Having a tip with multiple shapes
- Thread starter eldowan
- Start date
crawfish said:
Yeah, like always I entered an arguement online and immediately regretted it. The internet is a powerful thing. There is so much opportunity, yet so much potential for mis-information.
I don't think I've ever seen an arguement online where two technically proficient people entered a discussion with opposing opinions and everything remained civil and constructive. Yet I keep trying... Anyone want to open a webex session? I've got a whiteboard and some equations rearing to go!
This is why "I" don't like internet discussion because it's too much work have to go back and posts quote that poeple forget they just posted.
Thus the golf ball statement.
My problem is as a 'machinist' and design engineer (thus the sir comments) I try and keep my points relative to precisely what's been stated without bias or inflection.
So I therefore offered a very reasonable control statement comparing a break cue and a playing cue.
And :
But I love the bailout so often used.
In summary , please witness the MULTIUDE of smileys , winkys and etc used throughout my posts , normally used to convey light headed discussion and perhaps some good 'ol ribbing.
The only thing worse than misunderstanding is forum posters who take some bs discussion thread so seriously.
Attention :
James said:
James said:
Thus the golf ball statement.
My problem is as a 'machinist' and design engineer (thus the sir comments) I try and keep my points relative to precisely what's been stated without bias or inflection.
So I therefore offered a very reasonable control statement comparing a break cue and a playing cue.
RRfireblade said:Your also discounting the fact that cubes of chalk vary on internal shape by a HUGE amount from nearly flat when new to carved out like the grand canyon (just to pull that back in ) and everwhere in between . . . and . . . usually across all the available chalk supplied.
What I'm saying is my break cue tip needs far more reshaping than my playing cue and I will usually be using the same cube of chalk on both.
You do that math.
And :
RRfireblade said:
But I love the bailout so often used.
In summary , please witness the MULTIUDE of smileys , winkys and etc used throughout my posts , normally used to convey light headed discussion and perhaps some good 'ol ribbing.
The only thing worse than misunderstanding is forum posters who take some bs discussion thread so seriously.
Attention :
runscott said:
Wow, did not see that one coming.
James said:
Well, I guess I don't know how hard that is compared to what I use, which is Moori Q. If you can play entire racks without chalking a hard tip, more power to you, but I'm going to chalk before every shot. That doesn't mean to chalk excessively; once it's chalked, it's chalked. I think it's a good habit to chalk before every shot, rather than looking at your tip in disbelief when the miscue finally comes. JMO.
Cuebacca said:
Me too.
Back in my younger (sports) days we were always taught to drink water at certain intervals or whenever you saw someone else take a drink because by the time you realize you need it , it's too late.
crawfish said:
Well, I would just like to throw out there, I don't think there is anyone on azb who can beat me in arm wrestling before 3pm this afternoon EST. All bets are off after that.
For the record, I included no smilies in my post. I'm DEAD F***ING SERIOUS. Everybody here has arm wrestling action for another 50 minutes.
How do you like it now?
Last edited:
RRfireblade said:This is why "I" don't like internet discussion because it's too much work have to go back and posts quote that poeple forget they just posted.
Thus the golf ball statement.
My problem is as a 'machinist' and design engineer (thus the sir comments) I try and keep my points relative to precisely what's been stated without bias or inflection.
So I therefore offered a very reasonable control statement comparing a break cue and a playing cue.
And :
But I love the bailout so often used.
In summary , please witness the MULTIUDE of smileys , winkys and etc used throughout my posts , normally used to convey light headed discussion and perhaps some good 'ol ribbing.
The only thing worse than misunderstanding is forum posters who take some bs discussion thread so seriously.
Attention :
I appreciate the smilies, and I hope you don't think I'm taking this seriously. The internet is not a place for serious discussions.
However, even after trying again to dis-prove my statements you're still just mis-understanding me.
I said that impact dents a ball: TRUE
I said that sometimes I don't use chalk: TRUE
You said that because of that my tip should look like a golf ball: FALSE!
I also said that "dent" is not a quantifiable term. You assumed that when I said impact dents the ball, that I was talking about a significant dent that would be obvious under visual inspection. I was not. It will "dent" the tip in that there will be a deformation, but we are not talking on the same scale.
I'm bailing out because this discussion isn't going anywhere, not because I can't handle it
Hugs not drugs,
-James
Back to the original post
While the "dial a tip" concept in the original post is way too complicated for me, I have found some benefit to multiple tip radiuses. A few years ago I gathered up a bunch of plastic and aluminum tubing of various diameters, from 1/2 inch up to 1 1/2 inches, fabbed up some shapers and did my own testing. Summary: larger radius gives more forgiveness on a less-than-perfect centerball hit, smaller radius induces more spin away from center of the CB. I now use a dime radius shaper to shape the outer 2/3 or so, and finish the center with an approximate quarter (1" diameter) radius. Gives me best of both worlds, and it appears to match my playing style, since my tips only require a few passes of the shaper to scuff up nicely. Also, the quarter size seems to be the most effective on my White Diamond break tips. Could be all in my head, but it only takes a few bucks at the hardware store to find out for yourself.
