Do we have a physics expert in the house.

ps611846 said:
Do you know how many players this guy has helped with his "knowledge" and his thousands of "informative" posts ???

Every time someone posts something about the game, he responds in a few minutes with a negative post full of arrogance. It is really disgusting. I know he has been doing this for years. And I am 100% sure that he doesn't play the game.
Click to expand...

Again, odd characterization. I think it is extremely common for people to post things that are incorrect, illogical, misinformed or uninformed, or generally nonsensical. Patrick seems to step in at those times and set them straight. For the overly defensive, this is often perceived as an attack. This perception is likely a part of the personal makeup that also lead those people to be incorrect, illogical, misinformed or uninformed, or generally nonsensical. I sure like the book of Proverbs. It constantly reiterates the concept that a fool hates correction, but a wise man gains knowledge from criticism.

KMRUNOUT
 
ps61148...Since you obviously do not know Pat Johnson, you're in no situation to speak about him. I've known him for many years, and not only is his information spot on and accurate, but he plays the game quite well too.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

ps611846 said:
Do you know how many players this guy has helped with his "knowledge" and his thousands of "informative" posts ???

Every time someone posts something about the game, he responds in a few minutes with a negative post full of arrogance. It is really disgusting. I know he has been doing this for years. And I am 100% sure that he doesn't play the game.
Click to expand...
 
KMRUNOUT said:
In science, there is a whole body of knowledge specifically about what "significance" is, how it is determined and measured. It isn't really as much of an opinion based idea as you make it out to be. The idea is that if 98% of squirt can be attributed to end mass, and 1% can be attributed to shaft stiffness (the other 1% is attributed to "openmindedness")...then based on this you could make radical differences to shaft stiffness without making a "significant" difference in squirt.

Food for thought...

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...

So what percentage might it be for elasticity in the shaft or the entire cue & does a 5% difference matter to you in a game where 1 mm or a fraction there of CAN make a difference. (Note, I'm not saying that it is 5%)

Did you see my post stating my respect for ALL of Dave's efforts & investment in what he's done to facilitate learning about game?

That said, when referring to his tests for the flat laminated shaft he said that there was NO variances with regard to squirt for different orientation.

Have you looked at the chart?
 
Last edited:
ps611846 said:
Do you know how many players this guy has helped with his "knowledge" and his thousands of "informative" posts ???

Every time someone posts something about the game, he responds in a few minutes with a negative post full of arrogance. It is really disgusting. I know he has been doing this for years. And I am 100% sure that he doesn't play the game.
Click to expand...

I assume you're being sarcastic :)
 
KMRUNOUT said:
Again, odd characterization. I think it is extremely common for people to post things that are incorrect, illogical, misinformed or uninformed, or generally nonsensical. Patrick seems to step in at those times and set them straight. For the overly defensive, this is often perceived as an attack. This perception is likely a part of the personal makeup that also lead those people to be incorrect, illogical, misinformed or uninformed, or generally nonsensical. I sure like the book of Proverbs. It constantly reiterates the concept that a fool hates correction, but a wise man gains knowledge from criticism.

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...

Obviously you're not married!:D
 
RBC said:
Rick

I think what Dave is saying in that portion is that by keeping the cue level, and by ensuring that the tip contacts the ball on the horizontal center of the cue ball, it mitigates all those variables. If those 2 things are constant, then cue weight, cloth condition, ball cleanliness etc, are all nullified.

I've known Dave and some of the others for quite some time. I've had some really good brainstorming sessions (sometimes drinking sessions) with at least one from this thread, Fred. I can assure you that what drives them is the thirst for knowing what is right. Dave has spent countless hours and dollars trying to disprove his own findings. It's just what he does. When you find him taking a stand like this it's not because he's closed minded and won't look any further than what many see as obvious. It's because he has tried and tried to prove himself wrong and hasn't been able to. Even with that, he's still not convinced that there can't be something else out there that he hasn't thought about and tested which is why he continuously asks you for more information. He want's to know if there's something he doesn't know. When someone comes along and says that there may be other factors that he's not thought about, he's very interested to hear about them. But when after his questions go unanswered, he has to assume that there may not be other factors and that it's more about posing the question than answering it.

I don't think you'll find a more open and fact seeking group.


Royce
Click to expand...

I guess you too may have missed my post stating how much I respect all that Dave has done to facilitate the learning of the science behind the game & where I rephrased to say that he has an open mind but seems to think the facts are in & the book can be written.

What percentage of change is significant to you in a game where 1 mm or a fraction there of can be significant?

I have 3 OB shafts by the way but I like a stiff shaft as I grew up with a European conical taper. I never really liked the long parallel taper of the old Meuccis that made them 'shake, rattle & roll'.

