Deflection, Endmass and Shaft Design

[HittMan]

It is easy to get a gram or two of lead wire (or solder) and wrap it around the ferrule. No drilling required. It's a pretty interesting experiment. It is much less dramatic than the brass-filled shafts Jim Buss made to demo extreme squirt, though.

As for stiffness, and how it's involved, that's much harder to test. Theory says that if nothing else changed and the shaft were made stiffer, there would be more squirt because the stiffness is expected to increase the length of the shaft that participats in the sideways motion during contact. Unfortunately, I don't know of an easy way to change stiffness without changing anything else.

The current estimated length is about six inches which agrees generally with the speed of transverse waves (like a violin string) in the shaft and contact time, but I think we need a good mechanical engineer to fill in some of the details. I think the speed depends on the stiffness of the material, so if you had a stiffness knob to turn, a stiffer cue would give more squirt.

Hello Bob,

I think you were answering this post about the same time I was answering yours. I also think for clarity we should be talking about the same thing so I will henceforth speak in terms of the cueball instead of the cue (my natural point of interest) if I can accomplish it. I feel the cue ball is fixed and I cannot do much about it so i have considered the problem from the standpoint of cue.

I do find it interesting that you speak in terms of wavelength and pretty quickly thereafter in terms of stiffness increasing the length of the shaft that participates in the sideways motion. Aren't these terms for the same arguement...how much of the shaft is "in play"? Don't these terms somehow contradict? I'm assuming the same shaft with a different structure (that could be config of taper, size, bridge length or bridge type or in the extreme somethng as simple as firmness/location of grip...these would be easy ways to change stiffness). I don't think we are going to get anywhere if we don't think out of the box that has been created...that the cue is not part of a complex structure. I began this thread trying to break out of this constraint. Mr. sheldon's work is a solid beginning...let's expand the model to include a closer likeness to what's actually happening...so data from experimentation more closely approximates experience at the table. This is the crux of my question...I realise it may be somewhat more difficult to measure...but I think we can do it pretty quickly...and wouldn't there be a relevant range of stiffness as well? I actually believe that changing the structure of a shaft from a solid cylinder to a thin walled tube would likely increase the stiffness, as tubular structures are generally defined. I am assuming that the stiffness knob you speak of would work in reverse (as far as participating in sideways motion).

I have to go to work now and will return this afternoon to continue...thanks again.

Andy

 

[Fred Agnir]

No Fred...I asked you first. You answer mine, then I'll answer yours.
(If you haven't noticed Fred is another scientific type that covers for his buddies like Uncle Bob)

I answered every one of your questions. You have answered none. Do you have no answer? You've thrown out the "can't play a lick" a few time now. But both Bob and Ron have higher runs than you. Does that mean you can't play a lick either? And that we should just not read your opinions either?

I also barely know Bob Jewett and Ron Shepard. I have much closer acquantences on these forums than those two. Most of my friends from the forums couldn't care less about squirt.

What I have noticed is that you are antagonistic towards any scientific topic. You should try staying out of them. Keeps the blood pressure down.

Hey Fred...I clearly remember when you got sucked into the Predator claims after initially being a disbeliever. Lke everyone else, once you got yours you vehemently defended how good it was and turned your game around.
Yeah...it turned your game around all right...once you opened your eyes and started looking at reality, you came to find out that it turned your game to shit over the long haul. Remember those days Fred?? You're not getting so old that the memory is starting to fade, is it? Where's your Predator now, Fred??

You have no concept of reality. Everything you say is false. Why so antagonistic? What's a "disbeliever"? I've always believed that the Predator technology reduced squirt. And I always believed their technology wasn't for me. Everything I wrote is there for the archives. Reading helps. I own several Predator shafts. I found good and bad in using them. I have little regret in trying them out for over a year.

Is that what you consider vehement defense? Keep your lies at zero, please. Not that you would care, but your type of irrational responses are exactly what makes forums go down the tubes.

