Ron Swanson
Banned
Jesus, rick, take it as the joke it was. Neil in 'showing sense of humour shocker' - doesn't happen often.
Do we have a physics expert in the house.
- Thread starter ceebee
- Start date
Jesus, rick, take it as the joke it was. Neil in 'showing sense of humour shocker' - doesn't happen often.
Is he under the impression that stiffness under side load is a factor in determining squirt?
If so, nothing I'm aware of has shown that stiffness has a correlation with squirt, only end mass.
Colin
However, endmass and material-stiffness might be correlated. Does a 1/2" ferule weigh less than a one-inch ferule? Yes, so the 1/2" ferule results in less endmass. But ferule material is probably stiffer than shaft wood, so it also results in less overall stiffness. Maybe.
WOW Neil, you must really hate "English" !!!!!!!!!!
Yesterday you were accusing him of using a different login name to make fun of you now you are making fun of him,
How is that better?
Al
Well, in that case, I'd recommend scdiveteam. He's a genius and is NEVER wrong. I know because he says so all the time.
Don't let the fact that people have proved him wrong time and time again fool you! They're all just haters!!!
Squirt tests using stiffer and more flexible shafts have shown no obvious difference - that's scientific evidence. I'll go with that until "might" gets some substance behind it.
pj
chgo
Well that is NOT an easy thing to do in conjunction with all of the other trolling stuff he says about me & the timing of when I see it.
Do you really think what he said was a joke to make the OP laugh or was it a behind the back other sucker punch at me?
Hi Colin,
Are you familiar with what Bob Muecci thinks after much testing with his robotic machine?
Cheers.
You may be heading in the right direction, but may be slightly off course.
The testing Muecci has done has many potential problems. For more info, see the bullets on the squirt robot test results resource page.
Even when somebody uses a machine to do testing, the results can still be misleading. I've done both human and machine squirt testing, and I know for a fact that machine testing requires significant care and control (as with human testing). For more info, see the resource page.
Regards,
Dave
Last edited:
He may well be off-course, but he is trying.
I think the cue shaft gets a side load on the tip, when it strikes the cue ball.... What does that side load amount to in PSI..?
That is what he would like to find out for a bunt shot & up the spectrum of speeds. He is making a robot too.
I think the cue shaft gets a side load on the tip, when it strikes the cue ball.... What does that side load amount to in PSI..?
That is what he would like to find out for a bunt shot & up the spectrum of speeds. He is making a robot too.
Well... my boss has his PhD in Physics... But, I'm not sure whether that's really what you want since his doctorate is in particle physics and electron drift. I have a feeling you really are looking for a Mechanical Engineer.
I think that most any engineer would be able to do whatever you're looking for, but for my money, Dave Alciatore would be my first phone call.
{edit: ah... I see this is a revived post from last year}
Freddie <~~~ don't call me
Last edited:
it is possible, if memory serves me, super slo mo of cuetip ball interactions show some bend in the shaft.
These measurements will need strict controls. When a shaft flexes from a side load, wood fibers are stretched, and can break. I think that can effect future testing on the shaft.
I would be interested to see if the amount of flex increases over time due to repeated side loads.
These measurements will need strict controls. When a shaft flexes from a side load, wood fibers are stretched, and can break. I think that can effect future testing on the shaft.
I would be interested to see if the amount of flex increases over time due to repeated side loads.
Agreed. In comparing wooden shafts, stiffness (as measured by static bend tests) has pretty much nothing to do with differences in cue ball deflection. For more info (and experimental evidence), see:
squirt endmass and stiffness effects resource page
Regards,
Dave
I read some of his stuff years ago, but wasn't too impressed with it as I recall. Can't remember it in enough detail to comment on anything specific.
Do you have something to direct me to that might be worth considering?
Colin
I made the proper comments on it the Myth Buster years ago, Colin. Don't bother.
I think you will stay were you are until certain individuals tell you otherwise.
The tests to which I think you are referring are insufficient from which to form a definitive conclusion in some regards & hence are conjecture more than complete scientific 'evidence'.
Why not keep an open mind that flex at some point, along with lighter end mass could be a contributing factor such as possibly a long flexible ferrule.
Also can you explain why the same shaft can get different results when put on different butts of the exact same weight?
Why would a butt make a difference if it only involves the front end mass?
Just because tests showed that a difference in front end mass does have an effect... does not mean that there are no other contributing factors that can & do come into play.
Science is the ongoing study of matters. If it stops short of complete testing & experimentation then it is failed science & hence unreliable in any definitive manner. Or it was limited in it's scope.
So...One can say that variance of front end mass contributes to different amounts of squirt.
But without sufficient evidence one should not say that there are no other contributing factors nor imply that.
Also, why put down bdorman's suggestion in such a high & mighty arrogant manner?
Does 'science' have to be a bully.
When Predator was getting started they visited Bob Muecci.
Last edited:
Can you direct us there? It might save some time & band width.