People who hit the cue ball exactly where they plan to probably have about an eighth inch further from center they can hit. When you are already halfway out on the curve of the cue ball that isn't anything to sneeze at.
Getting a object ball to follow thru?
- Thread starter alphadog
- Start date
People who hit the cue ball exactly where they plan to probably have about an eighth inch further from center they can hit. When you are already halfway out on the curve of the cue ball that isn't anything to sneeze at.
Let me just say you can't beat physics, but all of the representations of cue balls with the miscue circle drawn on them tell me I hit outside that line often when I'm just messing around. I'm counting on the Digiball to tell me whether or not that is actually true.
It got you some serious juice to experiment with. That's for sure.
How much calibration does that ball require? I like how it showed a diagonal when he dropped it.
You can't beat physics but "physics" is a widely misunderstood and abused thing on AZB. Something as misunderstood as how far out you can hit a cue ball is impossible to define in an equation. The issue is how many unknowns there are. What are the limits of adhesion, the grip, between cue ball and tip? It varies widely, why we use chalk. A factor I rarely if ever see, what are the limits of adhesion between the ball and cloth? The shot that is possible under the hot TV lights in a video has different limits than the shot in the back corner of the room. The cushions react differently too.
I spent some time in R&D. Working in small "skunk works" I had a handful of duties. One was running the test lab which involved setting up how to test what we wanted to know. Often a simple equation could define the main variable but there were many small variables, maybe a dozen or more. With a hard contract, fixed money and a drop dead end date to succeed or fail, the company president pissed away a week of my lab time with something that a half dozen companies had already proven didn't work. The issue was that it worked on paper when you only considered the major factors. AxBxC, but small factors d,e,f,g, etc. over a dozen small parasites made it fail. A lot like perpetual motion, possible if you just look at the main factors but quickly failing due to the small factors.
The folks that want to use physics to make absolute statements about what is possible on a pool table can't answer all the things that come into play so top players of this generation and the old generations defy physics sometimes. They don't really of course, just the physics we try to use to define what they do.
The "magic" cue ball is very interesting. I am very curious about what it can do. I have to admit I am a little skeptical too. Let me know in our private conversation when you get it in hand please.
Hu
Discussions of physics in pool should lead to an understanding of the scale of the variables measured, so that we can find the ones that are negligible in certain situations, simplify, and come to a reasonable approximation.
For top spin, all I think of is that I shouldn’t worry too much about needing to cue at the miscue limit to maximize top. Somewhere above 40% is good enough. The tiny improvement in performance of hitting 55% isn’t worth the risk of a miscue.
A rolling ball caroms around 30 degrees for a half ball hit. Not exactly 30 degrees for all situations, but close enough. The physics showed that we can always be comfortable making this approximation.
The tip is in contact with the cue ball faster than our nervous system can respond, 1ms. The feeling that one can drag the cue ball around during tip contact is just the acoustic vibrational response of the impact after the ball has left. Therefore I shouldn’t concern myself with trying weird strokes and instead just work on accuracy of my tip position.
The point is is to just condense the physics into tiny nuggets of practical advice. It is never to get caught up in it.
For top spin, all I think of is that I shouldn’t worry too much about needing to cue at the miscue limit to maximize top. Somewhere above 40% is good enough. The tiny improvement in performance of hitting 55% isn’t worth the risk of a miscue.
A rolling ball caroms around 30 degrees for a half ball hit. Not exactly 30 degrees for all situations, but close enough. The physics showed that we can always be comfortable making this approximation.
The tip is in contact with the cue ball faster than our nervous system can respond, 1ms. The feeling that one can drag the cue ball around during tip contact is just the acoustic vibrational response of the impact after the ball has left. Therefore I shouldn’t concern myself with trying weird strokes and instead just work on accuracy of my tip position.
The point is is to just condense the physics into tiny nuggets of practical advice. It is never to get caught up in it.
You got it bro.
Thanks for the best explanation of what I was hesitant to say, bcuz as soon as you do, ten guys will immediately cut your Achilles. Right or wrong doesn't enter into it. I know for an absolute fact I can get further out on the CB than most players. Proven it time and again. What I failed to mention was the cloth and conditions as you so eloquently stated.
Fast cloth that doesn't steal all your goodies, is green you can have fun on. New rails, no dampness, oh yeah. Now we're talking. If you can't make a CB climb the rail, run along it and come back down on table, most won't know what we're referring to when physics enters the convo. There'd be no massè shots or simple curved spins if no one could cue outside the proposed miscue circle.
We l
Exactly!! We leave the brain works to you Nate!!
Yes, but only because I don't understand it. I have read through these posts but it's above my pay grade. While I am trying to understand it, I would really like to know how I could use while playing pool.
I am in my 80's and don't have the science education you folks amaze me with. Maybe a slow motion video would. help. An example: Dr Dave's fouette shot video demonstrates perfectly the shot and the actual game use.
billiards_watch
Well-known member
I use to have issues with this when I first learned how to play but not anymore.
My take; sometimes the ball breaks way sharper than normal. It magically defies the tangent line.
Ok, thanks. I know what you mean now. I have seen this many times, but you must have a very good stroke or just happen to hit it right.
ayund, I've only seen Reyes and Aranas on you tube.
It is fun to discuss but the point is to try to understand what is really happening, rather than insist it is and can only be black magic.
I just don’t want people wasting their time on weird stroke advice that is an unnecessary rabbit hole, like deliberate swoop strokes, twists, etc, when accuracy is all you need.
Actually that makes the math convenient but there's mysterious realms the brain draws from and extraneous latency to mess it all up. Jocks find those inflections cooler for one and easy to remember for um, i forgit.
Straight, consistent and level.
No. I mean most wouldn't need to or want to try. There's no good reason for doing it unless you're attempting certain types of shots or spin on the cb that would otherwise be unnecessary. We do it for fun. To see the limits of what can be done with round objects struck by leather on green cloth. Or Lexan in this case.
Gotta keep ourselves entertained, having the attention spans of gnats.No. I mean most wouldn't need to or want to try. There's no good reason for doing it unless you're attempting certain types of shots or spin on the cb that would otherwise be unnecessary. We do it for fun. To see the limits of what can be done with round objects struck by leather on green cloth. Or Lexan in this case.
