English on the break
- Thread starter SloRoller
- Start date
- Status
Patrick Johnson said:
This is what he posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by klockdoc
...
Do you figure a "level cue" is one where the baseline of the cue is level, or, the centerline of the cue?...
Jewett
I think the axis of the cue (or centerline) is the start, but even that may not be quite right. I think for the cue to be "level," it must not shoot the ball down into the cloth, and if you use follow with the axis perfectly level, the cue ball will be "squirted" into the cloth.
Jewett
I think I can answer this one. Essentially all shots are hit with some elevation. A level stick would require the center of the bumper to be at the same height as the center of the tip at tip-to-ball contact. That doesn't happen except on contrived shots. It is possible to contrive a shot with negative elevation, but not with a normal grip.
Not according to Bob's own words. He said that in the first foot or so that the shaft is "nearly" cylindrical. "Nearly" does not equate to paralell in science.
As he pointed out, to be level in terms of his centerline definition, the shaft must be RAISED off a flat surface so that the center of the tip would be at an equal height with the center of the bumper.
There is only ONE centerline and it does not curve. Rather it is paralell to the surfaces of the cone.
But it is because the centerline of the pro taper part is NEARLY parallel to a flat surface that I contend that there is little of any FUNCTIONAL difference in the outcome of a pool shot when struck with a cue, the bottom surface of which, is level vs. striking the cb with a level centerline.
Regards,
Jim
I'm still skeptical, but I'll look at some Olhausens before commenting further.
pj
chgo[/QUOTE]
"As level as possible" isn't level enough to avoid swerve, and you can't avoid squirt by hitting slowly. You must be seeing these two effects cancel each other out.
pj
chgo
Nothing in that quote says what you think Bob said. How about pointing out the specific part that you think says that and explain how you think it does?
The centerline of a cone is not parallel to its surfaces. Not to criticize, but with this sort of difficulty visualizing geometry, it's not surprising that you have so much trouble in this kind of discussion.
I agree with this. I don't think there was ever any dispute about it. Maybe you misunderstood somebody again?
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
1. Do you think that perceptable swerve is created when cueing on the horizontal centerline of the CB with a nearly level cue?
2. In slightly different terms, if you think that 100% of the squirt deflection occurs at any speed, do you think that what swerve might be imparted by a nearly level cue striking the CB on its horizontal centerline would produce sufficient swerve to offset squirt?
Regards,
Jim
EDIT: I believe that you have already answered the above in an earlier post in which you stated.
That is not correct according to Koehler in Science of Pocket Billiards. I am not located where the book is at the moment but will provide a page citation later. However, he wrote something to the effect that...in spite of popular mythology to the contrary, swerve does not result from side spin on a level stroke as you suggested is the case. He offers up the following experiment. Spin a CB with your fingers to simulate significant side spin and roll it onto the table. Then note that the ball travels a straight line path and not a cureved path as it rolls forward.
It is also not correct according to Robert Byrne who writes:
"SWERVE
A third factor that makes it harder to pocket balls when English is used is swerve. Unless the cue is exactly level, English will make the cueball's path bend slightly."
http://www.byrne.org/pool/tips/01-1999.html
Can you cite an authority to the contrary?
Regards,
Jim
Last edited:
Patrick Johnson said:
I may but for the sake of brevity, I may not since the text of the comments speaks for itself.
The centerline of a cone is not parallel to its surfaces. Not to criticize, but with this sort of difficulty visualizing geometry, it's not surprising that you have so much trouble in this kind of discussion.
You are correct. My bad. I meant to write "equidistant" from the surfaces, not parallel. But as you know, the choice of words was meaningless to the POINT of the post which was that for the centerline of the cue to be parallel with a flat surface, the tip must be raised. Do you agree with that and if so, wouldn't you also agree that you were being picky by suggesting that I cannot visualize geometry?
For brevity, I will comment on the above in a separate post, but in fact, you disputed the remark...and I will refrain from suggesting whether you misunderstand posts with any greater or lesser frequency than I might. But I will state that the cause of misunderstanings frequently is a function of the communication skills of the author of a premise.
Last edited:
Patrick...
Your following comment was in response to my post to CaptainJR.
