maybe it was your other brother Daryl that passed out after watching you run your first 9 ball rack ever.

 

[TATE]

That may be true,,,I can easily do this and will get back to you. But I have to say that I don't think it would be easy to hit the sames rails on the same shot if you were to tape a brick on the butt end of the cue either...I am just not sure what that proves...are you? I think we are looking at something out of the bounds of reasonable possibility for most players...don't you? Seriously...I'm curious about this.

I am serious. If you don't like this experiment, cut off the tip drill and tap the ferrule end of the shaft with a nice heavy brass screw. Then hit some nice side spin shots. The added weight will make a shaft deflect the cue ball so far that the shots are literally unmakeable.

Within reason it doesn't matter how stiff the cue is (laterally) as long as it doesn't buckle at impact.

I would suggest urgently doing this before even saying one more word here. You will see that a high squirt shaft is a monster to tame.

The adjustment on some shafts is so large that they can seriously limit a players performance. I have found the players will refrain from certain shots because their cue can't reliably perform them.

I am not a scientist. Here is my own personal analogy I use to understand this. Think of the tip as a bullet. Shot at a cueball one tip outside of center, a heavy .45 caliber bullet would make the cueball squirt more and the bullet would riccochet less than a light .22 traveling at the same speed. The Predator would behave more like a .22.

Chris

 

[TATE]

Black-Balled,

I agree.
But the scary thing is, at that angle, i almost thought it was me LOL.
I mean, i think i have a shirt just like that around here somewhere LOL.
The goatee is pretty much right on.
Can anyone tell me if i passed out on that table this weekend?
Cause i can't remember....

LOL...

I like the sweat stained armpits. Yummmm.

I think he just practiced until he passed out.

 

[Jon]

Gee Driver...
I looked at this thread on the index and saw your name as the last poster.
I knew it would be something like this.
I ran my first rack of 9-ball around 4 years ago, and on a tight kim steele table, thank you very much.
And leave my brother Daryl out of this.
And leave my other brother Daryl out of this too.
They are still looking for him.

Check your mailbox DM, i've sent you some pred shafts with matching ringwork for your Herceks.

 

[TATE]

I think it was your brother Daryl...or maybe it was your other brother Daryl that passed out after watching you run your first 9 ball rack ever.

Drivermaker,


So when are you coming out to Southern California for a visit?

Last Two and me and my Predator can't wait to play you - and I'll even fly Bob Jewett down for a couple of games!

Chris

 

[drivermaker]

Check your mailbox DM, i've sent you some pred shafts with matching ringwork for your Herceks.

Rollllllllffffffff, rollllllllllllllfffffff, rollllllllllllllfffff, cough-cough, rolllllllllllfffff........help me Lord....tasting your own vomit at 10:30 in the morning isn't a very pleasant experience.....

 

[drivermaker]

Drivermaker,


So when are you coming out to Southern California for a visit?

Last Two and me and my Predator can't wait to play you - and I'll even fly Bob Jewett down for a couple of games!

Chris

I don't have any plans to come out, but I've always loved accepting internet wolfing challenges more than anything else I can think of doing. Here are my requirements:

Send a round trip 1st class ticket on any major airline (no cropduster airplanes with Ezra no-teeth as the pilot)

I'll be staying for one week, so I'll need accomodations at the Ritz Carlton...have it booked and paid for

I'll also need a car....since this is Hollywood and I'll want to fit in with guys like you and the rest of the crowd...have a Ferrari waiting for me at the Ritz when the Limo driver brings me back.

Make sure the room is stocked at all times with the finest wine from NAPA valley (red and white), a myriad of cold cuts, and Baluga caviar.

We'll discuss the women situation when I get there.

Look forward to finally meeting both you and LastTwo...and that's the truth.
Save your money though and don't bring in Jewett!

