Has anyone tested....

Thanks guys. The stuff i learn here. I had no clue that transverse wave propagation and the possibility of ferrule de-coupling are undoubtably the reasons behind my recent bad play. :) Actually some pretty cool stuff.
 
Thanks for the links Dr Dave.

I can agree with most or all of the "rules" for testing. They are well reasoned and scientific.

On the other hand, I cannot agree with the validity of human testing in terms of achieving consistency. It is not an argument to make in favor of human testing by describing the myriad of problems and issues with robotic testing. (Cornerman)

I've done a similar kind of test on my own table. Using the CB doesn't lie philosophy, and reasoned that my stroke was reasonably consistent judging by where the CB ends up. The speed of the shot can be inferred by CB final resting point. I would also look for the chalk mark on the CB to see where I hit the ball...all these type of things. But it is still flawed. While I can use parallel english, the ever so slightest imperfections in stance and stroke can introduce BHE and FHE ...

The human body is an amazing machine. If one has a decent stroke and consistency, combined with their perception and "feel" they can get a very good idea of deflection. But it does not lead to proper precise measurements.

Any difference in speed, contact point on the CB, unintended small amounts of BHE or FHE and other factors can produce different results.

I was able to land the CB time and time again in a very small circle, probably about 4" max each time. Quite often landing the CB in almost the same spot. I think that's pretty good for me, and shooting the same shot dozens and dozens of times, one gets consistent. But that doesn't validate anything. Variations in the amount of spin, tip offset changes CB path, which changes distance traveled....in other words, there's a combination of variables that can be different which can land the CB in almost the same spot on these human stroke CB deflection tests. The differences might be small and not appear significant to the eye as the ball moves across the table, but the measurements that differentiate one shaft from another are also very small. So my margin of error is just too big to ever try to get any meaningful measurements.


On the Platinum tests....some of these measurements are 0.100" difference between shafts or less. Human testing cannot be trusted to produce repeatable results at that resolution or less.


Meucci's testing is flawed, because while he's taking it a step further to measure the "end result" that is - where the OB is going (seems reasonable)....there's issues of spin induced throw and other factors...



Why does cue total weight matter? It shouldn't matter at all. All that should matter is the tip velocity at impact with CB. It sounds like cue weight is a factor only in robot designs where the weight of the cue influences the speed of the stroke.



I appreciate all the responses in this thread! Learned a few things....
 
Grilled Cheese said:
Thanks for the links Dr Dave.

I can agree with most or all of the "rules" for testing. They are well reasoned and scientific.

On the other hand, I cannot agree with the validity of human testing in terms of achieving consistency. It is not an argument to make in favor of human testing by describing the myriad of problems and issues with robotic testing. (Cornerman)

I've done a similar kind of test on my own table. Using the CB doesn't lie philosophy, and reasoned that my stroke was reasonably consistent judging by where the CB ends up. The speed of the shot can be inferred by CB final resting point. I would also look for the chalk mark on the CB to see where I hit the ball...all these type of things. But it is still flawed. While I can use parallel english, the ever so slightest imperfections in stance and stroke can introduce BHE and FHE ...

The human body is an amazing machine. If one has a decent stroke and consistency, combined with their perception and "feel" they can get a very good idea of deflection. But it does not lead to proper precise measurements.

Any difference in speed, contact point on the CB, unintended small amounts of BHE or FHE and other factors can produce different results.

I was able to land the CB time and time again in a very small circle, probably about 4" max each time. Quite often landing the CB in almost the same spot. I think that's pretty good for me, and shooting the same shot dozens and dozens of times, one gets consistent. But that doesn't validate anything. Variations in the amount of spin, tip offset changes CB path, which changes distance traveled....in other words, there's a combination of variables that can be different which can land the CB in almost the same spot on these human stroke CB deflection tests. The differences might be small and not appear significant to the eye as the ball moves across the table, but the measurements that differentiate one shaft from another are also very small. So my margin of error is just too big to ever try to get any meaningful measurements.


On the Platinum tests....some of these measurements are 0.100" difference between shafts or less. Human testing cannot be trusted to produce repeatable results at that resolution or less.


Meucci's testing is flawed, because while he's taking it a step further to measure the "end result" that is - where the OB is going (seems reasonable)....there's issues of spin induced throw and other factors...



Why does cue total weight matter? It shouldn't matter at all. All that should matter is the tip velocity at impact with CB. It sounds like cue weight is a factor only in robot designs where the weight of the cue influences the speed of the stroke.



I appreciate all the responses in this thread! Learned a few things....
Click to expand...
Hit me up in private if you’re open to learning more. You have some flaws in your posts that I don’t need to rehash. Dr Dave’s site is comprehensive enough. Read it. Absorb it.

And please don’t attribute to me what you’re addressing to me. I didn’t say that.


Freddie <~~~ round and round
 
Last edited:
Cornerman said:
I could go all Physics-speak, if you'd like.

Meucci's system starts with a false condition: too tight a grip, a grip that human couldn't possibly have, so when it strokes the cueball, the cuestick tip and cueball are in longer contact than the 0.001s measured contact time of a human stroke.

Contact time x speed of transverse wave propagation down the shaft = length of shaft "in effect" of the collision.

A normal human stroke will have something in the order of 6" of the front end of the shaft "in effect;" the Myth destroyer, due to its overly tight grip, has a much longer length of shaft "in effect."

More shaft length in effect = more mass in effect = more squirt.

Meucci's ferrule design was mean to partially delay or de-couple the ferrule from the shaft (there's some space between the top of the ferrule to the top of the tenon), so it does well for the Myth Destroyer. Predator's design is significantly reducing the overall mass in the first 6", and it wasn't mean to beat a non-real robot situation. So Predator does worse on the Myth Destroyer (because the Myth Destroyer wants to add mass that's beyond the 6" if the ferrule isn't decoupled).

And that's just the robot grip problem.
Click to expand...
Good post Freddie. FYI, I've added a quote to the Rules of CB Deflection (Squirt) Testing resource page (along with the image of the Meucci ferrule/tenon design).

Regards,
Dave
 
garczar said:
Thanks guys. The stuff i learn here. I had no clue that transverse wave propagation and the possibility of ferrule de-coupling are undoubtably the reasons behind my recent bad play. :) Actually some pretty cool stuff.
Click to expand...

Even Mosconi,Greenleaf and Crane struggled with this as they ran hundreds of balls
playing 14.1.

Its all voodoo.
 
Okay. I am interested about cue weight.
If I have cue that is "low deflection". Lets say predator or Mezz.
It is 19.5 oz and I add extension to butt which is 3 oz.
Will the added weight change deflection of that cue? Or could something else on extension affect on the amount of deflection?

This is debate what I had many times and I have my opinion. I don´t tell it yet :D
 
garczar said:
Just curious as to why Meucci's way of testing is bad? Watching his videos its pretty obvious which shafts have most squirt. BTW, methodology is an awfully big word for me so please keep that in mind if you respond. ;)
Click to expand...

I just thought of Iron Willie....is he still swinging?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top