"As level as possible" isn't level enough to avoid swerve, and you can't avoid squirt by hitting slowly. You must be seeing these two effects cancel each other out."
But in another post I stated...
Quote: Me
I contend that there is little of any FUNCTIONAL difference in the outcome of a pool shot when struck with a cue, the bottom surface of which, is level vs. striking the cb with a level centerline.
To which you responded...
You
"I agree with this. I don't think there was ever any dispute about it. Maybe you misunderstood somebody again?"
So, how do you reconcile your above comments? In one comment you agree with me that there is no functional difference in the outcome of shots struck with a nearly level vs. an ACTUALLY level cue.
But in your other comment you state that a nearly level cue, in fact, imparts swerve...to such an extent that it might have offset squirt...which would have to be a goodly amount of swerve.
Those two statements are fundamentally contradictory and therefore, inaccurate as was was your statement that a level cue can impart swerve...at least inaccurate according to Koehler and Byrne whose statements you may not have read or may have misunderstood if you did.
Regards,
Jim
Your following comment was in response to my post to CaptainJR.
"As level as possible" isn't level enough to avoid swerve, and you can't avoid squirt by hitting slowly. You must be seeing these two effects cancel each other out."
But in another post I stated...
Quote: Me
I contend that there is little of any FUNCTIONAL difference in the outcome of a pool shot when struck with a cue, the bottom surface of which, is level vs. striking the cb with a level centerline.
To which you responded...
You
"I agree with this. I don't think there was ever any dispute about it. Maybe you misunderstood somebody again?"
So, how do you reconcile your above comments? In one comment you agree with me that there is no functional difference in the outcome of shots struck with a nearly level vs. an ACTUALLY level cue.
But in your other comment you state that a nearly level cue, in fact, imparts swerve...to such an extent that it might have offset squirt...which would have to be a goodly amount of swerve.
Those two statements are fundamentally contradictory and therefore, inaccurate as was was your statement that a level cue can impart swerve...at least inaccurate according to Koehler and Byrne whose statements you may not have read or may have misunderstood if you did.
Regards,
Jim
Probably not easily visible.
Probably not, but it doesn't matter to my opinion of your claim. If you can hit a sidespin shot without squirt, then you've disproved Newton's Third Law of Motion (the one about equal and opposite reactions), and I'll call the Nobel Committee.
Sorry to be the one to tell you, Jim, but you've misunderstood again. Bob and I were talking about the effect of "downward squirt", a relatively unknown effect that we've talked about on RSB but may not even have occurred to Koehler and Byrne at the time of their writing. In other words, they're not denying it by not mentioning it.
It's pretty certain that downward (and upward) squirt force occurs, caused by hitting high (or low) on the CB. And so it's pretty certain that "at least some" swerve is produced by this force on sidespin shots, but I don't know if it's significant - maybe Bob has a guess. If I were to guess I'd say that the swerve produced by downward squirt is probably significant sometimes and the swerve produced by upward squirt probably isn't.
pj
chgo
Last edited:
Av84 and Patrick you guys are both way more knowledgeble than most about pool. Certainly in the top 1% and more knowledgeable than me. I think you should both appreciate each other as pool enthusiasts and passionate debaters and accept that you both aren't always going to be precisely perfect about everything you say or type and that is quite alright.
Thanks for the post though. I have certainly learned something.
Thanks for the post though. I have certainly learned something.
Bob Jewett,
I remember reading in one of Robert Byrne's books How he was struggling with hitting a shot where the object ball is frozen to the cushion about a diamond from the corner pocket and the cue ball is frozen to the same cushion about 2-3 feet away and trying to hit with high outside english cheating the pocket and getting the cue ball to go two rails to the opposite cushion it started from. He couldn't make it work until he called you and you said on a 9 foot table to try holding the butt of the stick near the cloth and hit more up at it and it worked for Byrne and worked for me!
It took an unconventional grip on the butt but I got the hang of it. Do you remember that? That was awesome! (Chris Farley show)
Anyway, I know this isn't exactly what this post has been about but it reminded me of it.
