Heavier cue for breaking?

Chris said:
I'm not sure you will have more momentum with a lighter cue. The extra speed should be inversely proportional to the weight. There is a minimal decrease in weight, so there should be a minimal increase in speed. Since momentum is mass times velocity, the momentum should be approximately the same, right?
Click to expand...

Most here can't recall what they had for breakfast, let alone be able to respond to scientific theories intelligently.

It's very difficult for us to be able to step out of the thick cigarette smoke and swirling buzz of alcohol and caffeine to be able to intelligently respond to Momentum=Mass X Velocity.

Good luck, and happy shooting!
 
Andrew Manning said:
Most of your post was on point, but what I've quoted above is incorrect, I think. Your arm mass is part of both equations; not just the momentum, but the acceleration as well. Momentum decreases by less than 20%, because the cue isn't all the mass involved, but by the same token acceleration increases by less than 20%, because the cue isn't all the mass involved.

There's no getting around it: momentum comes directly from work performed. If you perform 10 joules of work (pulling that number out of nowhere), then your cue/arm/kitchen-sink (whatever the system is you're performing work on) has gained 10 joules of momentum, and has the potential to perform 10 joules of work on the cue ball. How much of that work actually gets performed on the cue ball is different for any given cue, because of the efficiency of momentum transfer (which I think is what people talk about when they say a cue hits hard or soft) is involved.

-Andrew
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that your hand and arm is also part of the acceleration equation as well, and I guess I'm over-simplifying things by totally dropping it from the acceleration equation.

But I think we're both over-simplying this (Chris, this applies to you as well). I think there is more much more going on, both physics-wise and body mechanics-wise, than what we're taking into account. I don't think it's as simple as momentum = mass1*velocity1 = mass2*velocity2, where the amount of total momentum is exactly the same for both cases. I actually think the amount of total momentum your body can put out does change depending on the weight of the cue.

If you've ever played organized baseball, you'd agree that the weight of your bat does indeed matter a lot (just assume that we're using only wooden bats). I can definitely hit the ball further with a 27oz bat than I can with a 32oz bat. Based on your simplification, I should be able to hit the ball the same distance regardless of bat weight, but my data shows otherwise. The increase in my bat speed clearly outweighs the effects of the decrease in total mass. To go to an extreme, try hitting a ball with a 27oz bat, and then try hitting a ball with a 54oz bat (place the ball on a T, such that timing isn't a factor). I guarantee you that you'll hit the ball much further with the 27oz bat.

So the moral to my story is that there is much more going on than what we're accounting for. I believe there is a certain optimal cue weight (or bat weight) that makes our body exert the maximum amount of energy. For me in baseball, that sweet spot is a 27oz bat. For breaking in pool, I believe the sweet spot for most players lie in the lighter than average end of the weight spectrum for cues (probably around 16-18oz).
 
Whew momentum = mass X velocity. This says that (with the same tip, shaft, etc.) a stick moving 20 mph weighing 20 oz. is going to result in more cue ball speed than one that weighs 17 oz. Also we can say that the same stick moving 23 mph puts out more ball speed than when it is moved 20 mph. Did someone up there say more cue speed doesn't equal more cue ball speed? Yes it does. Same stick, more speed equals more cue ball speed.

I think the above is rather obvious. The problem is finding the best combination for you. I mentioned in my post that age or decrease in strength or quickness can be a determining factor.

Here is a question. What about acceleration? This is all using the same stick. If you hit the cue ball when the stick is going 20 mph each time, but the one time 20 mph is the fastest the stick is going to get to. The other time when it hits the cue ball at 20 mph, the cue is actually on its way to going 23 mpg. Does that get a different result? Or even lets take a third example when the 20 mph. impact was in the deceleration mode and had been going 23 mph.
 
Last edited:
CaptainJR said:
Whew momentum = mass X velocity. This says that (with the same tip, shaft, etc.) a stick moving 20 mph weighing 20 oz. is going to result in more cue ball speed than one that weighs 17 oz. Also we can say that the same stick moving 23 mph puts out more ball speed than when it is moved 20 mph. Did someone up there say more cue speed doesn't equal more cue ball speed? Yes it does. Same stick, more speed equals more cue ball speed.
Click to expand...

We weren't talking about the same stick. We were talking about a heavier one vs. lighter one. And a heavy-but-slow stick can hit the cue ball faster than a light-but-fast stick in some cases. Cue ball speed is related to stick speed, but the relationship is not direct (i.e. depending on other factors, the faster stick does not always produce the faster ball).