Best,
Rick
 
Last edited:
KMRUNOUT said:
I love Meucci's new "Pro" shaft. However Bob claims it is the lowest deflection shaft on the market. It isn't. It is quite obvious after spending some time with one on several occasions that the deflection is not in the same ballpark as the Predator Z, 314. or OB shafts. The hit and playability is superb though. I might buy one. But my point is that I don't think Bob totally understands what deflection is. (And by deflection throughout I mean squirt).

I consistently find that some companies claim low deflection, or worse, that theirs has less than specific competitors, when in reality this isn't the case.

What I think would be interesting is some high speed video of various top players shooting shots with lots of english, to see if there is anything *they* do with their stroke or bodies to influence cue ball squirt.

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...
To defend Bob, I think he absolutely knows what squirt is. What I don't think he understands is how and what mechanisms and parameters affectt the method of testing. What he's done is made a great shaft that works on his Mythbuster, but his "robot" has some fundamental issues that affect squirt that wouldn't be part of a normal human stroke.

I've highlighted on numerous occasions what the issues are. I shan't again, since apparently, nobody cares anyway. LOL!!! Everyone knows science.

Freddie <~~~ privately sick of the discussion
 
KMRunout,

If you are being genuine about Patrick, I can only assume that you've missed the flat out insults & veiled ones in other threads & posts.

I believe he recently received a short vacation for a remark about lipstick on Fran Crimi's you know what after I paid her a deserved compliment for what she knows about actually playing the game.

As I have said on more than one occasion now, it is not always about the science that is delivered to others but it is the arrogant, condescending, & demeaning manner that it is sometimes delivered to them.

When a discussion of playing techniques is being had & enjoyed there is no need for any science guy to swoop down & make those individuals seem like idiots.

Dr. Dave, Bob Jewitt (spelling?), & Mike Page never do that.

But, there are those that do & IMHO they do it for selfish reasons to pump up their own egos in the vein of 'I know what you don't know & I'm smarter than you' to fuel their Arrogance.

When I see someone that has a false belief I too put out the correct science but not in a manner that makes them appear or feel 'stupid'.

If someone disagrees there are ways to reaffirm what is & then leave it to their determinations without making them to look or feel 'inferior' nor be insulting, while hiding behind the truth of the science.

I hope you can see & understand what I've said here as other seem to do & agree.

Best Wishes.
 
KMRUNOUT said:
I love Meucci's new "Pro" shaft. However Bob claims it is the lowest deflection shaft on the market. It isn't. It is quite obvious after spending some time with one on several occasions that the deflection is not in the same ballpark as the Predator Z, 314. or OB shafts. The hit and playability is superb though. I might buy one. But my point is that I don't think Bob totally understands what deflection is. (And by deflection throughout I mean squirt).

I consistently find that some companies claim low deflection, or worse, that theirs has less than specific competitors, when in reality this isn't the case.

What I think would be interesting is some high speed video of various top players shooting shots with lots of english, to see if there is anything *they* do with their stroke or bodies to influence cue ball squirt.

KMRUNOUT
Click to expand...

I am certainly not sure & can not speak for Mr. Meucci, but sometimes things are taken out of context or someone says something without qualifying what it is that they actually meant.

I have a Predator 314 CAT shaft that has been sanded down to 12 mm for a 20 something inch taper that I would say has NO squirt... if a did not know that not to be true...but the net effect with anything but a hit on the equator is Zero to the eye & senses. In fact it will serve back across the line in a 6 diamond distance on a 9 foot table. I don't really like the flex but I love it on 1/2 to 2/3 table shots & hate it for anything longer.
 
Im a whiskey scientists. If you need some experiments done, I'm your man.
 
ENGLISH! said:
As I have said on more than one occasion now, it is not always about the science that is delivered to others but it is the arrogant, condescending, & demeaning manner that it is sometimes delivered to them.
Click to expand...
You see almost any correction with the actual facts as being "arrogant, condescending, and demeaning". You will deny it but your problem is with being corrected period, not how it is done, and I can assure you with the "science guys" that giving factual information is always done to prevent the perpetuation of nonsense, and because they care that people are not mislead and that they get factual information--not to make themselves look good. And on the rare occasion where one of the science guys might understandably get a bit frustrated it is only because someone else was being arrogant and/or condescending and/or demeaning and/or insulting etc towards them and had zero intention of ever being open to learning anything.

ENGLISH! said:
Dr. Dave, Bob Jewitt (spelling?), & Mike Page never do that.
Click to expand...
Have you noticed those guys rarely post? Dr Dave does still a little, but not really much, and the other two almost never. But they used to all be very active in discussions and with providing valuable factual information. You know one of if not the big reason they don't post much? Because it isn't worth having to fade non stop attacks, and insults, and arguing from people who don't know their a$$ from a hole in the ground.

