(FAQ) How do you use the tangent line?

Tony_in_MD said:
So I guess you won't be getting a Bob Ross oil painting for Christmas?

Do you have anything against the Dogs playing Cards? That is one of my favorites.

:D
Click to expand...

You tried to make a point with the Bob Ross comment.

I put a flash light on the fact that he made virtually no money from his actual paintings.

You guys try to do it 'all' of the time with misleading & non factual suggestions & implications.

He was what he was, but he has no paintings hanging 'anywhere' other than PBS stations where he donated them.

One would not mention him even in the same conversation with Leroy Neiman or Savador Dali.

He made a very excellent living & made multiple millions of dollars selling art supplies & 'How To' instructional videos.

When one can not do... one instructs 'How To' or at least that is what some say.

Best Wishes for ALL.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
The difference is that the force is from a rotational nature of the axis at the center of the sphere vs a pushing at or near the top edge.

It's not apples to apples & the 'experiment' was looking for immediate top spin at that precise location.

I think most know that the ball leaves the surface of the table & does NOT stay in contact with it the entire length of travel.

As I said, I see some confirmation bias in the initial set up.

All the Best.
Click to expand...

I see that you were talking about overspin in your last post. (Thought you were taking about spin/speed ratio stuff)

So are you saying that a skipping cue ball (with max top spin) slows down on each skip, stops on each skip, or travels backwards for each skip. Or I guess, one of the skips, without touching an object ball.

So a skipping cue ball with draw does so even more then right? Based on what you are saying and that the English is taking effect (enough to be noticeable by the naked eye) even though the cue ball is skipping, that a draw shot with a skipping cue ball is would so as well and even more.

So do you submit that this effect is only achievable with a skipping cue ball? That over spin is possible and an every day occurrence none of us knew about? Or is this a criticism of the experiment itself? If its the latter, what would a better experiment look like?
 
ENGLISH! said:
If I were to tell a player to hit it with enough rolling force that it garners collision induced slippage & over spin upon the collision with the object ball, I think you can envision the looks that I would be getting.
Click to expand...


My opinion is that when one decides to be technical about something then they have to be technically right. When you started trying to draw some technical distinctions is where it sounded to me like you were mistaken unless I was misunderstanding you which is why I asked for clarification.

ENGLISH! said:
PS At what speed of inches per second would one have to hit a rolling ball so it would NOT garner any CIO... or better yet at what such speed would be required so that is has just the right amount of CIO or lack thereof so that it comes out of the collision at that 30* angle?
Click to expand...

The answer would vary depending on the condition of cloth, condition of balls, exact fullness of hit, the percentage of natural roll the cue ball had (if it were anything less than full natural roll), etc. Perhaps someone will want to give some general approximate answers.

What I would say is that if the cue ball went forward of the tangent line then some "collision induced overspin" occurred even if it was only the slightest amount (I would definitely defer to Dr. Dave or Bob Jewett if they say differently).

In regards to when the cue ball leaves the object ball at the roughly 30 degree angle on roughly half ball hits I would say what has already been covered in this thread which is that technically the cue ball first follows the tangent line for the tiniest time/distance before taking the 30 degree line even at the slowest speeds, but for all practical purposes at the slowest speeds you can treat it as it being immediate, and the faster the cue ball is moving the further the cue ball will follow the tangent line before taking the 30 degree line and is something that you use your experience to help you judge. And again, lots of variables have varying degrees of effect on precisely what happens.
 
Maybe you should watch some of his reruns, it might put you in a better mood.

Happy little trees......


Edit....BTW he did make enough money selling his paintings to quit the Airforce at a Master Sargent level of pay. Now I don't know what that is, but I do respect anyone that can make a living doing what they love.

ENGLISH! said:
You tried to make a point with the Bob Ross comment.

I put a flash light on the fact that he made virtually no money from his actual paintings.

You guys try to do it 'all' of the time with misleading & non factual suggestions & implications.

He was what he was, but he has no paintings hanging 'anywhere' other than PBS stations where he donated them.

One would not mention him even in the same conversation with Leroy Neiman or Savador Dali.

