Let's Talk About the "Southwest" Roll

[Thomas Wayne]

I guess being honest and telling the truth is funny right?

[...]

It has nothing to do with "being honest and telling the truth". It has to do with incorrectly using words that really don't fit the context, are spelled phonetically, are chosen because they sort of sound like the word you think you want to use, or are archaic and only meant to try to make yourself sound a lot smarter than you are.

And that is indisputably funny. I mean, pretty much everything about you is funny, but that particular failing of yours is especially funny. Downright hilarious, actually

For example, in one of your recent dissertations about yet the latest skill you claim to have mastered you wrote:

"I took two college classes in Dimential Metroloygy."

"Dimential Metroloygy"? What the hell is that? Do you mean dimensional metrology?

AND

"It also gained me axis to the clean room inspection lab."

"Axis"? It gained you "axis"? I guess you mean access...?

Face it Rick, you're kind of semi-literate, and I suspect you know this. So you try to compensate by using words and phrases that you aren't really familiar with, but think make you sound intelligent. The problem is, even if you did know how to use them in a sentence it still comes off as idiotic.

To use an example that has been addressed many time before, where any normal cuemaker might say, "I glue the joint pin in with a high-quality epoxy", YOU write:

" 6,500 psi epoxy also and the structural encapsulation within the annulus with the threads acting a keyway anchorage embedment zones." [...]

Let's break that little bundle of bullshit down, shall we?

"6,500 psi epoxy" What exactly does that mean, Rick? Are you providing the psi rating for your epoxy's compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength, or bond strength? These are the four aspects of epoxy that are measured and rated, and they are very different from each other. More importantly, who do you think gives a damn about any of the psi ratings for your epoxy? It's not like you formulate it yourself.

"structural encapsulation" Really, Rick? Do you think no one realizes that when you have a sloppy, oversize cavity the epoxy is going to goosh all around the pin and harden in place?

"annulus"? I get what you're trying to describe, but from a mechanical engineering aspect "annulus" is not the right word - it's simply not used to describe any part of a machine thread. You could say "minor diameter" or "thread root", but "annulus" is simply incorrect.

"keyway anchorage embedment" Oh my God. Why not just use the word "anchor" and be done with it?

You constantly accuse others of "obfuscation". For those who are not completely familiar with that word, we go for a moment to Wikipedia:

Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, willfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret. The word comes from Latin obfuscatio, from obfuscāre ("to darken"), from ob ("over") and fuscāre ("to make dark"), from fuscus ("dark").

Your writing is the very essence of obfuscation, and the rest of us find it irritating - but funny. Very, very funny. You are the very embodiment of Oswald Bates, and for that I thank you.

TW

 

[Dave38]

Dave,

I spent two years working as a precision inspector at Crane Packing Company before my career as an underwater technician as a Commercial Diver performing every trade and hundreds of specialty skill sets for over 31 years. That experience along with my many certifications and my flawless track record qualifies me to have an opinion with a solid foundation. Not he said she said gotcha bantering.

During my time as an inspector I took two college classes in Dimential Metroloygy. Those 2 certifications qualified me to inspect aircraft and nuclear service parts that were 100% inpection items. It also gained me axis to the clean room inspection lab.

I'd like to know how you could land that job without training beforehand? My schooling alone was almost a full year of daily classes at 6 hrs. a day with hours of homework added. But you managed to get that job, then go to 2 classes and be certified to inspect such complicated parts? Sorry, I have my doubts, about you and about a company that would do that. Considering you have ALL these certificates, and job qualifications, and have been flawless thru it all, but yet you show very clearly, you don't even understand half the crap that comes out of your own mouth. If you have done all you say you have, and with all the flawlessness you say, you sure don't show it. I have rubbed shoulders with people who have all kinds of certs. in many different and high level fields and they KNOW which words to use and use them properly and don't misspell them. Also, they don't use a word that contradicts the word they just used like you do.
Last night I showed your posts in this thread, and a few from the other site, to a retired engineer that I shoot pool with every Wednesday night and he laughed his azz off at how ridiculous you sounded and pointed out exactly what I mentioned above. He laughed even harder when I told him that according to you "you talk this way all the time as this is who you are". He said that you must only talk to your self, as no engineer or educated people use those words in normal conversations, and most of the time not even in work environments. He recommended that if you're going to be a poser, watch Big Bang Theory so you can learn how to do it right. :grin-square:
Dave

 

[pescadoman]