A big reason this site has gone down hill is because it has become overrun with idiots who argue with scientists. There is no problem with pushing back a bit, asking for the evidence or for more explanation (as long as it hasn't already been given), or providing new evidence themselves if they actually have some (which they almost never do). But when you have guys whose IQ's hardly exceed their age, and whose math and science skills end at being able to add 2+2 telling absolutely brilliant trained scientists who spent their entire lives studying a topic that they don't know what they are talking about, and that they are wrong, and dumb, and closed minded, and ignorant, and missing things, and doing their jobs wrong, and don't know what facts are, and don't know how to conduct experiments, and don't know how to interpret results, etc, and are relentless about it, then it is time for those folks to have a permanent vacation given to them. They bring zero value and are absolutely ruining the forums.
 
cleary said:
Im a whiskey scientists. If you need some experiments done, I'm your man.
Click to expand...

Me too... send your problems ASAP...

I see these SQUIRT Videos & I have to say... I may have missed the shot a few inches, with inside English, but I have never ever missed the object ball with the cue ball.

What is going on...?

We have been told that a flat lam doesn't SQUIRT any more than a ply-lam... so why would anybody buy a Predictor cue..? HaHaHa

How would you test a shaft for possible SQUIRT...?
 
Last edited:
ceebee said:
Me too... send your problems ASAP...

I see these SQUIRT Videos & I have to say... I may have missed the shot a few inches, with inside English, but I have never ever missed the object ball with the cue ball.

What is going on...?

We have been told that a flat lam doesn't SQUIRT any more than a ply-lam... so why would anybody buy a Predictor cue..? HaHaHa

How would test a shaft for possible SQUIRT...?
Click to expand...
Charley, maybe you need to call me or PM me.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
...this site ... has become overrun with idiots who argue with scientists.
Click to expand...
Seems like it sometimes, but I think it's mostly a loud minority with axes to grind - probably been corrected in the past and took it personally.

Unfortunately, they generate a lot of the argumentative tone in "technical" discussions, which undoubtedly keeps our most knowledgeable members from posting much any more. Who can blame 'em?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Seems like it sometimes, but I think it's mostly a loud minority with axes to grind - probably been corrected in the past and took it personally.
Click to expand...

You are right. The vast majority of those type posts and attitudes come the same few people. Time for their permanent vacation.
 
Cornerman said:
To defend Bob, I think he absolutely knows what squirt is. What I don't think he understands is how and what mechanisms and parameters affectt the method of testing. What he's done is made a great shaft that works on his Mythbuster, but his "robot" has some fundamental issues that affect squirt that wouldn't be part of a normal human stroke.

I've highlighted on numerous occasions what the issues are. I shan't again, since apparently, nobody cares anyway. LOL!!! Everyone knows science.

Freddie <~~~ privately sick of the discussion
Click to expand...

Freddie,

Are there any of the robot parameters that you see that could maybe be emulated, even partially, by a human being.

And could you direct me to where you have highlighted them? If it's too much trouble don't make the effort.

Thanks.
 
ceebee said:
How would test a shaft for possible SQUIRT...?
Click to expand...

The difficulty with a robot, I imagine is adjusting for tip shapes and diameters such that the tip hits the same offset on the CB each time.

Another option is to get someone who is skilled in aim & pivot to play a dozen shots with each shaft after which they can estimate the pure pivot point (and from that the squirt characteristic) of the shaft within 10% accuracy.

Also, a high res slo-mo overhead camera could be used to track the shaft direction, tip offset and CB deflection for any off center shot and determine the offset:squirt ratio of the shaft.

The way I test a cue's squirt is to aim & pivot with 5 feet between CB & OB, OB about 1 foot from a corner pocket, aim straight, pivot and shoot hard with about 70% (1 tip) offset. I adjust the pivot (bridge) length and repeat until the CB hits the OB in the center repeatedly pivoting to both sides of the CB at the arrived upon pivot length. It takes me about 3 shots to find a new cue's pivot point within an inch if I've got my eye in.

A simple chart could be produced that would match pure pivot points to say squirt angle at 12.7mm (1/2 inch) tip offset.

I'm not sure if that's the kind of info you were looking for.

Colin
 
SilverCue said:
Obviously you're not married!:D
Click to expand...

I'm not, but neither did I write the Bible. Those are not my words...I'm paraphrasing Proverbs. I'm sure there are many marriages that are built upon turning a blind eye to the foolishness, ignorance, or other stupidity of one or both of the partners.

KMRUNOUT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top