Fred

 

[drivermaker]

You have no concept of reality. Everything you say is false. Why so antagonistic? What's a "disbeliever"? I've always believed that the Predator technology reduced squirt. And I always believed their technology wasn't for me. Everything I wrote is there for the archives. Reading helps. I own several Predator shafts. I found good and bad in using them. I have little regret in trying them out for over a year.

Fred

Well Fred...You're calling me a liar and I'm calling you a bold faced liar also. So I guess that's not going to get either one of us anywhere.
For you to say that you ALWAYS believed their technology wasn't for you, is an out and out lie, becauses that WASN'T what you were saying in the year you were trying them out in place of everything else. I don't have to read the archives, I was reading YOUR posts during that year. Toward the end of your year of using a Predator you definitely weren't too pleased with the downslide in your game. I guess to you that means no regret now that a couple of years have gone by. Your a lying POS.

Nor, do I believe what Jewett or Shepard posted as their high runs. Too many others have seen their games that have said otherwise. You believe what you want, and I'll do the same.

BTW Fred...I've seen some of the threads you've been involved in over the years and you sure ain't no saint. There have been some nice flame wars with you involved where things deteriorated to crap, so don't keep deflecting it off like you're some kind of a nice classy guy. Both of us have kept it on the high end and been on the low end, so I'll go wherever you wish. We've both been there before so it's not new territory.

 

[Fred Agnir]

For you to say that you ALWAYS believed their technology wasn't for you, is an out and out lie, becauses that WASN'T what you were saying in the year you were trying them out in place of everything else. I don't have to read the archives, I was reading YOUR posts during that year.

It's too bad that you weren't able to get the meaning of my posts through your antagonistic viewpoint. It would have made more sense, I promise. Just because you believe against one thing doesn't mean you aren't willing to test it. That's what science is about.

I think you don't know what to argue with me about. I don't tout Predator, but I discuss the science of squirt. Maybe I'm mixing you all up? It's not really an either/or or a mutually exclusive thing.

Nor, do I believe what Jewett or Shepard posted as their high runs. Too many others have seen their games that have said otherwise. You believe what you want, and I'll do the same.
.

Am I to assume that you will never quantify or qualify what you perceive is a player who "cannot play a lick"?

Fred <~~~ has seen both Bob and Ron play

 

[drivermaker]

Am I to assume that you will never quantify or qualify what you perceive is a player who "cannot play a lick"?

Fred <~~~ has seen both Bob and Ron play

Am I to assume that you will never answer my question first and won't quantify or qualify what you perceive as Ron Shepard being a "VERY GOOD PLAYER", "CERTAINLY ABOVE AVERAGE". Wtf does THAT mean Fred?
Follow the chronology of the posts before you REALLY make yourself look dumber.
And please don't make another stupid comment like you'd put him up against 90% of the players you've met on forums. I'll be willing to bet there are over 50% of AZ forum players that would like to have a piece of that action right off the bat.

I already told you on a previous post..."I will concede, Ron IS an above average player". Do you have a reading disability problem or is it just comprehension? It's right there in writing.

 

[Fred Agnir]

Am I to assume that you will never answer my question first and won't quantify or qualify what you perceive as Ron Shepard being a "VERY GOOD PLAYER", "CERTAINLY ABOVE AVERAGE". Wtf does THAT mean Fred?

Am I to assume you concede you're incorrect statement on Mr. Jewett? Good, I'm glad that's settled.

Since you followed up with "I will concede, Ron IS an above average player", then there should be no reason for me to clarify what I meant by "certainly above average." I assume you are using the same definition since you concede that point.

I even answered using the only hardened standards these boards can understand. High run for Jewett, NPL handicap and equivalent APA handicap for Mr. Shepard. These weren't answers for you? They weren't esoteric answers, but rather as concrete as you could ask for a very subjective question. Surely my answers would prove that I understood your questions and answered them in the most clear way you could possibly ask for.

Follow the chronology of the posts before you REALLY make yourself look dumber

Who thinks I'm looking dumb on this? You asked, I answered. I asked, you never answered.

Here's the pertinent post: http://www.azbilliards.com/vbulletin/upload/showpost.php?p=122468&postcount=68


Am I to assume you will never answer what your definition of a player is who "cannot play a lick"? Those were your words. Defend them or retract them, or just sit in silence knowing that you were incorrect.