I'd like to know how you could land that job without training beforehand? My schooling alone was almost a full year of daily classes at 6 hrs. a day with hours of homework added. But you managed to get that job, then go to 2 classes and be certified to inspect such complicated parts? Sorry, I have my doubts, about you and about a company that would do that. Considering you have ALL these certificates, and job qualifications, and have been flawless thru it all, but yet you show very clearly, you don't even understand half the crap that comes out of your own mouth. If you have done all you say you have, and with all the flawlessness you say, you sure don't show it. I have rubbed shoulders with people who have all kinds of certs. in many different and high level fields and they KNOW which words to use and use them properly and don't misspell them. Also, they don't use a word that contradicts the word they just used like you do.
Last night I showed your posts in this thread, and a few from the other site, to a retired engineer that I shoot pool with every Wednesday night and he laughed his azz off at how ridiculous you sounded and pointed out exactly what I mentioned above. He laughed even harder when I told him that according to you "you talk this way all the time as this is who you are". He said that you must only talk to your self, as no engineer or educated people use those words in normal conversations, and most of the time not even in work environments. He recommended that if you're going to be a poser, watch Big Bang Theory so you can learn how to do it right. :grin-square:
Dave

K.....and this is a completely ambiguous statement in regards to...well anything except my favorite show....but..

BAZINGA!!!!!!

 

[scdiveteam]

It has nothing to do with "being honest and telling the truth". It has to do with incorrectly using words that really don't fit the context, are spelled phonetically, are chosen because they sort of sound like the word you think you want to use, or are archaic and only meant to try to make yourself sound a lot smarter than you are.

And that is indisputably funny. I mean, pretty much everything about you is funny, but that particular failing of yours is especially funny. Downright hilarious, actually

For example, in one of your recent dissertations about yet the latest skill you claim to have mastered you wrote:



"Dimential Metroloygy"? What the hell is that? Do you mean dimensional metrology?

AND



"Axis"? It gained you "axis"? I guess you mean access...?

Face it Rick, you're kind of semi-literate, and I suspect you know this. So you try to compensate by using words and phrases that you aren't really familiar with, but think make you sound intelligent. The problem is, even if you did know how to use them in a sentence it still comes off as idiotic.

To use an example that has been addressed many time before, where any normal cuemaker might say, "I glue the joint pin in with a high-quality epoxy", YOU write:



Let's break that little bundle of bullshit down, shall we?

"6,500 psi epoxy" What exactly does that mean, Rick? Are you providing the psi rating for your epoxy's compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength, or bond strength? These are the four aspects of epoxy that are measured and rated, and they are very different from each other. More importantly, who do you think gives a damn about any of the psi ratings for your epoxy? It's not like you formulate it yourself.

"structural encapsulation" Really, Rick? Do you think no one realizes that when you have a sloppy, oversize cavity the epoxy is going to goosh all around the pin and harden in place?

"annulus"? I get what you're trying to describe, but from a mechanical engineering aspect "annulus" is not the right word - it's simply not used to describe any part of a machine thread. You could say "minor diameter" or "thread root", but "annulus" is simply incorrect.

"keyway anchorage embedment" Oh my God. Why not just use the word "anchor" and be done with it?

You constantly accuse others of "obfuscation". For those who are not completely familiar with that word, we go for a moment to Wikipedia:



Your writing is the very essence of obfuscation, and the rest of us find it irritating - but funny. Very, very funny. You are the very embodiment of Oswald Bates, and for that I thank you.

TW

Thanks for correcting my typos.

By your comments you surly have no experience in construction or foundation terms and engineering methods. Maybe I should not have assumed most people understood those terms.

Annulus:

Geometry. the space between two concentric circles on a plane.

A perfect description!

Foundation Keyway:

Pretty simple explanation of a mechanical joint to prevent lateral movement or shifting after the media is cured.



Embedment:

The placing of one material into another so that the two become a single material.

I don't think that is bad way to describe encapsulation of a pin within a hole where the parent material ( wood ) is bonded with the pin using a media ( epoxy ).

Pretty simple stuff I would say.

Encapsulation:

SYNONYMS
enclose, encase, contain, confine, envelop, enfold, sheath, cocoon, surround

That makes sense to me also.

So people can muddy the waters of a discussion by bringing up spelling errors and such but that does not make them an English teacher only a rubbernecker.

Just so you don't have to look it up. Man I hope I spelled everything right so I don't scolded again. It really hurts my feeling and makes me depressed so I have to lay on the couch all day and sleep.

Rubbernecker:

A driver who drives more slowly to look at an accident, or a person who looks at something in a stupid way.

