measles experiment

O

Onemoreyouth

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
has anybody played around with two measles balls to see the amount of spin transfered to the OB?

I think it would be very interesting to see a video of left spin transfering to the object ball.

i think it would be even better to see how much spin is lost on a combination shot.


if anybody gets a chance please do this i would love to see it!
 
Dave, not sure what you mean

Dave,

The english transferred is a great deal less than that put on the cue ball but is enough to reverse the angle on low angle banks and with a little experimentation it seems like I can get over a diamond of english off of the rail if the cue ball and object ball are close together. Fred covers it in "Banking with the Beard".

Hu

Double-Dave said:
Try 63 trough 67.
Not that this is the end-all answer though, but still gives a nice idea. The way I see it the amount of english transferred is minimal, I don't think you can get a ful rotation out of an objectball. I'd love to be proven wrong.

http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/high_speed_videos/index.html
Click to expand...
 
ShootingArts said:
Dave,

The english transferred is a great deal less than that put on the cue ball but is enough to reverse the angle on low angle banks and with a little experimentation it seems like I can get over a diamond of english off of the rail if the cue ball and object ball are close together. Fred covers it in "Banking with the Beard".

Hu
Click to expand...

I should perhaps clarify. I said and meant that the amount of english transferred is minimal in my opinion, not enough to make the objectball spin around its vertical axis making one rotation. I'm talking about the amount of english transferred from the cueball to the objectball NOT FROM THE RAIL TO THE OBJECTBALL. Now obviously the effect this transfer (from cb to ob) has can be quite pronounced, indeed espescially when banking. Are we on the same page?

gr. Dave
 
Double-Dave said:
gr. Dave
Click to expand...

The amount of "transfer" (left, right, top, bottom) from the cue ball to AN object ball is very subjective. Because, it's a matter of friction (which I've posted in the past). It really comes down to the environment on the table AND balls that you're playing with.

The dirtier the balls, the more chance "friction" of the action ball will transfer to the stationary ball. A dirty table, allows for the transfer of impurities to ALL balls.

If you are truely trying to better yourself, please, put this in the back of your mind. Analyze.
 
I don't think we are on the same page yet

Dave,

I will have to see if I can tell how much it is spinning using a striped ball positioned to show spin or the measle ball as the object ball but I think the object ball is rotating quite a bit faster than you think.

I believe, and right now this is purely my opinion, but I believe that the object ball is spinning substantially when it hits the rail when it reverses the angle the ball would normally take off of the rail. It would seem that the english applied any time a ball hits a rail at any angle other than 90º would overcome a spin that was as slow as you are describing.

I will try to test this tomorrow. I don't know that it matters if the ball spins half a rotation or a dozen rotations before it hits the rail but now I am curious.

Hu

Double-Dave said:
I should perhaps clarify. I said and meant that the amount of english transferred is minimal in my opinion, not enough to make the objectball spin around its vertical axis making one rotation. I'm talking about the amount of english transferred from the cueball to the objectball NOT FROM THE RAIL TO THE OBJECTBALL. Now obviously the effect this transfer (from cb to ob) has can be quite pronounced, indeed espescially when banking. Are we on the same page?

gr. Dave
Click to expand...
 
i'm not asking about this to try and improve my game, nor am i assuming that it will help me to understand the amount of spin transfer from the CB to the OB just curious about it.
 
ShootingArts said:
Dave,
I believe, and right now this is purely my opinion, but I believe that the object ball is spinning substantially when it hits the rail when it reverses the angle the ball would normally take off of the rail. It would seem that the english applied any time a ball hits a rail at any angle other than 90º would overcome a spin that was as slow as you are describing.
Hu
Click to expand...

Hi Hu,

I messed around with this a little bit, at slowish speeds I can't get half a rotation out of the OB, but like I said only messed a little bit. I'm not sure what you mean by the above quote, I agree that the spin will be overcome/change direction when the OB hits the rail, but the spin transferred from the CB will certainly have it's effect, overcome or not. Let ous know your findings!

gr. Dave
 
Dave, I definitely don't have a clue!

Dave,

I tried to use the normal stroke I would use to make a bank and have to admit I couldn't see how fast the object ball spun. No clue. I guess we will go with your findings or grant the effect which we both agree on without knowing the exact mechanism.

Hu


Double-Dave said:
Hi Hu,

I messed around with this a little bit, at slowish speeds I can't get half a rotation out of the OB, but like I said only messed a little bit. I'm not sure what you mean by the above quote, I agree that the spin will be overcome/change direction when the OB hits the rail, but the spin transferred from the CB will certainly have it's effect, overcome or not. Let ous know your findings!

gr. Dave
Click to expand...
 
ShootingArts said:
Dave,

I tried to use the normal stroke I would use to make a bank and have to admit I couldn't see how fast the object ball spun. No clue. I guess we will go with your findings or grant the effect which we both agree on without knowing the exact mechanism.