I remember reading in one of Robert Byrne's books How he was struggling with hitting a shot where the object ball is frozen to the cushion about a diamond from the corner pocket and the cue ball is frozen to the same cushion about 2-3 feet away and trying to hit with high outside english cheating the pocket and getting the cue ball to go two rails to the opposite cushion it started from. He couldn't make it work until he called you and you said on a 9 foot table to try holding the butt of the stick near the cloth and hit more up at it and it worked for Byrne and worked for me!
It took an unconventional grip on the butt but I got the hang of it. Do you remember that? That was awesome! (Chris Farley show)
Anyway, I know this isn't exactly what this post has been about but it reminded me of it.
Yes, but I'm not sure I was the one who told him about the shot.Luxury said:
Patrick Johnson said:
But earlier you stated:
"Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson
"As level as possible" isn't level enough to avoid swerve, and you can't avoid squirt by hitting slowly. You must be seeing these two effects cancel each other out."
So, swerve sufficient to cancel out squirt would be readily visible. So, to be sure that I comprehend you correctly, are you stating that your first above quote was incorrect?
But again, you have reversed your original view wouldn't you agree?
No, not at all Patrick. A more careful reading of my commentss included the phrase FUNCTIONAL difference...and if I recall, "visible". So, no need to call the Nobel Committee...although note should be taken of the flippant attitude imbedded in that remark...as well as the fact that I have not elected to respond in kind.
I am not interested in any prizes for physics and suggest that there are some who fall victim to "paralysis by analysis." I care about playing pool and don't trouble myself with immaterial, non-functional matters.
So, with functionality in mind I just completed the following experiment and I suggest that anyone else who cares about what MATTERS might do the same thing.
1. I placed two OBs on the head rail, seperated by the width of 2 3/4 inches to create a gap = to 1/4 inches on either side of a ball shot between them.
2. I placed the 9 ball at table center with its stripe oriented vertically so as to define the outer limit of recommended side english.
3. While holding the cue as level as possible, I struck the 9 ball such that the center of the tip impacted the right edge of the stripe to approximate near-maximum right side english.
5. I shot softly but hard enough to send the 9 ball to the end rail and back 1 diamond +/-.
On 3 successive attempts, I was able to hit the head rail without touching the balls. Therefore, if there was any functional squirt it was offset by swerve..that neither I, nor Byrne, nor Koehler believe exists on level shots.
But not satisfied with wondering if there was any material amount of squirt offset by any swerve...real or imagined, I proceded as follows.
1. I placed two cue sticks on the table with their inner surfaces seperated by 2 1/2 inches. Of course, a pool ball is 2 1/4 inches, so the margin of error was 1/8 inch on either side.
Then I struck the cb as explained above. My goal was to see if there was, in fact, any appreciable amount of squirt.
Frankly, it was something of a challenge to aim the shot so precisely that the cb was sent EXACTLY down the centerline path between the cues and on the first 2 tries the cb did contact the edge of the cues...BUT contact was made first on the left cue and second, on the right, therefore not confirming or denying the existence of material squirt...only the difficulty of aiming down such a narrow channel.
On the 3rd attempt, the cb progressed all the way down the full path between the cues i.e. 58 inches without touching either one.
Finally, a shot with a center ball hit in order to rule out table drift on such a show shot and again, the ball travelled the full 58 inches without making contact with either cue.
If you wish to critique my methodology...or possibly even compliment it, please do so.
Barring any method errors, it appears clear that at very soft speeds, there is no MATERIAL squirt or swerve. I therefore conclude, that any suggestion that squirt caused by a GIVEN tip offset, does NOT vary with the speed of the shot is badly mistaken.
However, I suppose that there is SOME threshold speed at and above which squirt does not vary, but I do not have the equipment (or the interest) in testing that.
Nice try Patrick...but no cigar. If you will re-read my questions more carefully, you will see that they inquired about your assertions re: the existence SWERVE...not SQUIRT...and in fact, I gave you the existence of squirt as a GIVEN.
THERE you go! And MANY would agree that insignificant variables are worthless to discuss and that presenting mere speculations as anything other than speculations is not useful at best and counter-productive at worst.
With all due respect, I am not interested in your guesswork. But you are on record as stating the following:
Originally Posted by Patrick Johnson
"As level as possible" isn't level enough to avoid swerve, and you can't avoid squirt by hitting slowly. You must be seeing these two effects cancel each other out."
