Do we have a physics expert in the house.

[Patrick Johnson]

I ...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.

One should say what's known:

- The only factor we know is significant for the amount of squirt is end mass.

- Tests with different amounts of shaft stiffness have not supported the idea that stiffness is a significant factor for squirt.

That's what has been said - not the strawmen you want to argue with.

Others have told you you're not as bright or knowledgeable as you think. I've avoided saying that because it seemed unnecessarily insulting - but I think you need to hear it in the interest of avoiding the flame wars that seem to pop up all around you. Try listening more and talking about your "qualifications" less.

pj
chgo

 

[dr_dave]

Also can you explain why the same shaft can get different results when put on different butts of the exact same weight?

I have never seen convincing evidence for this effect from careful testing (with other variables controlled). Now, with tests that are not done carefully, butt weight can have an effect. For more info, see the 2nd bullet and other info on the squirt robot testing resource page.

Do you have some data or links to data or video demonstrations that prove your "theory?" If there are differences in results with butt changes, I am sure there are logical explanations that don't violate the laws of physics (or common sense).

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Others have told you you're not as bright or knowledgeable as you think. I've avoided saying that because it seemed unnecessarily insulting - but I think you need to hear it in the interest of avoiding the flame wars that seem to pop up all around you. Try listening more and talking about your "qualifications" less.

English! (Rick), I also often hold myself back in trying to not be insulting to you; because, sometimes, you honestly deserve it. You seem to have a unique ability to bring out the worst in people in every thread you enter, and you don't seem to know when to stop (which is often very annoying to those of us who enjoy participating in productive threads). I hope you will reconsider how you "communicate" on the forum and try to be more mature and less confrontational, especially when you are disagreeing with well-established facts and when you are presenting your unconventional "opinions" and "theories" in authoritative ways when you have no real proof or convincing arguments to back up your claims.

I am only trying to help. I hope you realize this.

Regards,
Dave

 

[ceebee]

Ceebee,

Is your friend trying to build a machine that will predict the potential squirt that a dowel will produce when made into a shaft?

In a manner of speaking... yes. But he is also wanting to learn about cue shafts in the already made world. Rotating a shaft gives different readings, at different radians... which may say, "that is the attitude the cue should be in when using side spin" or ????

 

[xplor]

Squirt depends on the moisture content of the cue.

 

[dr_dave]

In a manner of speaking... yes. But he is also wanting to learn about cue shafts in the already made world. Rotating a shaft gives different readings, at different radians... which may say, "that is the attitude the cue should be in when using side spin" or ????

FYI, I've done careful testing with a flat-laminate shaft (that supposedly has "directional properties"), and found no differences in cue ball deflection for different cue orientations. For more info, see Diagram 3 (and the surrounding discussion) in the myth-busting article: "Squirt - Part VII: cue test machine results" (BD, February, 2008).

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

FYI, I've done careful testing with a flat-laminate shaft (that supposedly has "directional properties"), and found no differences in cue ball deflection for different cue orientations. For more info, see Diagram 3 (and the surrounding discussion) in the myth-busting article: "Squirt - Part VII: cue test machine results" (BD, February, 2008).

Enjoy,
Dave

Having said this, creating radical change in shaft stiffness (e.g., by using a composite material like carbon fiber in combination with or instead of wood) can affect cue ball deflection (and other things). For more info, see the 2nd paragraph on the endmass/stiffness effects resource page.

Enjoy,
Dave

 

[ceebee]

Having said this, creating radical change in shaft stiffness (e.g., by using a composite material like carbon fiber in combination with or instead of wood) can affect cue ball deflection (and other things). For more info, see the 2nd paragraph on the endmass/stiffness effects resource page.

Enjoy,
Dave

That statement baffles me... I would have thought the flat-lam shafts would be directional, where the radial lams would be a bit more consistent.

 

[Cornerman]

That statement baffles me... I would have thought the flat-lam shafts would be directional, where the radial lams would be a bit more consistent.

From a mechanical collision standpoint, there is no parameter that represents "stiffness." The direction of the resultant vectors are based on the masses involved in the collision (standard conservation of momentum) For all intents and purposes, the only parameters to calculate mass for the cuestick involved in the sideways collision are:

time of tip/ball contact
speed of transverse wave propagation


The tip/ball contact is so short that the idea of "stiffness" doesn't even come into play, unless you change the materials significantly ( a material so stiff that it doesn't move away from the tip/ball contact, thereby increasing tip/ball contact time and overall length of shaft involved in the collision). That's not what happens in a "bi-directional" shaft of wood.

 

[ENGLISH!]