Hu
Click to expand...
Dave was right all along.

The amount of spin the object ball acquires is directly related to how much it's thrown. Normal throw can range from zero to about five degrees. The largest values occur at very slow cueball speeds. Let's take, say, two degrees as typical, and consider a full hit with some sidespin on the cueball. If the cueball is travelling at 5 mph (lag speed) and throws the object ball two degrees, the OB will spin at about one revolution per second. Since it takes less than a third of a second for it to travel two feet (two diamonds), it will only rotate about a third of a revolution over this distance, ignoring what it picks up as topspin.

At 10 mph, with two degrees of throw, it will spin twice as fast but only take about half as long to travel the two feet. So again, it will only complete around a third of a revolution.

It doesn't have to be spinning fast to affect the rebound off the cushion, as is obvious from experience. In the process of removing this spin, or adding to it, the cushion will slow the ball down in the direction parallel to the rail. It will slow it down more if it has to remove this spin first, but not so much if it merely adds to it.

To get maximum spin on the object ball, the required english, surprisingly, is nowhere near maximum. For a very slow cueball, about 3 mph, the optimal tip offset (contact point) is about 1/5 of its radius. For a very fast cueball, say 15 mph, it's one-half this, about 1/10 its radius. This is much less than the offset at which maximum english can be applied at 1/2 its radius.

When I first read this thread, I thought the object ball would spin much faster too. But theory and Dave's observations seem to be in accord.

Jim
 
Pool is hard enough to learn that cluttering your mind with things like this make it ten harder to improve. you have ro pay your dues and in time you'll come to see most of it is(feel-touch) I always go back to fundamentals an have told myself for 35yr. keep it simple stupid(jr) once a guy was telling me aim at the reflection fromtheoverhead lights on the objectball? I was polite and he left iwent back to what i was doing,never thought about it again, there are to many variables,which is why i use the KISS I don't make myself any crazier.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how a better understanding of ball-mechanics is a bad thing, sure you don't want to be thinking about it during your stroke/pre-shot routine, but that goes for everything.
 
sorry if you think i'm trying to improve by knowing this leil... this is purely my curious mind... much in the same way some years ago i wanted to know how coin up tables worked... or how my cue was put together with all the woods.... some things i'm just curious about, most of which have no bearing on my game.
 
fortunately I seem to have plenty of space in my mind

Fortunately I seem to have plenty of space in my mind. The more I learn the more room I seem to have too.

I was laid up for a few days recently and purchased a couple of books to kill time. I learned things that improved my game on the pool table, things that I hadn't learned in my thirty-five years and tens of thousands of hours of play.

Unless you are thinking when you should be focused on the shot I don't think greater knowledge can ever be harmful. Of course if you are out of space in your mind, I guess that could be another story.

Hu




Leil gay said:
Pool is hard enough to learn that cluttering your mind with things like this make it ten harder to improve. you have ro pay your dues and in time you'll come to see most of it is(feel-touch) I always go back to fundamentals an have told myself for 35yr. keep it simple stupid(jr) once a guy was telling me aim at the reflection fromtheoverhead lights on the objectball? I was polite and he left iwent back to what i was doing,never thought about it again, there are to many variables,which is why i use the KISS I don't make myself any crazier.
Click to expand...
 
ShootingArts said:
Fortunately I seem to have plenty of space in my mind. The more I learn the more room I seem to have too.

I was laid up for a few days recently and purchased a couple of books to kill time. I learned things that improved my game on the pool table, things that I hadn't learned in my thirty-five years and tens of thousands of hours of play.

Unless you are thinking when you should be focused on the shot I don't think greater knowledge can ever be harmful. Of course if you are out of space in your mind, I guess that could be another story.

Hu
Click to expand...

This is very similar to the point I was going to make.

95+% of the game can be learned by trial and error, but looking more deeply into the variables and how they might be controlled opens up new insights, and potentially better ways to approach certain shots.

There is of course the factor of paralysis by over analysis or poor analysis, but if the players successfully negotiates this balance, a deeper knowledge of the physical intracacies of the game can prove significantly beneficial.

Unfortunately much of the present information nowadays is presented randomly within a myriad of sub-systems, methods of compensation, adjustment and prediction. What is needed is more comprehensive and accurate systems of implementation, so that a beginner can access utilize such a system to fastrack development toward professional level play.

e.g. The Backhand English system as usually presented is accurate only on about 10% of shots played with english. But it has the potential to be used on 100% of shots if the variables of the system are understood and adjusted for. Some BHE proponents could argue with this 10% figure, but I believe they are already making intuitive adjustments, or succeeding often through initial misalignment or due to large pocket target area, and they are not considering the full range of shots that could be used with english.

Colin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top