When one can not do... one teaches. He made a very excellent living & made multiple millions of dollars selling art supplies & 'How To' instructional videos.

Best Wishes for ALL.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
You tried to make a point with the Bob Ross comment.

I put a flash light on the fact that he made virtually no money from his actual paintings.

You guys try to do it 'all' of the time with misleading & non factual suggestions & implications.

He was what he was, but he has no paintings hanging 'anywhere' other than PBS stations where he donated them.

One would not mention him even in the same conversation with Leroy Neiman or Savador Dali.

He made a very excellent living & made multiple millions of dollars selling art supplies & 'How To' instructional videos. When one can not do... one instructs 'How To'.

Best Wishes for ALL.
Click to expand...

But to a layman his paintings are pretty and anyone who can produce something similar is at the very least, better than a majority. Slap another artists name in the corner and would the result be different? Probably. Also, plenty of street artists make a living off of similar formulas and concepts. We can talk fine art all day, I have seen most pieces that people dream about seeing. Monet is my favorite just for reference. Edgar Degas being a close second. A Degas or Monet cannot be manufactured, but a decent artist in the eyes of the masses, can.

I'm one of the worst artists you'll ever meet. Taken classes at different points and everything. A duck can't be made into a Moose but he can be taught to act like one.
 
Drop The Rock said:
I see that you were talking about overspin in your last post. (Thought you were taking about spin/speed ratio stuff)

So are you saying that a skipping cue ball (with max top spin) slows down on each skip, stops on each skip, or travels backwards for each skip. Or I guess, one of the skips, without touching an object ball.

So a skipping cue ball with draw does so even more then right? Based on what you are saying and that the English is taking effect (enough to be noticeable by the naked eye) even though the cue ball is skipping, that a draw shot with a skipping cue ball is would so as well and even more.

So do you submit that this effect is only achievable with a skipping cue ball? That over spin is possible and an every day occurrence none of us knew about? Or is this a criticism of the experiment itself? If its the latter, what would a better experiment look like?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but there is lot there that am not sure about what you are saying or asking.


My point was that like PoolPlay9 says above there are many factors/parameters that come into play.

If one relies on some of these 'rules of thumb' (or thumb & index finger) without either understanding exactly what IS going on OR 'knows' from experience what will happen, one can & might get into some trouble & mess up perhaps even on a regular basis & then be placing the blame on the wrong thing...themselves in the wrong manner.

If you want to ask what you intended in a more singular or concise manner, I'll give you my take, or others can advise you.

All Best Wishes for YOU & YOURS... & All.
 
Tony_in_MD said:
Maybe you should watch some of his reruns, it might put you in a better mood.

Happy little trees......


Edit....BTW he did make enough money selling his paintings to quit the Airforce at a Master Sargent level of pay. Now I don't know what that is, but I do respect anyone that can make a living doing what they love.
Click to expand...

No problem or issue with that & I totally agree with the last part of your last statement.

He actually 'stole' the idea for his show after seeing one like it overseas & yes he did sell some of his early paintings & that is why I put some of what I said in single quotes.

All Best Wishes for ALL.
 
ENGLISH! said:
I'm sorry, but there is lot there that am not sure about what you are saying or asking.


My point was that like PoolPlay9 says above there are many factors/parameters that come into play.

If one relies on some of these 'rules of thumb' (or thumb & index finger) without either understanding exactly what IS going on OR 'knows' from experience what will happen, one can & might get into some trouble & mess up perhaps even on a regular basis & then be placing the blame on the wrong thing...themselves in the wrong manner.

If you want to ask what you intended in a more singular or concise manner, I'll give you my take, or others can advise you.

All Best Wishes for YOU & YOURS... & All.
Click to expand...

OVERSPIN

A) Possible in any condition
B) Possible only when the cueball is skipping
C) Possible only after collision with an object ball.

If A) or B) Overspin must then be possible with draw in which case the cue ball travels backwards at some point without contacting any object ball. Normal stroke obviously, no masse. So is that why I miscue when trying to throw my whole arm at the er? :rolleyes:


Still waiting on a response about my mediocre stroke.
 