While the "dial a tip" concept in the original post is way too complicated for me, I have found some benefit to multiple tip radiuses. A few years ago I gathered up a bunch of plastic and aluminum tubing of various diameters, from 1/2 inch up to 1 1/2 inches, fabbed up some shapers and did my own testing. Summary: larger radius gives more forgiveness on a less-than-perfect centerball hit, smaller radius induces more spin away from center of the CB. I now use a dime radius shaper to shape the outer 2/3 or so, and finish the center with an approximate quarter (1" diameter) radius. Gives me best of both worlds, and it appears to match my playing style, since my tips only require a few passes of the shaper to scuff up nicely. Also, the quarter size seems to be the most effective on my White Diamond break tips. Could be all in my head, but it only takes a few bucks at the hardware store to find out for yourself.
James said:I appreciate the smilies, and I hope you don't think I'm taking this seriously. The internet is not a place for serious discussions.
However, even after trying again to dis-prove my statements you're still just mis-understanding me.
I said that impact dents a ball: TRUE
I said that sometimes I don't use chalk: TRUE
You said that because of that my tip should look like a golf ball: FALSE!
I also said that "dent" is not a quantifiable term. You assumed that when I said impact dents the ball, that I was talking about a significant dent that would be obvious under visual inspection. I was not. It will "dent" the tip in that there will be a deformation, but we are not talking on the same scale.
I'm bailing out because this discussion isn't going anywhere, not because I can't handle it
Hugs not drugs,
-James
OK then, I thought we 'could' get somewhere but you may be right because I did think I understood you clearly.
I thought you meant the chalk was the reason my tip wasn't irregularly shaped and dented from impacts. But I am confused when you followed by saying the dents you were talking about can't actually be 'seen'.
So I guess I'll have conciede that you may be correct , my tip could be mishapend and dented without chalking I just would be able to tell by looking.
Kudos to you , well fought.
I guess we'll have to leave the response to my break vs playing cue example for some other day over coffee.
Have a good one.
RRfireblade said:OK then, I thought we 'could' get somewhere but you may be right because I did think I understood you clearly.
I thought you meant the chalk was the reason my tip wasn't irregularly shaped and dented from impacts. But I am confused when you followed by saying the dents you were talking about can't actually be 'seen'.
So I guess I'll have conciede that you may be correct , my tip could be mishapend and dented without chalking I just would be able to tell by looking.
Kudos to you , well fought.
I guess we'll have to leave the response to my break vs playing cue example for some other day over coffee.
I can't tell by this response if you understand what I'm saying or if you think I'm completely funking nuts... I'm ok with it either way though
I'm not talking about magical dents that are invisible... I'm talking about the difference between calling a "dent" a 0.01" deformation vs. a 0.0001" deformation.
I design daily with parts spec'ing tolerances anywhere from +/- .0001" - .01" depending on application. I have a good grasp on the scale I'm attempting to convey but it's not fair to assume you do as well. Maybe so, I'm not sure.
The way I'm thinking about this is that you have a valid arguement, but it's just not something that can be discussed constructively in this format...
Take your breaking vs. playing tip for example. It's not that it's invalid, just that there are far too many variables for it to be something we can discuss like this without significant testing and control.
In conclusion, we've both just wasted a lot of time and learned nothing useful. I'm satisfied!
-J
James said:.
In conclusion, we've both just wasted a lot of time and learned nothing useful. I'm satisfied!
-J
Isn't that why we are here ?
Seriously tho , and lastly too I might add
, I do honestly try to be as fair and open minded as possible. And statements 'try' to be very specifically pointed.I admit wholey that chalk can wear a tip and have some minimal effect on the shape. Whether it's truly adding any shape or just filling in the "dent's" with chalk
is a whole other question too I guess.I directly questioned the 99.9% of it's final shape statement and stand by that. Obviously you could take a new unshaped tip and grind it into a new cube a chalk like boy scout trying to start a fire till it came out the other side and it would not be close to a dime/nickel/whatever shape although it would probably knock off the sharp corners.
IMO.
Anywho , 'nuff wasting the afternoon off.
RRfireblade said:Isn't that why we are here ?
Seriously tho , and lastly too I might add
I admit wholey that chalk can wear a tip and have some minimal effect on the shape. Whether it's truly adding any shape or just filling in the "dent's" with chalk
I directly questioned the 99.9% of it's final shape statement and stand by that. Obviously you could take a new unshaped tip and grind it into a new cube a chalk like boy scout trying to start a fire till it came out the other side and it would not be close to a dime/nickel/whatever shape although it would probably knock off the sharp corners.
IMO.
Anywho , 'nuff wasting the afternoon off.
I think my main problem was trying to defend an original statement I didn't make. I agree with the theory Jude was supporting, but not necessarily the way it was conveyed.
Side note... You have the afternoon off and you're arguing with me? You're dumber than I thought!!!
(joking, if the faces didn't imply it)The ONLY reason I spend time online is when I'm at work and bored. Get out there and do something fun!
-J