CaptainJR said:
Here is a question. What about acceleration? This is all using the same stick. If you hit the cue ball when the stick is going 20 mph each time, but the one time 20 mph is the fastest the stick is going to get to. The other time when it hits the cue ball at 20 mph, the cue is actually on its way to going 23 mpg. Does that get a different result? Or even lets take a third example when the 20 mph. impact was in the deceleration mode and had been going 23 mph.
Click to expand...

The results would be minimally different, because the time of contact is non-zero. If the stick hits the ball at 20, it may be going 20.005 when the cue ball leaves the tip a few milliseconds later, or it may be going 19.995 when the ball leaves the tip. Since acceleration is a simple symptom of your hand exerting force on the cue, positive acceleration means positive force being exerted. If extra force is exerted during contact, that force will add some tiny amount of extra speed, vs. if the stick were not being pushed by your hand, but rather just "coasting". If the cue is decelerating, your hand is actually pulling rather than pushing, and during contact, your hand would be diminishing the force the stick exerts on the ball, thus diminishing speed.

However, contact is so short that I think acceleration matters little. If you could produce the same speed at contact with an accelerating vs. decelerating cue (and you can't; this is why instructors preach smooth acceleration) then I think you would see very similar ball speeds.

-Andrew
 
Andrew Manning said:
We weren't talking about the same stick. We were talking about a heavier one vs. lighter one. And a heavy-but-slow stick can hit the cue ball faster than a light-but-fast stick in some cases. Cue ball speed is related to stick speed, but the relationship is not direct (i.e. depending on other factors, the faster stick does not always produce the faster ball).



The results would be minimally different, because the time of contact is non-zero. If the stick hits the ball at 20, it may be going 20.005 when the cue ball leaves the tip a few milliseconds later, or it may be going 19.995 when the ball leaves the tip. Since acceleration is a simple symptom of your hand exerting force on the cue, positive acceleration means positive force being exerted. If extra force is exerted during contact, that force will add some tiny amount of extra speed, vs. if the stick were not being pushed by your hand, but rather just "coasting". If the cue is decelerating, your hand is actually pulling rather than pushing, and during contact, your hand would be diminishing the force the stick exerts on the ball, thus diminishing speed.

However, contact is so short that I think acceleration matters little. If you could produce the same speed at contact with an accelerating vs. decelerating cue (and you can't; this is why instructors preach smooth acceleration) then I think you would see very similar ball speeds.

-Andrew
Click to expand...


Thank you. You really seem to know what you are saying so I'll ask this also. You said minimal difference because of the difference in speed during the time it was in contact. Using the 20 mph and the 20.0005 example that you said. What I'm curious about is if there is any multiplying factor because of the acceleration. in other words assuming the same stick ect. Would the one that accelerated to 20.0005 during contact produce more than one that was constantly at 20.0005. Maybe you already answered this but if you did I didn't get it sorry. Maybe try one more time?
 
CaptainJR said:
Thank you. You really seem to know what you are saying so I'll ask this also. You said minimal difference because of the difference in speed during the time it was in contact. Using the 20 mph and the 20.0005 example that you said. What I'm curious about is if there is any multiplying factor because of the acceleration. in other words assuming the same stick ect. Would the one that accelerated to 20.0005 during contact produce more than one that was constantly at 20.0005. Maybe you already answered this but if you did I didn't get it sorry. Maybe try one more time?
Click to expand...

Let me try it from this angle:

The stick accelerates because of force exerted by your hand. That's Newton's first law of motion.

So if your hand is exerting force on the cue, then it would stand to reason your hand is still in the process of exerting force DURING contact, however brief contact may be. This force will create a tiny amount of additional ball speed to add to the momentum transferred by the cue's 20 mph x 19 oz. of momentum.

Compare this to a stick moving at constant velocity. If the stick is moving at constant velocity, your hand is not applying force to accelerate it, so it stands to reason your hand is not exerting force during contact. The cue ball speed will be generated only by the stick's momentum.

The force exerted by your hand DURING contact transfers momentum to the cue ball through IMPULSE, which is defined as force X time, which can be set equal to mass X velocity. For example: 2 newtons of force applied for one second will accelerate a 1 kg object to a speed of 2 meters per second, or numerically 2N X 1s = 1kg X 2m/s. In the case of the cue stick, the time factor is very small. If you can exert 5 newtons of force during your stroke, and the cue ball weighs .15 kg, and contact is only .005 seconds (I'm pulling those numbers out of nowhere), then by the equation 5N X .005s = .15kg X .17m/s, you're only ading .17 m/s of cue ball speed to the ball, which is a small difference, and the reason it's so small is because your 5 newtons is only being applied for .005 seconds.