A. I assume that you would not knowingly make a point that had no material significance so the first half of the sentence above must be taken to mean you thought that the swerve caused by an off center hit with a nearly level cue was, in fact, material...so material, in fact, that you speculated that swerve was sufficient to offset the significant amount of squirt induced by an off-center break shot. But you can cite no authority on that statement.
B. With respect to the second half of your sentence, my experiment shows that you are wrong. Ooops...just thought of another experiment...hold on a minute...
OK...you'll love this.
1. Freeze a cb in between 2 ob's directly in front of a side pocket.
2. Now move the ob's as SLIGHTLY as you possibly can away from the ob. You should be able to achieve a gap no more than 1/32.
3. Now move the cb away from the pocket so its center is further from the pocket that the ob's are...so that the cb must pass through the gap.
4. Now very softly tap the cb with maximum side at the horizontal center and you will see that a child could shoot the shot without touching the ob's. Therefore, if there was any squirt at that speed, it was less than 1/32 of an inch. But wait...there's MORE.
5. Now, set the shot up again but this time shoot with as much power as you can without injuring yourself and you will see that the shot CANNOT be made without disturbing the balls...both of them due to kiss.
Therefore, the notion that squirt does not vary from ANY one speed to another is facially incorrect.
Regards,
Jim
pj
chgo[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
Patrick, I notice that you replied to my post #129 but did not reply to #125 so I assume you missed. I have copied it below and would be interested in your comments.
Patrick...
Your following comment was in response to my post to CaptainJR.
"As level as possible" isn't level enough to avoid swerve, and you can't avoid squirt by hitting slowly. You must be seeing these two effects cancel each other out."
But in another post I stated...
Quote: Me
I contend that there is little of any FUNCTIONAL difference in the outcome of a pool shot when struck with a cue, the bottom surface of which, is level vs. striking the cb with a level centerline.
To which you responded...
You
"I agree with this. I don't think there was ever any dispute about it. Maybe you misunderstood somebody again?"
So, how do you reconcile your above comments? In one comment you agree with me that there is no functional difference in the outcome of shots struck with a nearly level vs. an ACTUALLY level cue.
But in your other comment you state that a nearly level cue, in fact, imparts swerve...to such an extent that it might have offset squirt...which would have to be a goodly amount of swerve.
Those two statements are fundamentally contradictory and therefore, inaccurate as was was your statement that a level cue can impart swerve...at least inaccurate according to Koehler and Byrne whose statements you may not have read or may have misunderstood if you did.
Regards,
Jim
Patrick...
Your following comment was in response to my post to CaptainJR.
"As level as possible" isn't level enough to avoid swerve, and you can't avoid squirt by hitting slowly. You must be seeing these two effects cancel each other out."
But in another post I stated...
Quote: Me
I contend that there is little of any FUNCTIONAL difference in the outcome of a pool shot when struck with a cue, the bottom surface of which, is level vs. striking the cb with a level centerline.
To which you responded...
You
"I agree with this. I don't think there was ever any dispute about it. Maybe you misunderstood somebody again?"
So, how do you reconcile your above comments? In one comment you agree with me that there is no functional difference in the outcome of shots struck with a nearly level vs. an ACTUALLY level cue.
But in your other comment you state that a nearly level cue, in fact, imparts swerve...to such an extent that it might have offset squirt...which would have to be a goodly amount of swerve.
Those two statements are fundamentally contradictory and therefore, inaccurate as was was your statement that a level cue can impart swerve...at least inaccurate according to Koehler and Byrne whose statements you may not have read or may have misunderstood if you did.
Regards,
Jim
Last edited:
No, I'm stating that you didn't see what you thought you did.
You're apparently interested enough to spend a couple hundred words trying to rebut it. Sorry, but I'm not interested in reading that much rambling.
pj
chgo
Get used to it. I'm interested in pool discussion, not incoherent drama.
pj
chgo
Patrick Johnson said:
No, that is not what you stated. You stated:
""As level as possible" isn't level enough to avoid swerve, and you can't avoid squirt by hitting slowly. You must be seeing these two effects cancel each other out.
But, of course, you are free to change your mind.
Or, possibly, you are not interested in attempting to defend the indefensible.
And I note that I have not referred to your recent very long posts as "rambling."
Jim
- Status