 

[HittMan]

I think you're thinking too hard. The definition for "effective endmass" is simply the mass of the equation that pertains to collisions. Whether you use conservation of energy or momentum or both, by using the known inputs (mass of cueball, initial velocity of cue and initial velocity of cueball) and outputs (final velocity of cueball) and solving for "mass" of the cuestick, you will get the mass that is involved in the collision. That is, "the effective endmass." Regardless of stiffness and how it contributed, the result in question is still effective endmass and how it relates/contributes to the collision. How stiffness is related may be a different question altogether. I suspect it may be more correct to ask how the stiffness relates to the effective endmass in the collision.

One simple theory is that the effective endmass is related to the speed of the transverse wave. If the transverse wave is roughly 3" per microsecond, and the tip/ball contact time is .001-.002 seconds, then the "effective endmass" would be confined to the first 3-6" of the shaft. Add weight to that first 3-6" and that weight would be part of the effect. That's one theory.

Fred

The mass of the equation? I am precisely asking how stiffness is related to the "effective" endmass and further, questioning the contribution of mass/weight to the actual value (in whatever units measurement you please) of "the inertial resistance to sideways motion that the tip possesses".

I've seen that theory, but it is dependent on contact time, which may another area of debate. But for now, I would like to constrain the the question to the method of determining "the inertial resistance to sideways motion". As stated, I'm trying to understand how weight (in the first 3-6", if you insist) might come to be considered as consequential in the calculation of resistance to sideways motion (if we stay within reasonable weight parameters). Because if this value cannot be conclusively shown as significant, the entire arguement withers on the vine.

 

[jjinfla]

I was told that all a pro wants is "consistency" in a cue. Once he finds the deflection point of the cue then he adjusts to it. For them it takes a dozen or so shots. For me, a lifetime.

Isn't it amazing how such a simple little formula F=ma can become so complicated?

Jake

 

[HittMan]

Take the word "deflection" out of the discussion. It's a bogus word that might be misleading you, especially if you are an engineer. It's not deflection that's being discussed, so any quantifyable resistance that you might be discussing is moot. Fulcrum length and resistance to bending forces are not what is being discussed in the squirt white paper.

The paper's discussion is a simple collision exercise at it's simplest. Keep that in mind when reading it, and I think it makes sense to engineering types.

Fred

OK..deflection is now removed. However, I fail to see how a preliminary transformation can be considered moot. It makes sense if you accept the transformation, but I do not. I am asking for someone to show me how the transformation premise makes sense. The devil is in the detail.

 

[Rackin_Zack]

I was told that all a pro wants is "consistency" in a cue. Once he finds the deflection point of the cue then he adjusts to it. For them it takes a dozen or so shots. For me, a lifetime.

Isn't it amazing how such a simple little formula F=ma can become so complicated?

Jake

Well, the fact that you're dealing with vectors makes that formula inherently more complicated.

 

[Rackin_Zack]

Rollllllllffffffff, rollllllllllllllfffffff, rollllllllllllllfffff, cough-cough, rolllllllllllfffff........help me Lord....tasting your own vomit at 10:30 in the morning isn't a very pleasant experience.....

So you're saying I shouldn't have Joel match predators to my cue when my name finally comes up?

 

[drivermaker]

So you're saying I shouldn't have Joel match predators to my cue when my name finally comes up?

Oh no....I feel another wave of heaving coming on......

 

[vapoolplayer]

(pouring gas on the fire)

why doesn't everyone just start using backhand english???? then you don't have to worry so much about deflection?

VAP

 

[HittMan]

Both Shepard and Jewett can play and both have good pool knowledge.

I dont understand some peoples unwillingness to except technological advances in Cue making. To ignore it make no sense. Theres not 1 other sport that the players just say "no thanks I stick with this".

In golf Tiger and V-Jay might not understand the mechanics but they use the
advances. Gold has came a long long way over the years. No one uses the older stuff. Never seen a Pro t it up with some of the old Wilson balls.
Tell the Pros that should not use Balattas or another new ball advancement.

Theres no reason for everyone to run out and but a anti deflection shaft but
if it helps then why worry about the ones that do use them. If the old ones
are better then you hold an advantage.

Theres something to the end mass causing deflection theory because its easily proven. Some cuemakers even place a lighter wood in for the tendon giving it a little less mass.

