icebreaker tips

[macguy]

This isn't true.

Here's a drawing showing the CB and OB 1/32" apart (about the thickness of a credit card) - the CB only has to go about 10 inches high to clear the OB when it comes down.

View attachment 98802

With all these experts around it's a wonder we know anything.

pj
chgo

In your drawing it can be assumed the cue ball will drop almost on top of the object ball and not beyond it. As the cue ball reaches the apex of your drawing it would not continue to move forward but drop pretty much straight down. 32ft per second per second. There is no more forward motion to speak of to overcome gravity. There never was much to start with. The forward motion is only a fraction of the height it reached and would only continue to diminish.
In otherwords, the cue ball can't clear the object ball as you have it drawn.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

As the cue ball reaches the apex of your drawing it would not continue to move forward but drop pretty much straight down.

This is incorrect.

There is no more forward motion to speak of to overcome gravity.

Where did it go? The only thing that impedes forward motion in an airborne projectile is friction resistance from the air, and that's negligible in this case. The angle at which the CB drops will be pretty much the same as the angle at which it went up.

Gravity doesn't impede forward motion, and forward motion doesn't "overcome gravity".

There never was much to start with.

There was enough to get it 2.25 + 1/32 inches at its apex and there's still enough to get it the same distance as it drops - i.e., enough to clear the OB.

The forward motion is only a fraction of the height it reached

The ratio of forward motion to height is only relevant if air resistance is significant (which it isn't in this case), and then the smaller the initial forward motion the smaller the effect of air resistance. In other words, if "forward motion is only a fraction of the height reached" that's better, not worse, for ratio of total forward motion to height. But like I said, it's irrelevant in this case because air resistance is negligible.

and would only continue to diminish.

It hasn't diminished, so it wouldn't "continue" to diminish.

In otherwords, the cue ball can't clear the object ball as you have it drawn.

EDIT: You're wrong, but I did make a mistake (calculated the angle of clearance from the wrong part of the CB), so I did underestimate the necessary height by a few inches. It's really about 13", not 9" as I originally estimated. The drawing in my first post is corrected to show this.

pj
chgo

 

[macguy]

This is incorrect.



Where did it go? The only thing that impedes forward motion in an airborne projectile is friction resistance from the air, and that's negligible in this case. The angle at which the CB drops will be pretty much the same as the angle at which it went up.

Gravity doesn't impede forward motion, and forward motion doesn't "overcome gravity".



There was enough to get it 2.25 + 1/32 inches at its apex and there's still enough to get it the same distance as it drops - i.e., enough to clear the OB.



The ratio of forward motion to height is only relevant if air resistance is significant (which it isn't in this case), and then the smaller the initial forward motion the smaller the effect of air resistance. In other words, if "forward motion is only a fraction of the height reached" that's better, not worse, for ratio of total forward motion to height. But like I said, it's irrelevant in this case because air resistance is negligible.



It hasn't diminished, so it wouldn't "continue" to diminish.



EDIT: You're wrong, but I did make a mistake (calculated the angle of clearance from the wrong part of the CB), so I did underestimate the necessary height by a few inches. It's really about 13", not 9" as I originally estimated. The drawing in my first post is corrected to show this.

pj
chgo

Forward motion is converted to downward motion at a very fast and increasing ratio.
At some point all forward motion will be overcome by gravity and the ball will drop straight down. With your logic I could throw a base ball to the next county. Gravity is the most powerful force on the planet, even a bullet doesn't not fly in a perfect arc. It begins to slow and drop very rapidly in relation to the forward motion.

Also in your drawing, you only have the cue ball directly over the object ball at 13". If it is now dropping, how can you assume it would still have an equal amount of forward motion to continue to an equal distance and clear the object ball? You don't figure gravity in your drawing at all. I would say the cue ball at that point will almost drop directly on top of the object ball never clearing it at all. It would have to clime to almost a full ball width beyond the object ball before beginning to fall to clear it about double your original height.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

At some point all forward motion will be overcome by gravity and the ball will drop straight down.

I'll repeat myself: gravity has no effect on forward motion. You're thinking of air friction, which has a large effect on a baseball when you throw it but a very tiny effect on a CB when you jump it. The CB will continue to move forward at pretty much the same velocity from the time it leaves the table until it returns to it.

...even a bullet doesn't not fly in a perfect arc. It begins to slow and drop very rapidly in relation to the forward motion.

Not because of gravity. You should actually look into this stuff before making mistaken pronouncements and confusing other readers.

pj
chgo

P.S. By the way, 13" is the height the CB would have to reach if it rose to a point and then made a sharp turn downward. But since it curves downward (while still moving forward), it doesn't really get 13" up - I think it's probably really less than 12".