I probably just used a lot more physics than necessary, but that's why an accelerating cue stick should hit the ball slightly faster vs. a "coasting" one.

-Andrew
 
Andrew Manning said:
Let me try it from this angle:

The stick accelerates because of force exerted by your hand. That's Newton's first law of motion.

So if your hand is exerting force on the cue, then it would stand to reason your hand is still in the process of exerting force DURING contact, however brief contact may be. This force will create a tiny amount of additional ball speed to add to the momentum transferred by the cue's 20 mph x 19 oz. of momentum.

Compare this to a stick moving at constant velocity. If the stick is moving at constant velocity, your hand is not applying force to accelerate it, so it stands to reason your hand is not exerting force during contact. The cue ball speed will be generated only by the stick's momentum.

The force exerted by your hand DURING contact transfers momentum to the cue ball through IMPULSE, which is defined as force X time, which can be set equal to mass X velocity. For example: 2 newtons of force applied for one second will accelerate a 1 kg object to a speed of 2 meters per second, or numerically 2N X 1s = 1kg X 2m/s. In the case of the cue stick, the time factor is very small. If you can exert 5 newtons of force during your stroke, and the cue ball weighs .15 kg, and contact is only .005 seconds (I'm pulling those numbers out of nowhere), then by the equation 5N X .005s = .15kg X .17m/s, you're only ading .17 m/s of cue ball speed to the ball, which is a small difference, and the reason it's so small is because your 5 newtons is only being applied for .005 seconds.

I probably just used a lot more physics than necessary, but that's why an accelerating cue stick should hit the ball slightly faster vs. a "coasting" one.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Thanks again. I do believe I got it that time. I do realize that is realy not enough to really consider but all this talk just had me curiouse.

Thank you
JR
 
i kind of got on the whole "lighter is better" bandwagon when i bought my sledgehammer a couple years ago, but now im not sure. I seems like i can break really well with it at like 60 or 70% of my power, but ive been messing around with a friends break cue thats 23oz, and it seems to work better for me when i try to break really hard, i have better control and alot more ball movement. Im still experimenting though.
 
There is a concept known as the point of deminishing returns. Basically what this means is that there is a limit to how fast you can accelerate the cue regardless of going lighter and a limit to the increases cue ball speed due to adding weight. The key is to find the weight that maximizes acceleration, control and cue ball speed.
 
My only problem with the baseball analogy is that in baseball, you are trying to hit the ball as hard/far as possible. I think most of us are willing to sacrafice a little bit of power to get more accuracy, and unless you are using 100% power, all of this doesn't really matter, does it?
Steve
 
My break stick is roughly 1/2 oz. lighter than my playing cue... ~18.75 vs. 19.25 oz... which works well for me.

And my break stick is a Predator BK2, which I've had for about 1.5 months. I formerly broke with a BK1.

After trying out the BK2 for 2 weeks, I had my cuemaker shave off the phenolic tip and install a Talisman break tip in its place. We left the graphite wafer intact and super-glued the tip to the graphite, as instructed by Predator CS when I called them beforehand.

I found it VERY difficult to control whitey with the original phenolic tip.

It's much easier now.
 
I think design and materials have a lot to do with it, especially if you are using a cue 'Designed' for breaking, (after that I think weight is more of a personal preference). I have used Sledgehammers, seemed a little too rear weighted for me. I have a kit I carry sometimes that I have a Fury J/B in, it weighs 19oz and I get pretty good action with it, a little whippy though. My primary kit has a Jerico Stinger, (Jerry Powers Cue), and this is by far the best 'Breaking' Cue I have ever used. Don't need 100% stroke to get good momentum and really crack the rack, it hits solid, really transfers energy well, and I can squat the rock! Interesting note is that this cue weighs only 18oz...FWIW
 
After having had several discusions with people, from engineers to various local pool pro's this is what I believe, the best break cue is individual to each person and can be measured and tested to give ultimate performance.

Basically I believe that the heaviest cue you can swing at your highest rate of speed will produce the most effective break cue for an individual, lets say the highest rate of speed that player "A" can swing a 16oz cue at is 20mph.
and after testing with various weights of cues it is determined that he can swing a 19oz cue also at 20mph, but at 20oz he slows to 19.5mph then the 19oz break cue would produce optimum break results.