I agree with Fred that its best to keep in mind that its a simple test and that
many more varibles and testing angles could be performed. However as Tate
said .. try a little extra weight on the end and watch .

I am glad all of these scientific guys exist and like taking looks at advancing the sport. That just leaving the playing to everyone else.

Final reply for the morning...go to get some work done.
I have no problem with technological advances if they are advances. To blindly accept something as an advance makes no sense to me. There is a huge difference between an advance and a marketing ploy. Which do you want? Or better yet, which do I want to endorse? This is my question.

I agree that if you add an inordinate amount of weight/mass to the end of your cue it causes problems, but is the weight difference that can be achieved in practice significant when compared to the myriad of other factors available for manipulation? This is what I am trying to resolve for myself.

I too appreciate advancement and consider attempts, in themselves, noble; however glossing over facts amounts to something else. I'm quite cautious about my opinion and endorsement of products, designs, and advancements. If this is good JU-JU (as we say in Louisiana) then I'll get behind it and make changes in my products to reflect my agreement and help my players/customers/friends.

I don't look at a persons cue to decide whether I can play with them...I got over that a long time ago. I'm a show-me guy/player.

Thanks for the post and the posts of all who have contributed. I have forgotten my manners for several posts. I do not wish to offend anyone with my hardheaded query.

 

[ScottR]

Shot at a cueball one tip outside of center, a heavy .45 caliber bullet would make the cueball squirt more and the bullet would riccochet less than a light .22 traveling at the same speed. The Predator would behave more like a .22.

Chris

I wish somebody would shoot this thread. I think Ralph Greenleaf just rolled over in his grave because he never got to use a Predator.

 

[Jon]

I wish somebody would shoot this thread. I think Ralph Greenleaf just rolled over in his grave because he never got to use a Predator.

~*~BANG!!!~*~

 

[drivermaker]

I wish somebody would shoot this thread. I think Ralph Greenleaf just rolled over in his grave because he never got to use a Predator.

Don't forget Willie, Luther, Irving, Fats, Joe B., UJ, Johnny E, ohhh the list just goes on and on.

 

[frankncali]

Final reply for the morning...go to get some work done.
I have no problem with technological advances if they are advances. To blindly accept something as an advance makes no sense to me. There is a huge difference between an advance and a marketing ploy. Which do you want? Or better yet, which do I want to endorse? This is my question.

I agree that if you add an inordinate amount of weight/mass to the end of your cue it causes problems, but is the weight difference that can be achieved in practice significant when compared to the myriad of other factors available for manipulation? This is what I am trying to resolve for myself.

I too appreciate advancement and consider attempts, in themselves, noble; however glossing over facts amounts to something else. I'm quite cautious about my opinion and endorsement of products, designs, and advancements. If this is good JU-JU (as we say in Louisiana) then I'll get behind it and make changes in my products to reflect my agreement and help my players/customers/friends.

I don't look at a persons cue to decide whether I can play with them...I got over that a long time ago. I'm a show-me guy/player.

Thanks for the post and the posts of all who have contributed. I have forgotten my manners for several posts. I do not wish to offend anyone with my hardheaded query.

I agree with you and think that other sports have had way more money and time invested in research. As far as endmass effecting play it does but I
am like you and can see tons of other factors that could have effects as well.
Golf and other sports have more room, IMO, for advancements with the products being more complicated.
I like the Predator shaft but did not when I first played with it. I quit playing for about 6 years and when I returned the first cue I played with was a
Predator. It felt okay then but not before when I had been playing.
I could care less what someone else plays with but usually take notice so I
can try some different cuemakers and see the differences. Right now I use
a Ariel Carmelli Cue but I do use a predator shaft on it. The shafts he made are great but they are just different than what I am used to. I like being able
to aim and to not make many adjustments for the shaft. Other guys never notice the differences in adjusting and can get used to different cues very easily. I find that now playing with a Predator I can play on different tables/cloths and with different balls I can adjust a little faster.
Maybe guys like you and other scientific guys can take detailed looks and
make some honest to god advances.