Drop The Rock said:
But to a layman his paintings are pretty and anyone who can produce something similar is at the very least, better than a majority. Slap another artists name in the corner and would the result be different? Probably. Also, plenty of street artists make a living off of similar formulas and concepts. We can talk fine art all day, I have seen most pieces that people dream about seeing. Monet is my favorite just for reference. Edgar Degas being a close second. A Degas or Monet cannot be manufactured, but a decent artist in the eyes of the masses, can.

I'm one of the worst artists you'll ever meet. Taken classes at different points and everything. A duck can't be made into a Moose but he can be taught to act like one.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with Bob Ross & I was not putting him or any type of artist down.

My issue was elsewhere.

Best 2 Ya,
Rick
 
Drop The Rock said:
OVERSPIN

A) Possible in any condition
B) Possible only when the cueball is skipping
C) Possible only after collision with an object ball.

If A) or B) Overspin must then be possible with draw in which case the cue ball travels backwards at some point without contacting any object ball. Normal stroke obviously, no masse. So is that why I miscue when trying to throw my whole arm at the er? :rolleyes:


Still waiting on a response about my mediocre stroke.
Click to expand...

I think you need to read & understand what PoolPlaya9 & Dr. Dave say & define as over spin or top spin.

It seems you are using "overspin" in a different manner. It seem you may be referring to it as "overcoming" momentum.

I think I must have missed your mediocre stroke thing. I'll look back.

Best 2 Ya.
 
ENGLISH! said:
I think you need to read & understand what PoolPlaya9 & Dr. Dave say & define as over spin or top spin.

It seems you are using "overspin" in a different manner. It seem you may be referring to it as "overcoming" momentum.

I think I must have missed your mediocre stroke thing. I'll look back.

Best 2 Ya.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to what Mike Page did in his video.
 
Drop The Rock said:
I'm referring to what Mike Page did in his video.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is what PoolPlaya9, Shawn Alexander, Dr, Dave & I have been referring to.

So what is your question.

I pointed out that I think many of us know that the CB does not stay in contact with the cloth.

I think you would have to ask them if they would term a ball spinning in the air as over spin or top spin.

Best to Ya.

PS1 The bottom line is that YOU know what happens after the collision & HOW to make the CB do what YOU want actually happens. It matters not what I, they or you call it all.

PS2 Just listen to Mr. Pages commentary & the language that he actually uses when saying 'spin' vs roll or rotation. I think that is interesting in that he is both a player & trying to be scientific.
 
Last edited:
ENGLISH! said:
The difference is that the force is from a rotational nature of the axis at the center of the sphere vs a pushing at or near the top edge.

It's not apples to apples & the 'experiment' was looking for immediate top spin at that precise location.

I think most know that the ball leaves the surface of the table & does NOT stay in contact with it the entire length of travel.

As I said, I see some confirmation bias in the initial set up.

All the Best.
Click to expand...

I guess I (or Dr. Dave who also tried) just can't make you see that it is actually a good experiment. If you don't understand it there is nothing I can do. It is a real catch 22.

I would like to leave you with this thought in the most respectful manner possible though.
-Dr Dave, Bob Jewett, and Mike Page as particular examples are more intelligent than you, and not by just a little bit either (which goes for most of the rest of us on here too, not just you).
-They are more knowledgeable about physics than you, and not by just a little bit.
-They have more knowledge and experience about confirmation bias and how to construct good experiments than you do, and not by just a little bit.

Sometimes when someone who is substantially more intelligent, knowledgeable and experienced than you disagrees with you it is time to not only consider the possibility that they might be right, but to confront and accept the fact that it is an overwhelming probability that they are right no matter how much you can't see it or understand it. This becomes even more true when there is more than one of them like that that are disagreeing with you.

But first you have to actually believe and realize and accept that there can in fact be people out there who are more intelligent than you and/or more knowledgeable or more experienced than you on a topic, and it doesn't seem to me that you ever believe that anyone is ever more intelligent than you, or ever more knowledgeable or more experienced than you, on anything, ever. I've certainly never seen you defer to anyone else's intelligence, knowledge, or experience on anything even to the slightest extent that I can recall. Just some friendly food for thought.
 