JMO,

Rick

 

[scdiveteam]

I'd like to know how you could land that job without training beforehand? My schooling alone was almost a full year of daily classes at 6 hrs. a day with hours of homework added. But you managed to get that job, then go to 2 classes and be certified to inspect such complicated parts? Sorry, I have my doubts, about you and about a company that would do that. Considering you have ALL these certificates, and job qualifications, and have been flawless thru it all, but yet you show very clearly, you don't even understand half the crap that comes out of your own mouth. If you have done all you say you have, and with all the flawlessness you say, you sure don't show it. I have rubbed shoulders with people who have all kinds of certs. in many different and high level fields and they KNOW which words to use and use them properly and don't misspell them. Also, they don't use a word that contradicts the word they just used like you do.
Last night I showed your posts in this thread, and a few from the other site, to a retired engineer that I shoot pool with every Wednesday night and he laughed his azz off at how ridiculous you sounded and pointed out exactly what I mentioned above. He laughed even harder when I told him that according to you "you talk this way all the time as this is who you are". He said that you must only talk to your self, as no engineer or educated people use those words in normal conversations, and most of the time not even in work environments. He recommended that if you're going to be a poser, watch Big Bang Theory so you can learn how to do it right. :grin-square:
Dave

Dave,

In 1972 I landed an entry level job with Crane Packing Company in Morton Grove, Il. and was a precision inspector performing inspection of various parts for mechanical seals produced for many applications. It was only after taking two consecutive certification courses at North Park College did I get the opportunity to work on items that required 100% inspection with some pretty technical inspection apparatus.

Aircraft and nuclear service parts fell into this category and every machining detail had to be inspected, signed off and recorded on history card files for archive documentation record keeping. That was 42 years ago and I am sure things are quite different now.

You keep dropping innuendos which you make assumptions that I am somehow dishonest or speak untruths for no good reason. This behavior only reveals some insight as to your thinking process concern morals and ethics. But I will refrain from making judgments about you from these insights and opinions I have given thought to. Why because it would not be fair to you for me to jump to conclusions as I hope we could be friends when all is said a done.

Your friend is absolutely right, I am not your average normal person so tell him thanks for the compliment.

Rick

 

[buddha162]

Every time I see this touted as the ultimate test of straightness it makes me cringe. I guess now is as good a time as any to debunk this pervasive myth.

Checking the straightness of a cue by rolling it with the butt end on a pool table's surface and joint running along the rail is NOT an accurate method - not even close. It relies on the following highly unlikely assumptions:

1) the table bed and the top of the rubber cushion are perfectly parallel to to each [in the horizontal plane] to a few thousandths tolerance; and

2) the fabric pulled tightly against the rubber cushion has perfectly equal tension along its length so it is not causing the rubber to bulge upward (or pucker downward) at any point; and

3) the cue is rolled perfectly perpendicular to the rail along the rail and that roll must be perfectly linear, even though the differential diameters of the butt and joint (and physics) dictate that it must actually travel in an arc.

I have seen hundreds (thousands?) of pool tables, and observed dozens being leveled and assembled. The tolerances for that work typically rely on a visual inspection of a bubble level and shimming rails with wooden wedges and old playing cards. The rubber cushions are bonded to the table rails with contact cement while the top edges are aligned horizontally by feel and by eye. The tension on the rail cloth is determined by feel while it is pulled tight and stapled in place.

In short, the tolerances of the table are nowhere near precise, and the handling of the cue during its rolling is even less so. I have never seen anyone roll a cue on the rail in any path that wasn't an arc. When the cue DOES roll in an arcing path the distance between the joint and buttcap contact points changes, simultaneously changing the angle of the cue and therefore the height of the tip - resulting in a tip that bobs up and down during the rolling process.

In fact, to roll it along a straight path would require either simultaneously sliding the joint sideways while also rolling it, OR letting the buttcap slip on the able surface during the process.

I have no idea how a person doing the rolling would accomplish either of those "cheats" while retaining any sort of precision, and anything other than perfect table conditions and perfect manipulation of the cue can cause a straight cue to look warped OR a warped cue to look straight.

TW

TW, how do you explain my one cue which rolls "straight" (no discernible wobble of any kind the naked eye can see) with joint resting on the rail, on multiple tables, whereas another cue I have have a similar degree of roll-out on multiple different tables?

I don't doubt what you say, just looking for clarification. I'm confused by the seeming consistency in rolling a cue this way on different tables if what you say is true.

Also, for guys w/o access to a lathe...how do you suggest we test a cue's straightness?

Finally...I want to thank Rick once again for providing us with such glorious forum entertainment. Absolutely fascinating personality.