Fred

 

[mikepage]

I've played Ron. I've played Bob. And I've played Fred.

What was the question again?

mike page
fargo

 

[merylane]

If you're going to look at those, don't forget to include these:
www.meuccicues.com
www.meuccicues.com/blackdot-chart.htm

Why should those earlier posted sites hold any more or less credibility than Meucci's? There's no end mass reduction in his shaft, however there is a different ferrule. Are his test results bogus? Those that hate Meucci will say yes.

I said it before and I'll say it again...fuck Bob Jewett and fuck Ron Shepard.
In Ron Shepards ultimate thesis on deflection, along with Jewetts sign-of-the cross and blessings with holy water, they state that CB speed or applied force has no change on the amount of deflection. How many real players are going to take THAT as gospel and go along with it? Are you kidding me?! These two are whackos to the nth degree.

Colin Colenso, a poster here (where has he been) came up with additional factors for deflection that the almighty team of Shepard and Jewett didn't discuss in their paper that have very sound explanations that don't necessarily include end mass garbage. One, that I recall, was very simply different factors that have to do with the tip, such as glazing. I don't know about you and how well you shoot, but if you play enough with these different layered tips, although some guys don't like to scuff them once they're shaped, those SOB's get hard and slick as hell from glazing and you can DEFINITELY get CB squirt just from that. How do you measure it? How do you even know that all tips are prepped exactly the same way when testing to not affect CB movement? The answer is...you don't. Go back into the archives and see if you can find Colins threads, they'll provide additional insights.

bobs tests?
one thing about his tests are thet they are measuring the throw on an object ball, and some how talks about deflection
why doesnt he measure were the cueball is going? bogus?

 

[drivermaker]

Since you followed up with "I will concede, Ron IS an above average player", then there should be no reason for me to clarify what I meant by "certainly above average." I assume you are using the same definition since you concede that point.

I even answered using the only hardened standards these boards can understand.


Am I to assume you will never answer what your definition of a player is who "cannot play a lick"? Those were your words. Defend them or retract them, or just sit in silence knowing that you were incorrect.

Fred

I don't think we were using the same standards on "average". Besides, you never differentiated between "a very good player" and an "above player" in YOUR OWN words. What's a very good player? Typically those numbers you've thrown out mean nothing because they differ from one part of the country to another. Besides where did they come from? Did you make them up? I do know what his posted scores were on the internet for Fargo tournaments, and I do know what others have seen in person and they're not seeing the same things that you are. I guess your standards are lower. I can definitely tell you that those who have seen Jewett play would bet the house that he can't come anywhere even CLOSE to 100 balls. If he DID do it and it can be verified in some way other than himself or you that's reliable, I will retract my statement. Hell, a 100 plus ball run is DAMN good. It should be verifiable since it just occurred.

And as far as my saying "he couldn't play a lick" I said it once on this thread, that's it. You keep insisting that I said it multiple times. Thanks to you, I've seen the error in my ways and went back to edit it. It reads much better and more accurately now.

 

[drivermaker]

I've played Ron. I've played Bob. And I've played Fred.

What was the question again?

mike page
fargo

The question is, do you have 3 letters after your name and if so, what are they?

 

[JohnnyP]

golly golly golly. Stop it already you guys.

Does anyone offer to do a Predator type mod to shafts? Bore, change ferrule? My Viking shaft is 31", 12.5mm. The longest shaft Predator makes is 30".

My new Viking has more deflection than my brain can compensate for. If I want to spin the ball two rails with low outside, I have to way overcut it, to the point that it's a tossup if I'm going to make it or not. I tried someone's Predator, and there was no mystery where to aim.

And don't tell me it's all in the stroke. Sure, you have to have a repeatable, straight stroke, but that doesn't change the aim point. I just don't like to have to aim to miss the whole ball, for a 1/3 ball hit with spin.

 

[mikepage]

The question is, do you have 3 letters after your name and if so, what are they?