Poolplaya9 said:
I guess I (or Dr. Dave who also tried) just can't make you see that it is actually a good experiment. If you don't understand it there is nothing I can do. It is a real catch 22.

I would like to leave you with this thought in the most respectful manner possible though.
-Dr Dave, Bob Jewett, and Mike Page as particular examples are more intelligent than you, and not by just a little bit either (which goes for most of the rest of us on here too, not just you).
-They are more knowledgeable about physics than you, and not by just a little bit.
-They have more knowledge and experience about confirmation bias and how to construct good experiments than you do, and not by just a little bit.

Sometimes when someone who is substantially more intelligent, knowledgeable and experienced than you disagrees with you it is time to not only consider the possibility that they might be right, but to confront and accept the fact that it is an overwhelming probability that they are right no matter how much you can't see it or understand it. This becomes even more true when there is more than one of them like that that are disagreeing with you.

But first you have to actually believe and realize and accept that there can in fact be people out there who are more intelligent than you and/or more knowledgeable or more experienced than you on a topic, and it doesn't seem to me that you ever believe that anyone is ever more intelligent than you, or ever more knowledgeable or more experienced than you, on anything, ever. I've certainly never seen you defer to anyone else's intelligence, knowledge, or experience on anything even to the slightest extent that I can recall. Just some friendly food for thought.
Click to expand...

Let me give you a piece of friendly information.

You have no idea, not even a clue as to whether any of the individuals you mentioned, nor yourself, is one iota more intelligent than I am... or not.

A vote of 3 to 1 does not make the 3 correct or right. Not even 100 or more to one.

I see more issues in you than I think you see in me.

Individual learned knowledge is not an indication of intelligence.

Does a ball spinning in the air have 'over spin' or 'top spin'...

or is it merely 'rolling' in the air?

All Best Wishes for ALL.

PS I will post again a part of a very recent PM from 30ish aged individual.
 
ENGLISH! said:
Yes, that is what PoolPlaya9, Shawn Alexander, Dr, Dave & I have been referring to.

So what is your question.

I pointed out that I think many of us know that the CB does not stay in contact with the cloth.

I think you would have to ask them if they would term a ball spinning in the air as over spin or top spin.

Best to Ya.

PS1 The bottom line is that YOU know what happens after the collision & HOW to make the CB do what YOU want actually happens. It matters not what I, they or you call it all.

PS2 Just listen to Mr. Pages commentary & the language that he actually uses when saying 'spin' vs roll or rotation. I think that is interesting in that he is both a player & trying to be scientific.
Click to expand...

I don't think you recognize what I am getting it.

Do you agree with Mike Page's experiment and the results he provided/deduced.

Or

Do you disagree with Mike Page's experiment and the results he provided/deduced.

Terms have nothing to do with what I am asking. The question is for HIS definitions, not whether you agree with his definitions or not.

Still waiting on the stroke comment.
 
Drop The Rock said:
I don't think you recognize what I am getting it.

Do you agree with Mike Page's experiment and the results he provided/deduced.

Or

Do you disagree with Mike Page's experiment and the results he provided/deduced.

Terms have nothing to do with what I am asking. The question is for HIS definitions, not whether you agree with his definitions or not.

Still waiting on the stroke comment.
Click to expand...

That's not so easy to answer because of the qualifiers & where he was looking for what he was looking.

I can not find to what you are referring about your stroke.

If you're trying to trap me then you will have to be very specific if you truly want an answer.

Best Wishes for ALL.
 
Drop The Rock said:
You either do or do not.

and

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5548972&postcount=120
Click to expand...

Firstly I was not talking about YOUR stroke in particular & was asking a hypothetical question. You answered it initially & later on in that post.

What kind of mentality is that, to say that if I do not agreed with you then the conversation is over? If I do not worship your pool god then the conversation is over. But that seems to be exactly what very many want here on AZB. Agree with me... or we will bully you into silence or get you banned.

As to the other matter of the 'experiment', you make a statement as to what you think the conclusion is & perhaps I will comment on it.

Best Wishes for ALL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top