 

[Dave38]

Dave,

In 1972 I landed an entry level job with Crane Packing Company in Morton Grove, Il. and was a precision inspector performing inspection of various parts for mechanical seals produced for many applications. It was only after taking two consecutive certification courses at North Park College did I get the opportunity to work on items that required 100% inspection with some pretty technical inspection apparatus.

Aircraft and nuclear service parts fell into this category and every machining detail had to be inspected, signed off and recorded on history card files for archive documentation record keeping. That was 42 years ago and I am sure things are quite different now.

You keep dropping innuendos which you make assumptions that I am somehow dishonest or speak untruths for no good reason. This behavior only reveals some insight as to your thinking process concern morals and ethics. But I will refrain from making judgments about you from these insights and opinions I have given thought to. Why because it would not be fair to you for me to jump to conclusions as I hope we could be friends when all is said a done.

Your friend is absolutely right, I am not your average normal person so tell him thanks for the compliment.

Rick

Actually I have been blunt, I have stated that your full of BullShit, others have said the same thing...your FULL OF BS, it's not innuendos it's called plain English.
A person that makes BOASTFUL claims of BEING FLAWLESS for 31years in hi-tech fields(no proof), now suddenly can't make coherent statements, nor spell, uses large words that usually contradict each other or don't even have anything to do with the subject, Makes wild sounding claims of incredible sounding runout specs without the proper equipment.Then has to 'manipulate' the pin to get those specs, in an oversized hole with lots of epoxy to take up the slack, along with using a wood dowel, sandpaper, and a pin in it that has been machined smaller than the minor dia. of the joint pin, to be used as a substitute for proper facing of a joint after applying finish which by most principles, doing all the above throws all those wild sounding 'specs' right out the window.....Seems Flawed to most reasonable people. To others, they would recommend seeing a doctor. Maybe the most honest thing you have said in all these threads is that 'the drugs you took back in the day may have caused some issues'....your words, not mine.

BTW....by your storyline....you were inspecting nuclear valves around 1974-76? When was Three Mile? 1979 in the newest reactor finished around that time...wasn't it caused by a failed steam relief valve......lol

 

[Thomas Wayne]

TW, how do you explain my one cue which rolls "straight" (no discernible wobble of any kind the naked eye can see) with joint resting on the rail, on multiple tables, whereas another cue I have have a similar degree of roll-out on multiple different tables?

[...].

Read what I wrote again... carefully, this time. The time-honored "test" of rolling an assembled cue on a pool table calls for positioning the cue with with buttcap on the table surface, the joint on the rail, and the tip floating out in open space. Upon doing that the following statements are incontrovertible:

1) If the buttcap is lifted the tip will drop accordingly; and

2) if the joint is lifted the tip will rise accordingly; and

3) if the distance between the buttcap and rail increases the tip will drop; and

4) if the distance between the buttcap and rail decreases the tip will rise.

These statements conform to the known laws of physics and are not debatable.

Therefore, if any of the above instances occurs it will affect the perceived straightness of the cue. So what can cause one or more of the above occurrences? Either the rail is not perfectly parallel to the table surface (in the horizontal plane), and/or the rolling of the cue does not follow a path perfectly perpendicular to the rail.

I can't "explain" why your cue always rolls perfectly straight on every table you ever try because I have not witnessed these "tests". So I have no idea if every table you ever try is perfect, or if you consciously correct the rolling to compensate, or if you're simply lying about the whole thing for your own amusement. What I DO know is a pool table is a poor choice of testing tool given the discrepancies that can easily exist with one.

So if you want to argue whether I am right or not then I suggest you begin by disproving one or more of the above numbered statements. Failing that there's really nothing further to discuss.

TW

 

[Thomas Wayne]

[...]

BTW....by your storyline....you were inspecting nuclear valves around 1974-76? When was Three Mile? 1979 in the newest reactor finished around that time...wasn't it caused by a failed steam relief valve......lol

Holy shit! A smoking gun!

Someone alert the media.

TW

 

[Tony_in_MD]

I am not a cue maker but I have aways thought that spinning a cue in a lathe is the best way to see how straight it is.

Read what I wrote again... carefully, this time. The time-honored "test" of rolling an assembled cue on a pool table calls for positioning the cue with with buttcap on the table surface, the joint on the rail, and the tip floating out in open space. Upon doing that the following statements are incontrovertible:

1) If the buttcap is lifted the tip will drop accordingly; and

2) if the joint is lifted the tip will rise accordingly; and

3) if the distance between the buttcap and rail increases the tip will drop; and

4) if the distance between the buttcap and rail decreases the tip will rise.