Pf .A

mike page<-- pleads fifth amendment
fargo

 

[drivermaker]

Pf .A

mike page<-- pleads fifth amendment
fargo

Thank you for your honesty....or lack therof.

 

[Fred Agnir]

I don't think we were using the same standards on "average". Besides, you never differentiated between "a very good player" and an "above player" in YOUR OWN words. What's a very good player?

Wordsmithing and nitpicking is what you're resorting to? Are you asking rhetorically, or do you want standard deviations.?

Just tell me in what context I have to use to present what level of play is "above average" and "a very good player." Then I can tell you in words you surely would understand. I"ve already tried using words that most people will understand (who doesn't understand 7+ if he played APA?).

If he DID do it and it can be verified in some way other than himself or you that's reliable, I will retract my statement. Hell, a 100 plus ball run is DAMN good. It should be verifiable since it just occurred.

Someone will verify it, and when you acknowledge it, retracting will be no good. Admit you're nothing but an instigator who can't stand science discussion. That'll be good. What about his recent 77 in a league format. Surely if a guy runs 77 recently in league, that gives credence to a 102.

Name one person that has seen these two guys play. And Delusional Larry surely doesn't have any credibility. One great thing about Ron and Bob is that they're easy to find since they use their real name.


Fred

 

[Fred Agnir]

golly golly golly. Stop it already you guys.

Does anyone offer to do a Predator type mod to shafts? Bore, change ferrule? My Viking shaft is 31", 12.5mm. The longest shaft Predator makes is 30".

My new Viking has more deflection than my brain can compensate for. If I want to spin the ball two rails with low outside, I have to way overcut it, to the point that it's a tossup if I'm going to make it or not. I tried someone's Predator, and there was no mystery where to aim.

And don't tell me it's all in the stroke. Sure, you have to have a repeatable, straight stroke, but that doesn't change the aim point. I just don't like to have to aim to miss the whole ball, for a 1/3 ball hit with spin.

What year was your Viking made?

BTW, how you describe is exactly how I shoot. None of my shots with english are aimed at the center of the pocket, with many (most?) aimed outside of the pocket.

Ever ask about an unfinished Predator shaft? You might be able to have a cuemaker make a 31" shaft if that's what you're looking for.


Fred

 

[DoomCue]

Perhaps it's easier to attack a person (Ron, Bob, etc.) than it is to attack something incompletely understood (science). Wouldn't be the first time somebody railed against something they didn't understand....

-djb

 

[DoomCue]

What year was your Viking made?

BTW, how you describe is exactly how I shoot. None of my shots with english are aimed at the center of the pocket, with many (most?) aimed outside of the pocket.

Ever ask about an unfinished Predator shaft? You might be able to have a cuemaker make a 31" shaft if that's what you're looking for.


Fred

I've checked into the same thing. The partials from Predator are 30.25", which is probably not long enough.

JohnnyP, you may want to give Predator a call to see if they can help you out. I talked to Neil there about a similar problem. They weren't able to do anything for me since I have a non-standard joint, but maybe they can help you out. You can get their number off the web-site at www.predatorcues.com.

-djb

 

[DeadStrokeMan]

Yes, to some extent this is true, but there are some cues that have so much squirt that they are really unreasonable to play with. You know the 90-degree cut of the ball frozen on the end rail? With some sticks and maximum side, you have to aim half a ball ON THE WRONG SIDE of the object ball. Yes, your aim has to be a full ball and a half over from where you want the cue ball to land. Some sticks are really that bad.

Meucci - sold the silly thing.

 

[JohnnyP]

Fred:

I ordered it in early November.

62" Viking

I called Predator to see if I could pay them to modify the shaft, but they didn't want to get involved.

Seems like they could have another revenue stream just modifying shafts.

 

[drivermaker]

Perhaps it's easier to attack a person (Ron, Bob, etc.) than it is to attack something incompletely understood (science). Wouldn't be the first time somebody railed against something they didn't understand....

-djb

Yeah...I guess you're right. I kinda remember some guy railing on here at one time because he didn't understand very much about aiming systems. That wasn't the first time it happened either. I guess that's what makes these forums so much fun.