Meucci Black Dot Deflection Videos

[stljohnny]

So, I just found this:

http://www.meuccicues.com/BlackDot.htm

and my question is... Why not just track where the CB hits the end rail instead? Seems to me by adding the object ball they're adding another variable to the mix, complicating the test. Now you not only have deflection, but also spin-transfer and throw are involved. So, the cues that have "high" deflection according to this video are simply not throwing the OB as much - which says to me they aren't applying as much spin to the CB. Sure, initial deflection is a factor, but aren't these others as well?

In a perfect world (ie, no physics), hitting the CB with 3/16" right english would send the CB straight down the laser line. Measuring the deflection in the real world should be as simple as measuring how far off the laser line the CB hits.

Thoughts?

 

[Tom In Cincy]

In the "real world".. not many pool halls or billiard suppliers have Laser beams. :wink:

 

[Patrick Johnson]

So, I just found this:

http://www.meuccicues.com/BlackDot.htm

and my question is... Why not just track where the CB hits the end rail instead?

I've often wondered the same thing. That's how I measure squirt (by putting a board against the end rail with carbon paper taped to it).

Seems to me by adding the object ball they're adding another variable to the mix, complicating the test. Now you not only have deflection, but also spin-transfer and throw are involved.

Right.

So, the cues that have "high" deflection according to this video are simply not throwing the OB as much - which says to me they aren't applying as much spin to the CB.

You can't say that. Less spin may = more throw (too much spin reduces throw). What you can say is that because of throw it's impossible to use the OB's path to calculate exactly how much the CB was off course.

Notice too that the stick's butt is elevated over the rail. This means there might also be swerve involved, which also "contaminates" the results.

In a perfect world (ie, no physics), hitting the CB with 3/16" right english would send the CB straight down the laser line.

Or in the real world, hitting the CB centerball.

Measuring the deflection in the real world should be as simple as measuring how far off the laser line the CB hits.

Yes, if you eliminate swerve as a variable. If you don't eliminate swerve (and throw) then you don't get squirt results that can be realistically compared from stick to stick. That's why I like Dr. Dave's perfectly level cue stroking machine and the results it gives. Maybe he'll give us the link again to his video of those tests - I couldn't find it on his website.

You can get pretty good results yourself by hitting the CB pretty hard at a target that's not too far away (to eliminate the effect of swerve). You could also do the test on the floor (or a large table) where there are no rails to force you to elevate your butt.

pj
chgo

 

[stljohnny]

You can't say that. Less spin may = more throw (too much spin reduces throw). What you can say is that because of throw it's impossible to use the OB's path to calculate exactly how much the CB was off course.

This makes a lot of sense.

Using inside english on this particular cut-shot (because of the deflection), should straighten out the OB's angle, but without measuring the amount of spin on the CB it's impossible to determine how much this affects the end result.

It could be that the black dot applies a lot of spin which really throws the OB straighter... or it could be that the black dot simply doesn't deflect as much. *shrug*

I did not know that the butt construction played such a large part of the deflection equation though; at least according to Bob.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

I did not know that the butt construction played such a large part of the deflection equation

I doubt that it really does.

pj
chgo

 

[Tramp Steamer]

So, I just found this:

http://www.meuccicues.com/BlackDot.htm

and my question is... Why not just track where the CB hits the end rail instead? Seems to me by adding the object ball they're adding another variable to the mix, complicating the test. Now you not only have deflection, but also spin-transfer and throw are involved. So, the cues that have "high" deflection according to this video are simply not throwing the OB as much - which says to me they aren't applying as much spin to the CB. Sure, initial deflection is a factor, but aren't these others as well?

In a perfect world (ie, no physics), hitting the CB with 3/16" right english would send the CB straight down the laser line. Measuring the deflection in the real world should be as simple as measuring how far off the laser line the CB hits.

Thoughts?

You are indeed correct. That is why I always said that his tests were skewed in favor of his product. The measurement of cue ball 'squirt' is the only item of interest in this test, not the resultant travel of any object ball.

 

[Shaft]

I think the only justification for the OB is that it magnifies the squirt error so it is easier to see differences between cues on the paper.

Notice he did not test a Predator Z2, a 314-2 or an OB shaft.... Were they not available? (Well they are now...)

But I applaud him for building and using the robot. I have several cues I would love to test on a robot. There is so much BS that could be dispelled by a robot.

(I wonder if he rents it out? You can see it right there in the showroom in Byhalia, MS, (just south of Memphis, TN) a mere six-hour drive from New Orleans...)

If Mr. Meucci has a friend who knows statistics, he could take specific measurements of the cues and the test results, and determine, through statistical regression, which cue characteristics have the most profound positive effects on accuracy.