 

[The King]

My Icebreaker cracked and I use a shaft that is about 12.80 / 12.75 in that area ...After only two months I cut the tip off and have a elkmaster on the stick now till I find something else I want to replace it ... Put the elkmaster on because they are inexpensive about 30 cents and I know I will cut it off soon plus figured it would give me good cueball control for now till I get me some samsara J/B tips to try... I never bother to call Tiger about it just figured I would try something else ...

 

[macguy]

I'll repeat myself: gravity has no effect on forward motion. You're thinking of air friction, which has a large effect on a baseball when you throw it but a very tiny effect on a CB when you jump it. The CB will continue to move forward at pretty much the same velocity from the time it leaves the table until it returns to it.



Not because of gravity. You should actually look into this stuff before making mistaken pronouncements and confusing other readers.

pj
chgo

P.S. By the way, 13" is the height the CB would have to reach if it rose to a point and then made a sharp turn downward. But since it curves downward (while still moving forward), it doesn't really get 13" up - I think it's probably really less than 12".

You need to sit quietly and think about this.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

You need to sit quietly and think about this.

Maybe you should get up and learn something about it. I'll help - here's a graph from Wikipedia's article on trajectories showing a baseball's trajectory with air resistance and without. Notice that the one without air resistance (affected only by gravity) travels just as I said: equal angles up and down. That's about how a jumped cue ball travels because air resistance is negligible for it. Again: gravity has no effect on forward motion.



"...the green path is taken by an idealized projectile, one that ignores air resistance altogether."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajectory_of_a_projectile

pj
chgo

 

[NINEBALLART]

All these theories are interesting but I have yet to see even one video in slow motion where the cue ball does not hit the shaft on the way up and is projected forward...Drawings are nice so are theories but like they say, seeing is believing....So far I see a video which shows the cue ball hits the shaft...Until I see otherwise I can't believe these drawings...... Not saying someone might show me one... I am open minded....But so far there is no proof it is done legally....In regular time the naked eye can not detect if it hits the shaft...So someone needs to do another slow motion so it can be seen by the naked eye...Not on paper, not drawings but showing the shot being done legally.....
We know by watching magicans the hand is quicker than the eye and we can be fooled...So far Eric Yows video is the only one out there and the cue ball hits the shaft....

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I have yet to see even one video in slow motion where the cue ball does not hit the shaft on the way up

Maybe it's impossible to hit such a steep jump shot without the shaft hitting the CB. Here's a video on Dr. Dave's website that shows that happening:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-19.htm

But that doesn't mean that it's impossible for the CB to get enough forward angle when it's very close to the OB. The drawings show that is possible.

So the jump may be impossible to execute, but not for the reason claimed in this thread. The cue ball doesn't have to go "several feet" high in order for that to happen.

pj
chgo

 

[macguy]

Maybe it's impossible to hit such a steep jump shot without the shaft hitting the CB. Here's a video on Dr. Dave's website that shows that happening:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-19.htm

But that doesn't mean that it's impossible for the CB to get enough forward angle when it's very close to the OB. The drawings show that is possible.

So the jump may be impossible to execute, but not for the reason claimed in this thread. The cue ball doesn't have to go "several feet" high in order for that to happen.

pj
chgo

That video pretty much ends the discussion.

 

[sde]

This is incorrect.



Where did it go? The only thing that impedes forward motion in an airborne projectile is friction resistance from the air, and that's negligible in this case. The angle at which the CB drops will be pretty much the same as the angle at which it went up.

Gravity doesn't impede forward motion, and forward motion doesn't "overcome gravity".



There was enough to get it 2.25 + 1/32 inches at its apex and there's still enough to get it the same distance as it drops - i.e., enough to clear the OB.



The ratio of forward motion to height is only relevant if air resistance is significant (which it isn't in this case), and then the smaller the initial forward motion the smaller the effect of air resistance. In other words, if "forward motion is only a fraction of the height reached" that's better, not worse, for ratio of total forward motion to height. But like I said, it's irrelevant in this case because air resistance is negligible.



It hasn't diminished, so it wouldn't "continue" to diminish.



EDIT: You're wrong, but I did make a mistake (calculated the angle of clearance from the wrong part of the CB), so I did underestimate the necessary height by a few inches. It's really about 13", not 9" as I originally estimated. The drawing in my first post is corrected to show this.

pj
chgo

I agree with what you have said but I do have a question.

Would there be a difference in the time intervals of the going up versus coming down and if so how would that affect the distance of travel? I'm guessing that it would be minimal, just wondering if you know or have taken that into account.

Steve

 

[kickshotkid]

Maybe it's impossible to hit such a steep jump shot without the shaft hitting the CB. Here's a video on Dr. Dave's website that shows that happening:

http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVB-19.htm

But that doesn't mean that it's impossible for the CB to get enough forward angle when it's very close to the OB. The drawings show that is possible.

So the jump may be impossible to execute, but not for the reason claimed in this thread. The cue ball doesn't have to go "several feet" high in order for that to happen.

pj
chgo

Thank you for all your inpute, when it was first said that the cb would have to travel several feet in the air to clear the ob and that the cb would come straight down because of gravity I was going to post that that was wrong and that the cb would travel the same forward motion up as it would down which I know because I was a baseball player. Only I had no graphs to support only experiences throwing a baseball and shooting a gun like the other guy said when a bullet is shot it travels in a arc, but that supports the opposite of his theroy because it is a perfect arc which means on the way up to on the way down is about an equal distance. Any way very interesting stuff and weather it is executed properly or not a CC jump is possible. :thumbup:

 

[RRfireblade]

The issue with trajectory is that as you elevate to greater extremes the cue has more difficulty getting out of the way of the ball. In order for it to do so , it has to 'roll' or deflect down the back of the CB with adds an amount of back spin and effectively steepens the forward arc. It needs impact from the shaft to regain foward momentem to get over the OB.

 

[Predator5K4]

I love my icebreaker tips no problems with them at all yet... To those who said they cracked down the side what mm shaft is it on? What did tiger say about the problem just curious I dont want it to happen to me or my customers.

I had my Icebreaker tip put on a stock BK2 shaft, whatever mm that is, 13mm, I think.

 

[Predator5K4]

Sorry, forgot to add that the Icebreaker I put on my BK2 developed two vertical cracks. I also had a 2nd Icebreaker tip where the leather insert popped out. My cue guy then sanded the phenolic down as a quick fix, and the hit with pure phenolic was pretty good. A tip, if the stock Icebreaker looks too tall for you, don't sand from the top, rub the tip on sandpaper from the bottom, the leather insert doesn't go all the way to the bottom.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

That video pretty much ends the discussion.

You can't draw a general conclusion from one bad jump. All we know is that the shaft can hit the CB, not that it necessarily does every time. For all we know this is a rare occurrence and steep jumps are legal 99 percent of the time.

And this has nothing to do with how high the CB must jump without shaft interference in order to clear the OB. That's still about 12".

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I was going to post that that was wrong and that the cb would travel the same forward motion up as it would down which I know because I was a baseball player. Only I had no graphs to support only experiences throwing a baseball and shooting a gun like the other guy said when a bullet is shot it travels in a arc, but that supports the opposite of his theroy because it is a perfect arc which means on the way up to on the way down is about an equal distance.

macguy is right about baseballs and bullets - their trajectories are not symmetrical arcs; they drop more steeply than they rise. He's just mistaken to assume that jumped cue balls act the same way and that gravity is the reason.

The graph I posted shows that a baseball does drop more steeply than it rises (the smaller arc), as macguy says. But it also shows that if the air wasn't there, or if its effect was much smaller, the angle of drop would not be steeper (the larger arc). This shows that the reason is not gravity but air resistance, and we can reasonably assume that air resistance has a much smaller effect on the trajectory of a jumped cue ball.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

The issue with trajectory is that as you elevate to greater extremes the cue has more difficulty getting out of the way of the ball. In order for it to do so , it has to 'roll' or deflect down the back of the CB with adds an amount of back spin and effectively steepens the forward arc. It needs impact from the shaft to regain foward momentem to get over the OB.

This isn't true. If backspin makes the CB go up at a steeper angle, all you have to do is aim it at a lower angle. Nothing prevents you from giving it the angle it needs to clear the OB without shaft interference.

Of course, it still may be impossible to hit the CB so steeply and get the shaft out of the way of the CB as it jumps up, but that's a different question.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Would there be a difference in the time intervals of the going up versus coming down and if so how would that affect the distance of travel?

The graph shows this: with air resistance the amount of time going up is less than the amount of time coming back down, but without air resistance the two times are the same. Again, this shows that the difference is from air resistance, not gravity, so we can assume that it would have negligible effect on the amount of forward movement for the CB.

To pick a nit: I think the differences in time and distance traveled during rise and drop are both results of air resistance, and neither of them affects the other (they're just different ways of measuring the same thing).

pj
chgo

 

[RRfireblade]

This isn't true. If backspin makes the CB go up at a steeper angle, all you have to do is aim it at a lower angle. Nothing prevents you from giving it the angle it needs to clear the OB without shaft interference.

Of course, it still may be impossible to hit the CB so steeply and get the shaft out of the way of the CB as it jumps up, but that's a different question.

pj
chgo

What ? Do you actually read what you post ?