These statements conform to the known laws of physics and are not debatable.

Therefore, if any of the above instances occurs it will affect the perceived straightness of the cue. So what can cause one or more of the above occurrences? Either the rail is not perfectly parallel to the table surface (in the horizontal plane), and/or the rolling of the cue does not follow a path perfectly perpendicular to the rail.

I can't "explain" why your cue always rolls perfectly straight on every table you ever try because I have not witnessed these "tests". So I have no idea if every table you ever try is perfect, or if you consciously correct the rolling to compensate, or if you're simply lying about the whole thing for your own amusement. What I DO know is a pool table is a poor choice of testing tool given the discrepancies that can easily exist with one.

So if you want to argue whether I am right or not then I suggest you begin by disproving one or more of the above numbered statements. Failing that there's really nothing further to discuss.

TW

 

[scdiveteam]

Actually I have been blunt, I have stated that your full of BullShit, others have said the same thing...your FULL OF BS, it's not innuendos it's called plain English.
A person that makes BOASTFUL claims of BEING FLAWLESS for 31years in hi-tech fields(no proof), now suddenly can't make coherent statements, nor spell, uses large words that usually contradict each other or don't even have anything to do with the subject, Makes wild sounding claims of incredible sounding runout specs without the proper equipment.Then has to 'manipulate' the pin to get those specs, in an oversized hole with lots of epoxy to take up the slack, along with using a wood dowel, sandpaper, and a pin in it that has been machined smaller than the minor dia. of the joint pin, to be used as a substitute for proper facing of a joint after applying finish which by most principles, doing all the above throws all those wild sounding 'specs' right out the window.....Seems Flawed to most reasonable people. To others, they would recommend seeing a doctor. Maybe the most honest thing you have said in all these threads is that 'the drugs you took back in the day may have caused some issues'....your words, not mine.

BTW....by your storyline....you were inspecting nuclear valves around 1974-76? When was Three Mile? 1979 in the newest reactor finished around that time...wasn't it caused by a failed steam relief valve......lol

Dave,

Your logic is flawed and you certainly entitled to and can call me a liar all you want.

The facts are what they are concerning my background and I am ok with your pessimism and Doubting Thomas persona. That's who you are, I understand that.

I am an open book and am transparent with nothing to hide. Even my drug use in the 60s and 70s are open as they are part of who I am or was. Today just a guy who want to make the best cues I can and loving every minute while striving to improve every until its over.

Are you a cue builder Dave? What kind of cues do you create and what is your background. We all know TW can walk the walk as he is one of the best.

You make some pretty high handed expressions around here and talk the talk. My question is what walk do you actually walk. Your "about me" is a guarded statement and your avatar is an APA team photo? You must be on a good APA team? Or something like that.

If you got to go to an engineer friend to sort things out that someone else says on an Internet forum, me thinks you might have some issues.

I on the other hand am just promoting my brand and name recognition. Maybe you missed that point.

You can say what you want as long as you spell my name right.

TW displays one of my cues and tells the world this is what not to do concerning artistic expression. I agree with him 100% and explain it is a fancy player not an art cue. Then he finds a bunch of other things to complain about after I agree with him. HMMMMM?

So I will keep reaching to set the bar up a notch while others get all hot and bothered in a conventional world. It makes no sense to act like it is a sin for someone to have their own methodology in their shop. It is very easy to just disagree and not get obsessed about telling someone else that they are lying. That's just bad manners without justification.

Nice joke about TMI but I never said I inspected valves. It was mechanical seals and gland plates. What the hell, there is nothing wrong with mistaking a valve for a seal.

So I guess you will really think I am a Lier when I tell you that I routinely made commercial dives for decades within open nuclear reactor vessels and spent fuel pools and have been in very close proximity to glowing spent fuel rods while performing some of my certified speciality skill sets at many facilities that were my customers. How close to those glowing rods? 8 feet to and extremity portion of my body (hand). I am sure that will beg many questions in your mind like what was my dose rate from gamma on such dives lasting up to 4 hrs and how did I protect myself from free radical stellite particles that are invisible and can kill you in a short order if undetected.

Now Dave, am I a total lying nut case or am I telling 100% total facts about someone who was given extreme responsibilities over and over by the powers that be to complete critical tasks in mistake free zones with total trust of outcome. For decades with a perfect track record for safety and a 100% jobs completed record while under scrutiny of procedural adherence standards and also guidelines mandated by 10 CFR 20 and and also by 10 CFR 50 in many applications. That type of stuff is only about 5% of my résumé. There is plenty more. You question my professionalism? I hang in very rarified air my friend.

