Can't wait to see the high speed video of it proving your claim.....
Deflection question, explain how a stiffer CF shaft has less deflection.
- Thread starter Shooter1
- Start date
Until a robot or multiple humans test the same shaft with various shaft flexibilities, we don't understand the dynamics of deflection fully.
Until a robot or multiple humans test the same shaft with various shaft flexibilities I don't understand the dynamics of deflection fully, there, fixed it for you, .....besides that test will never happen because of manufacturing tolerances, there will always be slight variations in every shaft ever built by a human being or machine, some will be so small that they COULD be measured but have no effect on the players game unless.....YOU allow it too.....
It's because everyone is winging it... exactly why the first version of the 11.8 Revo was high deflection. They didn't understand that the flexibility was a factor. Then sometime a year later they fix the design because obviously the first one was incorrect. Of course predator changed the design without telling anyone because they don't want to look incompetent
The Revo 12.4 is stiffer than the Cynergy 12.5 and yet deflect less.
The Rhino 12.5 is stiffer than the Cynergy 12.5 and it deflects more.
I believe that the flexibility/stiffness that we feel and talk about, which is mostly due to the taper, doesn't affect deflection; it's just the feel for the player. I think that there is a secondary flexibility at the front end that is required to cut down deflection, as something needs to deflect, either the CB or the shaft, but it all happens at the front, way before the bridge hand, and it happens for a split second that the player can't feel or see it.
I'll buy this when I see scrimshawed microchips and hand carved F1 motors.I think automation has the edge in reliability.....you think wrong then, 1) ALL machines are designed and built by human beings 2) ALL machines have parts that have tolerances, that means there is an acceptable amount of difference in the parts of the machine that humans decide what that acceptable difference is, there is no greater machine ever built than the human being, but look who built it, the creator of the entire universe
Well, it's not the whole chip, but I think this qualifies for the first part....
One of the first chips I worked on was code named Jupiter, and an engineer figured out how to make an image of Jupiter on the chip complete with the Great Red Spot.
Comedy processor? I could prolly use one.
My friend, you are led to believe that science proves everything with tests, it doesn't, that's why there is the LAW of gravity but only the THEORY of electricity, to this day science has been unable to prove how electrons flow in an electrical circuit, yet we use it everyday, we know even less about magnetism yet we build electromagnets capable of lifting tons of steel, does this mean science is bad, no, all it means is it can't prove everything, in science you will have to look at variables, in our discussion that will include, speed of stroke, angle of stroke, tip hardness, weight of cue, weight of cue ball, weight of object ball, size of cue ball, size of object ball, type of cloth, I could go on but I think you get the point, I hope, the biggest thing is your brain is capable of making some of the hardest calculations on the fly, just finished reading the inner game of tennis, it's an amazing book on how your mind works, it's a great read that will do more for your game than the infantesimal differences in cue shaft deflection that your mind and body will adjust for, I have never heard Efren Reyes say one word about cue shaft deflection.......
All computer chips and F1 engines never fail? Really? I guess some of the tolerances they allow while building them are a little off then.....
It's a combo of end mass and how much the shaft flexes at impact and possibly other factors. We need real studies which control variables properly, which we don't have. It's amateur hour out there
That's not how physics works these days. In fact Newton's theory of gravity was known to be not quite right by very precise observations of Mercury's orbit. Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity) explained the problem with Mercury. See below.
There are no "LAWS" of physics. There are only theories, and a theory is provisional until some observation cannot be explained by the theory. Even Einstein's theory of gravity is "just" a theory but it's used because no test or observation has shown it to be false or incomplete.
If something flexes it will push the opposite direction. This is very obvious if you've ever hit with an old graphite bar cue
Nah. Less flex will give more squirt. This is pretty obvious from the basic nature of squirt. I think you will understand all of this better if you read Ron Shepard's paper on squirt.
It's a combo of end mass and how much the shaft flexes at impact and possibly other factors, I can say this definitely while also stating that we need real studies which control variables properly which we don't have because I am talking out my cornhole, as seen on ESPN....
This is incorrect. The following is from Dr Dave and explains a stiffer tip deflects less. Same applies to the shaft
Now, the more the tip compresses and flexes sideways, the longer the tip will tend to stay in contact with the CB. This would certainly result in more squirt (CB deflection) because effective “endmass” is larger with a longer contact time. Also, the more the tip flexes sideways, the more the endmass of the shaft moves sideways, which would also tend to create more squirt. A harder tip compresses and flexes less and results in a shorter tip contact time. Therefore, a harder would be expected to produce less squirt, assuming it is not heavier than the tip to which it is being compared
Last edited: