Measles cueball vs Red Circle cueball weight differences

[TrumanHW]

It's not my physics. But what do you mean by "the vector is transferred"?

Be understanding is, if the linear energy is transfered in full, neglecting deformation/bound... the residual would be the angular moment that wasn't transfered by the contact friction (gearing) to the object ball. Did I mis-read, misunderstand, or is there something going on here that I previously dismissed..?

 

[TrumanHW]

That's all you can think of? Fortunately for the rest of us, ball manufacturers don't have imaginations as limited as yours.

pj
chgo

Are you an earnest pool player? As in... either have run 50 in straight pool, or broke and ran more times in your life than you'd care to keep track of? Great - you'll have no need to look at the dots; you know how the ball behaves without spin, and you know what spin it MUST have had by how it behaved. If the above isn't true, why are you on a pool FORUM, or in a pool hall... if you don't already play and love the game? There's no way to monetize pool. Showing gimmicky shit to a disinterested world seems like a lost cause. I HOPE I'm wrong...

And regardless... if the only issue were the measles them self, I don't mind them. I mind that the cueball is different in dynamics than every other cue ball. Id rather play with ANY other CB than it. Red cirle, triangle, blue circle, aramith... you know it. the measle has some manufacturing shite that sucks.

 

[TrumanHW]

Measel ball. John B.

But why. And regardless... what if I found experts who each feel the opposite. Most of all... I'd want to disqualify people who play straight pool. Rotation specialists, only. Once you get in to straight pool your preferences are probably biased.

 

[TrumanHW]

I've got the same weights coming off my scale also.

I have a ramp and found that the measles ball travels further than the other cue balls stated.

Could it be that there is a more dense layer of resin towards the outer shell of the ball giving it this characteristic?

Multilayered ball?

Yes, a multilayered ball. I believe this is the case. How else would it travel further with the same weight? There must be more mass towards the outside shell of the ball than others.

The golf ball has been manipulated for a couple decades now to help control spin for those who put too much/too little on it. Why not the cue ball in pool?

VERY VERY INTERESTING. Thank you for this experiment. This is the EXACT thing I'm talking about. There are features of the red circle and I speak it fluently like a language. Killing the ball off the 3rd rail doesn't work as well, and the amount of speed on the ball requires ABSOLUTE feel with the measle... or the ball does too much or too little. :-(

 

[Bob Jewett]

Be understanding is, if the linear energy is transfered in full, neglecting deformation/bound... the residual would be the angular moment that wasn't transfered by the contact friction (gearing) to the object ball. Did I mis-read, misunderstand, or is there something going on here that I previously dismissed..?

Those words don't all fit together. Can you say it more clearly? We were not discussing anything related to spin.

 

[Scott Lee]

No "religious zeal" here buddy. I just don't understand why you don't start your own thread...instead of bringing up something that was posted about 5 years ago...simply so you could "argue" the (presumed) 'merits' of your way of thinking. If you're going to try to match wits with Bob, you'd better at least have some. Oh, and if you're going to question someone's skill to try to bolster your comments, you'd best post some you-tube video of yourself, or prove your "provenance" through your own high finishes in event pool.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

There's nothing to get hostile about. And sometimes things go 100+ years before the matter is resurrected and challenged. This is why we have NEWTONIAN gravity, and Einsteinium. And even "newtonian" is just homage to Newton... because Einstein covers that too. But yeah, sometimes we come back to things to either educate the questioners or to improve on knowledgeable beliefs.

In short scott, I'm okay with discovering I'm wrong - But i'll discover this through an articulation supporting his claim. Not just your clinging to his authority... Your religious zeal has no bearing in a discussion covering the physics of a matter. The truth will defend itself well enough.

 

[ENGLISH!]

What is your deal? You resurrect a FIVE YEAR OLD thread, just to argue with well known posters...including one the most knowledgable people about the physics of pool on this site. Go troll somewhere else please. Geez...are you PocketPoint again?

Scott Lee

There's nothing to get hostile about. And sometimes things go 100+ years before the matter is resurrected and challenged. This is why we have NEWTONIAN gravity, and Einsteinium. And even "newtonian" is just homage to Newton... because Einstein covers that too. But yeah, sometimes we come back to things to either educate the questioners or to improve on knowledgeable beliefs.

In short scott, I'm okay with discovering I'm wrong - But i'll discover this through an articulation supporting his claim. Not just your clinging to his authority... Your religious zeal has no bearing in a discussion covering the physics of a matter. The truth will defend itself well enough.

Well said. Very well said.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Are you an earnest pool player? As in... either have run 50 in straight pool, or broke and ran more times in your life than you'd care to keep track of? Great - you'll have no need to look at the dots; you know how the ball behaves without spin, and you know what spin it MUST have had by how it behaved.

Unless, of course, I don't think I know it all yet. Maybe you do...

pj
chgo

 

[TrumanHW]

Be understanding is, if the linear energy is transfered in full, neglecting deformation/bound... the residual would be the angular moment that wasn't transfered by the contact friction (gearing) to the object ball. Did I mis-read, misunderstand, or is there something going on here that I previously dismissed..?

Those words don't all fit together. Can you say it more clearly? We were not discussing anything related to spin.

Yeah, I was exhausted when I wrote it and didn't proof it - my apologies. I can't even re-piece together what I was thinking in retrospect.

I think part of my question is that it seems like deformation and rebound from deformation are part of a claim of where the energy is coming from, as opposed to non-deformation transfer of energy? If so, then why did pool with clay balls work? Why in fact does it play at all similar to pool as we've grown to know it in the last 20+ years as phenolic has taken over?

 

[TrumanHW]

No "religious zeal" here buddy. I just don't understand why you don't start your own thread...instead of bringing up something that was posted about 5 years ago...simply so you could "argue" the (presumed) 'merits' of your way of thinking. If you're going to try to match wits with Bob, you'd better at least have some. Oh, and if you're going to question someone's skill to try to bolster your comments, you'd best post some you-tube video of yourself, or prove your "provenance" through your own high finishes in event pool.

Scott Lee


I'm in LA. If you don't live inaccessibly far, I'd be happy to practice with you... and you're welcome to berate my game at any time throughout.

Secondly, I found something related to a topic I have opinions on. And rather than needing to create my own thread, since people who were already interested in the subject had congregated, as well as done some experiments on differing cue balls indicating the interest in getting some scientific, definitive answers... why not pick up where we left off? How does it harm the topic, OP, or you that I've picked up where it was left off?

Stop trolling. I am on topic, and you are attacking me over a "statute of limitation" claim that seems rather unimportant. Why not let the people whom I'm inquiring of decide for themselves if they want to reply? Does it offend/ruin your day to have to see an old thread in bold at the top of a list you're indentured to engage in each and every one of? I apologize for inconveniencing you on a matter you'd already issued judgment over. Please feel free to ignore this thread as much as I'll do my best to ignore your contributions within it. And if it bothers you THAT much, write your AZ congressmen and request they automatically close threads older than a certain age so this sort of issue doesn't have to ruin your day anymore.

I've played in 3 pro events... the last time I entered a pro event was at Hollywood Billiards pechauer, pretty much got last place of roughly 200 entries (13th). I lost to Max Eberle. I played in the SRO before that and they re-arranged my match's schedule time without telling me and I slept through a soft match. I'm nothing special... not that I know USPPA crap, but somewhere around a low-100 score maybe? In case you know people in LA.. I play even practice sets with Alex Lau, though he's the favorite. Butch hides from me... Fatch Garcia plays a little better than I... probably more so from mental toughness. I've played in 1 bar table tournament... which I went to with John Schmidt, Damien Alishan, Nick Spano and others... and, out of like 300 or so people got 6th place (and finished surprisingly higher than they did - which is rather laughable).

My personal high rack runs, in case you're going to ask that as well, were running 4 to close out 2 sets. More three's than I can remember... and my best - 5 racks at Hollywood Billiards when they were about 4-1/8th inches. It was only for $50... aka a practice set... but, no combos, no caroms, no billiards, no 9's on the break, no road maps, and never more than 1 ball pocketed on the break. I don't really count bar table rack runs so those will be omitted.

Further, you missed the entire point of why I asked him his skill level; I wasn't actually putting his skill down, challenging him, or otherwise. I was ASSUMING HE HAD played at the level of having either a high straight pool run or high rack run. And my point is that you can't have either of those without reading the cue ball without the dots. (Not that I'm questioning your inference skills - your reply just seemed to suggest you missed entirely the point I was going for).

Presently, I own a tech company. We repair electronics... and thus, my money doesn't come FROM pool... not that I have the talent to make a living from pool. I lack psychological toughness (my focus drops from pressure), my consistency lacks (like all of us).. and so many other things that I've identified as areas demanding attention.

I'm not here on a forum trying to get in to a measuring contest. You keep on taking hostile interpretations to what I've said, and they've been tenuous at best.

So, if those questions from you are satisfied, I'd like to engage with people who're interested by physics that differentiate the behavior of equipment. And thus, if you lack the knowledge and interest for the physics I'm inquiring about well enough to REALLY elucidate some information, please stop obstructing people who're exchanging ideas that are.

 

[TrumanHW]

Those words don't all fit together. Can you say it more clearly? We were not discussing anything related to spin.

Bob - here's what has me perplexed... If I could simply follow the measle ball well, at the expense of draw... I'd have assigned it as a trade off. Here's my actual take on it's behavior, playing in the tournament side at hard times LA that makes me feel there's something beyond weight going on.

1. I can still draw the ball table-length and a half... but for different reasons than a red circle. For instance, a nip draw - say where you need to come back 6" ... requires more power to initiate and a more precise amount as (here's some foreshadowing) once you do get it rolling, it will roll a little longer.

2. I actually feel (haven't used literal experiments) that I have a harder time with follow. As in, I could more easily finesse-follow the red circule cue ball two rails on 20-degree shots that require power and spin get the cue call to the opposite end rail. In particular, like the 'swerve' is higher(?) with the spin required to achieve an equal response from the measle ball.

3. With equal starting speeds (rolling), it feels like the measle rolls further.

4. Deflection may be a little different? Again, difficult to measure, however, I believe I miss more balls from errors in deflection/swerve than with other balls.

Since the above (and I emphasize that "playing" is a poor form of experimentation which is why I'm asking) has some paradoxical elements... I just don't think the reason it plays different is a matter of weight. It IS however, why I'm interested in some of the various explanations I've heard suggested that the distribution of weight may be different.

Also... do you have any suggestions for getting to the bottom of another issue? For instance, the old table 6 of Hard Times LA's rails (and thus pockets) are on the non-tournament side now. With a slow moving but highly spun cue ball, the ball accelerates more off each rail than on the tournament side. I've always preferred rails that allow you to use the spin to generate speed... and would love to know the characteristic responsible for the contrast. I believe the amount of wear/age of the rails are close enough in age and friction... or I wouldn't even ask.

Thanks for your time (and polite reply to my poorly syntaxed previous question), and your expertise.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

TrumanHW:
I can still draw the ball table-length and a half... but for different reasons than a red circle. For instance, a nip draw - say where you need to come back 6" ... requires more power to initiate and a more precise amount as (here's some foreshadowing) once you do get it rolling, it will roll a little longer.

A couple of observations about this:

The power needed to get the CB spinning and it's tendency to roll farther will be proportional (since they're caused by the same thing), so I think it should behave like just a heavier ball regardless of the concentric weight distribution - that might also be what you're saying.

And needing more power for the same amount of draw should mean you use a wider range of power for the same range of draw distances, which means more "finely grained" control, not less. But more powerful strokes are probably harder to control, so it can be a tradeoff until you get some practice with them.

pj
chgo

 

[TrumanHW]

A couple of observations about this:

The power needed to get the CB spinning and it's tendency to roll farther will be proportional (since they're caused by the same thing), so I think it should behave like just a heavier ball regardless of the concentric weight distribution - that might also be what you're saying.

And needing more power for the same amount of draw should mean you use a wider range of power for the same range of draw distances, which means more "finely grained" control, not less. But more powerful strokes are probably harder to control, so it can be a tradeoff until you get some practice with them.

pj
chgo

I agree with your observations... and not to take away from their poignance -- but I've contemplated their value as well. This is where the limits of experimentation would best take over. I [feel] as though there's a factor in addition to the requirement for finer attenuation of power... but I can't prove or isolate it.

As important as it is to cognitively KNOW that swerve and deflection are real factors to manage -- I believe that the difference in cue balls should be known and understood. To be able to linguistically articulate them may assist in articulating (at least my) cue ball control, as well.

 

[smoooothstroke]

I know I'm a little late to the discussion, but I have weighed the aramith measle ball, the aramith red circle, and the centennial blue circle, all purchased new, and weighed new. All 3 were only 1 or 2 grams different in weight. 2 grams is about .07 oz.

This surprised me a lot. I had always been in the school of thought there was a difference, and I ended up proving myself wrong.

It would seem, that wear on the balls would be the biggest difference on how they acted at the pool hall.
Another factor would be our own bias. If we want the x ball to be hard to draw, we can make it hard to draw.

Since I had done my little experiment, I've quit worrying about what cue ball I'm using, because, to me, it no longer really makes any difference. You'd be amazed at how much that alone has improved my game.

Peace and good shooting to all....

So what ball was heaviest and which was lightest?

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I agree with your observations... and not to take away from their poignance -- but I've contemplated their value as well. This is where the limits of experimentation would best take over. I [feel] as though there's a factor in addition to the requirement for finer attenuation of power... but I can't prove or isolate it.

First time one of my posts has been called poignant. Thanks, I think.

As important as it is to cognitively KNOW that swerve and deflection are real factors to manage -- I believe that the difference in cue balls should be known and understood. To be able to linguistically articulate them may assist in articulating (at least my) cue ball control, as well.

I agree that it's best to know as much as possible - one reason I still practice with a measles ball.

pj
chgo

 

[ENGLISH!]

First time one of my posts has been called poignant. Thanks, I think.


I agree that it's best to know as much as possible - one reason I still practice with a measles ball.

pj
chgo

In the old days, I even bought a hugh 'MUD' cue ball to pratice with at home because so many of the league members had them for their bar tables. They were the worst ever, about 2.5 inches in diameter if I recall correctly. They were useless, except to keep form going into the lock box. You had to play totally differently. It was like an entirely different game trying to play with that ball. The 'funny' thing was many did not even know the difference til they came to play at our house on 9 foot Gold Crowns.

 

[TrumanHW]

In the old days, I even bought a hugh 'MUD' cue ball to pratice with at home because so many of the league members had them for their bar tables. They were the worst ever, about 2.5 inches in diameter if I recall correctly. They were useless, except to keep form going into the lock box. You had to play totally differently. It was like an entirely different game trying to play with that ball. The 'funny' thing was many did not even know the difference til they came to play at our house on 9 foot Gold Crowns.

Trust me when I say, that until you've seen Sam Minoli vs. Keith McCready play with the mud ball on a bar box... you just wouldn't believe it.

 

[TrumanHW]

A couple of observations about this:

The power needed to get the CB spinning and it's tendency to roll farther will be proportional (since they're caused by the same thing), so I think it should behave like just a heavier ball regardless of the concentric weight distribution - that might also be what you're saying.

And needing more power for the same amount of draw should mean you use a wider range of power for the same range of draw distances, which means more "finely grained" control, not less. But more powerful strokes are probably harder to control, so it can be a tradeoff until you get some practice with them.

pj
chgo

I see your thought re: "finely grained" ... but on closer consideration - having just recorded efren playing with the measle ball and watching him fail to strike the ball with adequate firmness to gain the intended effect ... I'm going to have to say that it disallows it. Power and finesse are difficult to combine for us mortals... and the evidence of that is the person who's the favorite of more pool players than any other... has struggled with this ball.

PS - I just got video of efren playing the 10 ball ghost and the rotation ghost... if anyone's interested let me know. I"m going to contemplate how I'm going to post it. I have about 3 or so hours of him playing various ghost games for money... which I set up at hard times.

Ironically... even efren dislikes the absurd tightness of the tournament side. I thought it was just me - however when i played on the former table 6 - which is the 4.25" pockets with a red circle... I played a pretty awesome gear for me. Alex Lau barely broke even with me... won his sets hill hill, I won mine 7-3, 7-2 and 7-5. Effing LOVED the table 6 from before. The rails allowed you to torque the ball - I DOMINATED the pockets - and expect to run out when I get an open shot... let alone ball in hand. I believe I'd play the ghost on that equipment. Whereas... on the tournament side now - they're "stress boxes". Even Eddie (the owner) agrees they've reached a point of being less profitable.

 

[wizard from den]

I would like to know the weight differences either way in both balls if someone has 2 new ones.

get a digital scale then you will know

 

[Black-Balled]

get a digital scale then you will know