You can mull that one over before you start with the L word. Now Dave, am i a totally dependable and serious person unlike anyone you know or Commander McBrag a delusional cartoon character. Paint me as you will Dave.

So when I make observations regarding a pin install method you can be sure there is some meat in the bone as my way is not to knee jerk but to test and observe. You can disagree but that will not concern my behavior in any way.

JMO,

Rick

BTW,

I am sure I misspelled a few words, so what!

 

[ribdoner]

Dave,

Your logic is flawed and you certainly entitled to and can call me a liar all you want.

The facts are what they are concerning my background and I am ok with your pessimism and Doubting Thomas persona. That's who you are, I understand that.

I am an open book and am transparent with nothing to hide. Even my drug use in the 60s and 70s are open as they are part of who I am or was. Today just a guy who want to make the best cues I can and loving every minute while striving to improve every until its over.

Are you a cue builder Dave? What kind of cues do you create and what is your background. We all know TW can walk the walk as he is one of the best.

You make some pretty high handed expressions around here and talk the talk. My question is what walk do you actually walk. Your "about me" is a guarded statement and your avatar is an APA team photo? You must be on a good APA team? Or something like that.

If you got to go to an engineer friend to sort things out that someone else says on an Internet forum, me thinks you might have some issues.

I on the other hand am just promoting my brand and name recognition. Maybe you missed that point.

You can say what you want as long as you spell my name right.

TW displays one of my cues and tells the world this is what not to do concerning artistic expression. I agree with him 100% and explain it is a fancy player not an art cue. Then he finds a bunch of other things to complain about after I agree with him. HMMMMM?

So I will keep reaching to set the bar up a notch while others get all hot and bothered in a conventional world. It makes no sense to act like it is a sin for someone to have their own methodology in their shop. It is very easy to just disagree and not get obsessed about telling someone else that they are lying. That's just bad manners without justification.

Nice joke about TMI but I never said I inspected valves. It was mechanical seals and gland plates. What the hell, there is nothing wrong with mistaking a valve for a seal.

So I guess you will really think I am a Lier when I tell you that I routinely made commercial dives for decades within open nuclear reactor vessels and spent fuel pools and have been in very close proximity to glowing spent fuel rods while performing some of my certified speciality skill sets at many facilities that were my customers. How close to those glowing rods? 8 feet to and extremity portion of my body (hand). I am sure that will beg many questions in your mind like what was my dose rate from gamma on such dives lasting up to 4 hrs and how did I protect myself from free radical stellite particles that are invisible and can kill you in a short order if undetected.

Now Dave, am I a total lying nut case or am I telling 100% total facts about someone who was given extreme responsibilities over and over by the powers that be to complete critical tasks in mistake free zones with total trust of outcome. For decades with a perfect track record for safety and a 100% jobs completed record while under scrutiny of procedural adherence standards and also guidelines mandated by 10 CFR 20 and and also by 10 CFR 50 in many applications. That type of stuff is only about 5% of my résumé. There is plenty more. You question my professionalism? I hang in very rarified air my friend.

You can mull that one over before you start with the L word. Now Dave, am i a totally dependable and serious person unlike anyone you know or Commander McBrag a delusional cartoon character. Paint me as you will Dave.

So when I make observations regarding a pin install method you can be sure there is some meat in the bone as my way is not to knee jerk but to test and observe. You can disagree but that will not concern my behavior in any way.

JMO,

Rick

BTW,

I am sure I misspelled a few words, so what!

bless your heart

 

[MVPCues]

...

So I guess you will really think I am a Lier when I tell you that I routinely made commercial dives for decades within open nuclear reactor vessels and spent fuel pools and have been in very close proximity to glowing spent fuel rods while performing some of my certified speciality skill sets at many facilities that were my customers. How close to those glowing rods? 8 feet to and extremity portion of my body (hand). I am sure that will beg many questions in your mind like what was my dose rate from gamma on such dives lasting up to 4 hrs and how did I protect myself from free radical stellite particles that are invisible and can kill you in a short order if undetected.

...

Superhero origin story right there. Book it!

 

[buddha162]

Read what I wrote again... carefully, this time. The time-honored "test" of rolling an assembled cue on a pool table calls for positioning the cue with with buttcap on the table surface, the joint on the rail, and the tip floating out in open space. Upon doing that the following statements are incontrovertible:

1) If the buttcap is lifted the tip will drop accordingly; and

2) if the joint is lifted the tip will rise accordingly; and

3) if the distance between the buttcap and rail increases the tip will drop; and

4) if the distance between the buttcap and rail decreases the tip will rise.