The heaviest cue you can swing at maximum speed will produce the greatest results with a solid contact on the head ball and a good rack.

I think the best way to test this for individuals would be to set up a shot into a pocket and have the player hit shots at their break speed with the same cue at various weights to find their top speed and see how heavy a stick they can swing at their top speed using a radar gun set up ten inchs away to gauge speeds.

MASS X SPEED = ENERGY transfered to the cueball thus the rack.

This isn't to say that things cannot be done to a break cue to increase the amount of energy it can transfer to the cue ball.

Bern
 
Big Bad Bern said:
After having had several discusions with people, from engineers to various local pool pro's this is what I believe, the best break cue is individual to each person and can be measured and tested to give ultimate performance.

Basically I believe that the heaviest cue you can swing at your highest rate of speed will produce the most effective break cue for an individual, lets say the highest rate of speed that player "A" can swing a 16oz cue at is 20mph.
and after testing with various weights of cues it is determined that he can swing a 19oz cue also at 20mph, but at 20oz he slows to 19.5mph then the 19oz break cue would produce optimum break results.

The heaviest cue you can swing at maximum speed will produce the greatest results with a solid contact on the head ball and a good rack.

I think the best way to test this for individuals would be to set up a shot into a pocket and have the player hit shots at their break speed with the same cue at various weights to find their top speed and see how heavy a stick they can swing at their top speed using a radar gun set up ten inchs away to gauge speeds.

MASS X SPEED = ENERGY transfered to the cueball thus the rack.

This isn't to say that things cannot be done to a break cue to increase the amount of energy it can transfer to the cue ball.

Bern
Click to expand...


I'm sorry to say, your physics are flawed sir.

The formula for a moving object is.

Kinetic Energy = ½ x mass x velocity²
 
JSP,

The theory of bat speed is correct. When i played softball, i always thought having a lighter bat would benifit me more with bat speed and sending the softball farther. But the problem is,, you have to maintain the max speed of your swing at all times.

This is why Softball bat company's created endload bats, so if you have a bat that weights 28oz. it will have 1 or 2 extra ounces of weight put in the end of the bat. So when you achieve max swing speed it stays at that speed through out the whole swing.

The other theory is the force you create with a heavier bat. If someone can swing a 26oz bat at 50mph, and also swing a 28oz bat at 50mph your going to be able to create more force with the heavier bat.

And the same principles should be included with a break cue and its weight.

dave
 
According to Robert Byrne in his book Advanced Technique in Pool and Billiards, page 37, he says, "To find out how fast the cueball will go after being hit by a cue, double the weight of the cue, multiply it by the speed of the cue, and divide the result by the sum of the weight of the cue and the ball...by adding 33 percent to the weight of the cue you are chasing only a 6.6 percent gain in cueball speed. And because you can't swing a heavy cue as fast, the potential gain is even less. When you also consider the importance of precision and control, which are easier to achieve with a light cue, then it seems to me there is no longer any argument. Light cues are best."
 
Andrew Manning said:
I
As far as cue speed goes, a lighter cue will go faster given the same amount of work done by your arm. But it has the same momentum (according to newton) as a heavier and slower cue would, given the same amount of work done by your arm. And it's transfer of momentum that gets the cue ball moving. So the weight actually cancels out in the ball-speed equation. What's really important is the transfer. Given a fast-light and a slow-heavy stick with equal momentum, the one that transfers more of its momentum at contact is the one that hits the cue ball faster. This has to do a huge number of factors, including but not limited to cue contruction, taper, tip material, ferrule material, accuracy of tip placement on the cue ball, etc.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much it in a nutshell. That being said, there might be an inherent advantage of one of the two because all things equal, a lighter weight will have a different transfer efficiency than a heavier one. It's all pointless, IMO, because the ability to use the weight mixed with how you break, which muscles you incorporate, etc., will determine how well you work with that cue, its balance, and its weight.

That is, this "lighter is better" is faulty right from the get go. Everyone should have a optimum break weight that is irrelevant to their shooting cue. It's just a weight.

Fred
 
whatever floats ur boat

I know people that swear by a 22oz and I personally swear by the 16oz that I break with. To me I am able to get so much more velosity on the cue ball with the lighter stick.. but hey if u make balls and have good shape after.. who cares..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top