One should say what's known:

- The only factor we know is significant for the amount of squirt is end mass.

- Tests with different amounts of shaft stiffness have not supported the idea that stiffness is a significant factor for squirt.

That's what has been said - not the strawmen you want to argue with.

Others have told you you're not as bright or knowledgeable as you think. I've avoided saying that because it seemed unnecessarily insulting - but I think you need to hear it in the interest of avoiding the flame wars that seem to pop up all around you. Try listening more and talking about your "qualifications" less.

pj
chgo

Thanks, that was rather civil even if still insulting in nature. I wish we could remain in that realm.

There is that word again that rather often come up & is used in these types of discussions, 'significant' or 'insignificant' or not 'significant'.

Those words are of a relative nature. What is insignificant to one may very well be significant to another. Who is to say what is significant & what is not.

BUT... just the words themselves implies that there was/is a difference, even if the conjecture of one or more individuals decides that it is insignificant.

So... if there is a difference then more study should perhaps be done to see if there is a way to harness & perhaps increase that small supposedly insignificant difference to a level where anyone might consider it significant.

I understand what the conjecture has been from the tests, despite what a few keep saying.

I am just open minded enough to not rule out other contributing factors just because one factor has been confirmed.

AND... I am not going to tell anyone else that they are dead wrong because they have a thoughtful supposition like bdoorman did.

 

[Neil]

Squirt depends on the moisture content of the cue.

You sure it's that and not how many times it's stroked?

 

[ENGLISH!]

I have never seen convincing evidence for this effect from careful testing (with other variables controlled). Now, with tests that are not done carefully, butt weight can have an effect. For more info, see the 2nd bullet and other info on the squirt robot testing resource page.

Do you have some data or links to data or video demonstrations that prove your "theory?" If there are differences in results with butt changes, I am sure there are logical explanations that don't violate the laws of physics (or common sense).

Regards,
Dave

If I am looking at the right bullet point it seems you are referring to table conditions & are explaining that they should be taken into consideration. If I am in the wrong bullet points could you please redirect me.

I certainly agree that any difference would be explainable in the realm of physics & am not talking about or suggesting voodoo or mysticism.

I do not have any conclusive tests or experiments to refer to but I am referring to Bob Meucci's comparisons for his Black dot shafts.

There may have been a lack of complete control as this was not the subject of his comparisons, but I doubt that he made a separate shaft for each butt that would accommodate the joint of a shaft already made up.

So... yes it is suspect as to the results as that was not the focus but it was suggestive & hence should probably be studied to either confirm or deny.

That to my knowledge has not be done & I realize that getting two butts to be exact in weight & distribution of weight would be difficult without other parameters coming into play.

Mr. Meucci went on to manufacture what he calls his Power Piston series of cues & the term refers to the butts.

 

[SilverCue]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson View Post
Others have told you you're not as bright or knowledgeable as you think. I've avoided saying that because it seemed unnecessarily insulting - but I think you need to hear it in the interest of avoiding the flame wars that seem to pop up all around you. Try listening more and talking about your "qualifications" less.
English! (Rick), I also often hold myself back in trying to not be insulting to you; because, sometimes, you honestly deserve it. You seem to have a unique ability to bring out the worst in people in every thread you enter, and you don't seem to know when to stop (which is often very annoying to those of us who enjoy participating in productive threads). I hope you will reconsider how you "communicate" on the forum and try to be more mature and less confrontational, especially when you are disagreeing with well-established facts and when you are presenting your unconventional "opinions" and "theories" in authoritative ways when you have no real proof or convincing arguments to back up your claims.

I am only trying to help. I hope you realize this.

Regards,
Dave

Dr Dave, I didn't see anything Rick posted in this thread deserving of PJ's criticism then you add to it, very non professional.

Not sure of Rick's history with you two but why attack him when he's just expressing his opinion even if it's different than yours.

This place acts like congress at it worst.

Thanks for your attention.
Al

 

[ENGLISH!]

English! (Rick), I also often hold myself back in trying to not be insulting to you; because, sometimes, you honestly deserve it. You seem to have a unique ability to bring out the worst in people in every thread you enter, and you don't seem to know when to stop (which is often very annoying to those of us who enjoy participating in productive threads). I hope you will reconsider how you "communicate" on the forum and try to be more mature and less confrontational, especially when you are disagreeing with well-established facts and when you are presenting your unconventional "opinions" and "theories" in authoritative ways when you have no real proof or convincing arguments to back up your claims.

I am only trying to help. I hope you realize this.

Regards,
Dave

Thanks Dave.

Can you be more specific.

How have I authoritatively presented anything?