These statements conform to the known laws of physics and are not debatable.

Therefore, if any of the above instances occurs it will affect the perceived straightness of the cue. So what can cause one or more of the above occurrences? Either the rail is not perfectly parallel to the table surface (in the horizontal plane), and/or the rolling of the cue does not follow a path perfectly perpendicular to the rail.

I can't "explain" why your cue always rolls perfectly straight on every table you ever try because I have not witnessed these "tests". So I have no idea if every table you ever try is perfect, or if you consciously correct the rolling to compensate, or if you're simply lying about the whole thing for your own amusement. What I DO know is a pool table is a poor choice of testing tool given the discrepancies that can easily exist with one.

So if you want to argue whether I am right or not then I suggest you begin by disproving one or more of the above numbered statements. Failing that there's really nothing further to discuss.

TW

Seems like you didn't read what I wrote very carefully. I absolutely agree with all of your incontrovertible statements; I was simply asking for an explanation, not challenging what you wrote.

Assuming I am not lying, and assuming there is variation between the tables: could it be that the variations would have to be larger than what's usually seen between tables?

And assuming that the joint-on-rail roll-test is as you say---not a good method to determine straightness: what is? Most people don't have access to a lathe.

 

[Mcues]

Thanks for the kind words, Rick, but if you're going to drag my video into this, you're going to have to put up with my 2¢

The sawdust on my lathe was generated when I drilled the lead hole. No sawdust shows at the start of the video. Not a big deal but I don't think the appearance of my lathe and yours is a valid comparison. Just sayin'.

Shooting for a dead-nuts pin install is EVERY cuemaker's goal, not yours alone. Accepting .001" TIR is much more realistic & very reasonable. My "admission" of sloppiness at .001" TIR was facetious but I realize now that it wasn't apparent in the video.

My pin installs quite easily because I leave .002" total clearance between the pin & the bore (.382" into .384"). The live-tooled hole is smoother, rounder & more accurate than any drilled hole. This accuracy enables me to slather the pin with epoxy for proper embedment (thanks for that, Rick!) while allowing the locating barrel to do its job.

I do not need to "bang" my pins into location because they are already there; moreover, they WANT to be where they are. I expect my pins to come out within .001" TIR because they HAVE to when they are installed in accurate holes.

I disagree with forcing them somewhere they don't fall naturally. In fact, I probably COULDN'T nudge them more than .001" because of the close fit on the locating barrel. Again: let the locating barrel do the job for which it was designed.

While this might sound like heresy, I no longer even check my pins for runout. I simply turn on my lathe at 800 rpm & look at the pin. That's enough to tell me if I have a problem or not.

I'm a follower of your heretic pin installment ways.

 

[JoeyInCali]

I think this thread has now 6500 BSI ( not PSI ).
From multi-millionaire to whatever resume entry.
Just amazing.

 

[scdiveteam]

I think this thread has now 6500 BSI ( not PSI ).
From multi-millionaire to whatever resume entry.
Just amazing.

Joey,

It is funny because I use BSI 30 minute for my pins. HA HA

When I was a young person my dad told be to always take people at their word until they are proven to be unworthy of your trust. You may get disappointed more than not but having faith in other people as an expectation is very positive for your soul as opposed to being a cynical individual which burdens your soul.

I am not saying this should be the case with your financial stuff or matters of family welfare by any means. In very important things you must be guarded as not to become a patsy. Like Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify".

cynical |ˈsinikəl|
adjective
1) believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity :
• contemptuous; mocking : he gave a cynical laugh.
2) concerned only with one's own interests.

That's not how I wish to be live my life, how about you Joey.

When I say I am not motivated by money to build cues, I mean it. When I say I wish to strive for the highest standard I also mean it. Believe it or not!

JMO,

Rick

 

[JoeyInCali]

Joey,

It is funny because I use BSI 30 minute for my pins. HA HA

When I was a young person my dad told be to always take people at their word until they are proven to be unworthy of your trust. You may get disappointed more than not but having faith in other people as an expectation is very positive for your soul as opposed to being a cynical individual which burdens your soul.

I am not saying this should be the case with your financial stuff or matters of family welfare by any means. I very important thing you must be guarded as not to become a patsy. Like Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify".

cynical |ˈsinikəl|
adjective
1) believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity :
• contemptuous; mocking : he gave a cynical laugh.
2) concerned only with one's own interests.

That's not how I wish to be live my life, how about you Joey.

When I say I am not motivated by money to build cues, I mean it. When I say I wish to strive for the highest standard I also mean it. Believe it or not!

JMO,

Rick

Rick, if Jesus came down from heaven and told you, you're full of sh!t, you'd come back with a 6-page argument.
You're not interested in listening or you strive for higher standards as proven here already. I can go on and on about your claims and your processes. That would just open up more arguments.
You got cue makers with resumes you will never touch telling you things you should be thankful for receiving . Instead of taking them and really examining them, you blurt out your resume and keep insisting your ways are some incredible sh!t.

Rick, it's not the world. IT's YOU.
If TW, RBC, Steve Klein, Crisp and DZ COLLECTIVELY told me something , I'd just shut up and take it . B/c if they did that COLLECTIVELY, they can't be wrong.

 

[HawaiianEye]

Rick, if Jesus came down from heaven and told you, you're full of sh!t, you'd come back with a 6-page argument.
You're not interested in listening or you strive for higher standards as proven here already. I can go on and on about your claims and your processes. That would just open up more arguments.
You got cue makers with resumes you will never touch telling you things you should be thankful for receiving . Instead of taking them and really examining them, you blurt out your resume and keep insisting your ways are some incredible sh!t.

Rick, it's not the world. IT's YOU.
If TW, RBC, Steve Klein, Crisp and DZ COLLECTIVELY told me something , I'd just shut up and take it . B/c if they did that COLLECTIVELY, they can't be wrong.

I love reading these forums because I enjoy understanding how various cue makers approach the way they make cues. However, it seems Rick is the John Barton of cue makers when it comes to the forums. No matter how many pros or experts or equals tell him that his methods aren't the "norm" or necessarily better, he insists that his are better.

I don't own one of Rick's cues, but my friend has two of them and they look to be very well made and they hit good...at least for the few minutes I banged balls around with them.

I don't know why he just doesn't make his cues and sell them and let the players decide how good they are. I don't care if my pin is .0000000000001 off center or .09 if I can pick it up and hit balls with it better than another cue.

Aloha.

 

[scdiveteam]

Thanks for the kind words, Rick, but if you're going to drag my video into this, you're going to have to put up with my 2¢

The sawdust on my lathe was generated when I drilled the lead hole. No sawdust shows at the start of the video. Not a big deal but I don't think the appearance of my lathe and yours is a valid comparison. Just sayin'.

Shooting for a dead-nuts pin install is EVERY cuemaker's goal, not yours alone. Accepting .001" TIR is much more realistic & very reasonable. My "admission" of sloppiness at .001" TIR was facetious but I realize now that it wasn't apparent in the video.

My pin installs quite easily because I leave .002" total clearance between the pin & the bore (.382" into .384"). The live-tooled hole is smoother, rounder & more accurate than any drilled hole. This accuracy enables me to slather the pin with epoxy for proper embedment (thanks for that, Rick!) while allowing the locating barrel to do its job.

I do not need to "bang" my pins into location because they are already there; moreover, they WANT to be where they are. I expect my pins to come out within .001" TIR because they HAVE to when they are installed in accurate holes.

I disagree with forcing them somewhere they don't fall naturally. In fact, I probably COULDN'T nudge them more than .001" because of the close fit on the locating barrel. Again: let the locating barrel do the job for which it was designed.

While this might sound like heresy, I no longer even check my pins for runout. I simply turn on my lathe at 800 rpm & look at the pin. That's enough to tell me if I have a problem or not.

Bob,

Sorry I implied that you would bang a pin, I knew better and my apologies for that mis statement. Live threading and boring with your live tooling is a very repeatable process and I like your statement of letting things fall naturally. Makes a lot of sense.

You are the one that everyone looks to as the gold standard as a machinist and cue maker. My self and all of my friends who make cues as machine operators ( not professionals ) love the cues you produce and are in your debit for you open sharing of you skills and approach. That sharing tells me and other of your character and confidence.

As always, thank you for your sharing of information on your videos and your words.

Us cue makers that are not pros at machining are like the musician who practices one song rendition and performs it with great style like a top player. To the average person they are very talented but in reality they can only play that one song very well. He is a fool to think he can play with the monster pros or big dogs! LOL There are many CMs other there that build a cue over and over and think they are machinists.

Building a cue over and over becomes a routine and eventually is very easy without set backs, wasting stock or out come problems.

A pro machinist does not have that luxury of building one thing over and over. He has to build new things each time that present all sorts of challenges. He also has to nail tolerances every time and is always under the gun concerning time restraints in a competitive commercial business environment. "Here's a print and material code specification, build it perfect and I need it right away"! And as you know, you are only as good as your last job. Pros accept those things and they nail it everytime while making it look easy.

JMO,

Rick