I think all I have done is tried to foster keeping an open mind by pointing out that science is an ongoing study & all of the tests that could be done in certain areas have not been done. Hence one should keep an open mind.

I'd like to ask you another question. Would you not agree that just because a test confirms that one aspect IS a contributing factor that that test does not rule out the possibility that there are or could be other contributing factors?

Thanks Again.

Regards,
Rick

 

[ENGLISH!]

In a manner of speaking... yes. But he is also wanting to learn about cue shafts in the already made world. Rotating a shaft gives different readings, at different radians... which may say, "that is the attitude the cue should be in when using side spin" or ????

That was/is the premise of Mr. Muicci's red dot shaft that marked the spine or is it the spline of the shaft.

He then went on to manufacture the black dot shaft which a flat laminated shaft.

He now has a shaft that he calls the last shaft you will ever need, the Ultimate Weapon.

The early Meucci Shafts had very long tapers for some obvious reasons given that they were 'designed' & manufacture by Mr. Meucci. I never really like them as I had come from a conical European type taper.

I'm glad to see that someone is still looking into it.

I wish your friend Good Luck.

 

[ENGLISH!]

FYI, I've done careful testing with a flat-laminate shaft (that supposedly has "directional properties"), and found no differences in cue ball deflection for different cue orientations. For more info, see Diagram 3 (and the surrounding discussion) in the myth-busting article: "Squirt - Part VII: cue test machine results" (BD, February, 2008).

Enjoy,
Dave

Dave,

Are there not variances, though small, in the squirt angles for the Meucci flat laminated shaft that almost directly correlate to the Myth chart if the charts are adjusted laterally?

Regards,
Rick

 

[Colin Colenso]

Dr Dave, I didn't see anything Rick posted in this thread deserving of PJ's criticism then you add to it, very non professional.

Not sure of Rick's history with you two but why attack him when he's just expressing his opinion even if it's different than yours.

This place acts like congress at it worst.

Thanks for your attention.
Al

I suspect that's because neither you or Rick actually read the experimental information Dr. Dave posted, upon which hundreds of hours of testing and perhaps thousands of hours of thought, from various individuals combined to get to the state of knowledge so far available.

But those with some new vague concept, based upon some marketing hype, ought to be given a free pass for mocking individuals who have spent time studying and testing such things. Doing so without providing links, evidence or substantial arguments.

Perhaps if you read the content of those links, spent the time to comprehend it and tested some of it, you'd develop a tendency to try to lead someone down the right path, at the risk of seeming undemocratic.

Colin

 

[Colin Colenso]

Dave,

Are there not variances, though small, in the squirt angles for the Meucci flat laminated shaft that almost directly correlate to the Myth chart if the charts are adjusted laterally?

Regards,
Rick

It's called having a vested interest Rick. I believe his squirt results are unreliable. The idea that butt weight or type or anisotropic shaft properties have any significant effect on squirt has been proven to be incorrect. Dr. Dave provided resources to this, I suggest you spend time checking out all the tests and arguments included in those resources.

Colin

 

[SilverCue]

I suspect that's because neither you or Rick actually read the experimental information Dr. Dave posted, upon which hundreds of hours of testing and perhaps thousands of hours of thought, from various individuals combined to get to the state of knowledge so far available.

But those with some new vague concept, based upon some marketing hype, ought to be given a free pass for mocking individuals who have spent time studying and testing such things. Doing so without providing links, evidence or substantial arguments.

Perhaps if you read the content of those links, spent the time to comprehend it and tested some of it, you'd develop a tendency to try to lead someone down the right path, at the risk of seeming undemocratic.

Colin

Dear Colin,

I respect Dr Dave's knowledge, I have 4 of his DVD sets and I read his web pages.

I'm sorry but I haven't seen anything Rick posted in this thread that deserves the responses from PJ or Dr Dave.

 

[ENGLISH!]

Dr Dave, I didn't see anything Rick posted in this thread deserving of PJ's criticism then you add to it, very non professional.

Not sure of Rick's history with you two but why attack him when he's just expressing his opinion even if it's different than yours.

This place acts like congress at it worst.

Thanks for your attention.
Al

Thanks Al. But as I suggested you are butting your head up against a brick wall.

I upon another occasion tried to come to the defense of another member by trying to point out that what he was saying was reasonable. I & then he shortly later received a banned.

Then Dr. Dave reassessed what that member was saying & lowered his prices. Dave later thanked him for being the inspiration of that action, after we both had already received the bans.

I'm not criticizing Dave as is not always easy to receive what another considers to be constructive criticism. I am just trying to point out to you the potential hazards of trying to defend another member.

Thanks Again.