Object ball "Skid" - real or just a BS excuse?
- Thread starter Jigger
- Start date
Bob Jewett said:
Using polishes on billiard balls work well in low humidity if it is not to warm, they make them look nice. I removed the polish from the balls after getting lots of skids and the skids greatly diminished.
If you were to slowly rub 2 balls together pressing a little, you can normally feel the tackiness. The worse this is the more friction and the greater likelihood of skid.
I watched that 5 ball "skid", and I don't believe your notion of skid is the same as what we're talking about.prolecat said:
What I saw was the 5 ball skid across the surface of the felt after impact with the CB, which is much different than the skid phenomenon between CB and OB.
Also, the 5 ball was missed because it was overcut. If skids actually did occur, then it should have been severely missed on the other side of the pocket.
Hopefully somebody in the Uk can capture this video somehow, its an interesting peice. Kicks have been studied in the UK for many years as Snooker was big business, many PHD students actually tried to get to the bottom of it. There have been many theories, the chalk theory was probably accepted as the norm for many years, but in recent times this was less accepted as kicks odten occured directly after the balls where cleaned. In addition kicks seemed to be more frequent in from of the TV camera's and lights. This lead to the static elexctricty theory which was never really proven. Both of these theories where looked at and alledgedly disproven in this video.
The point of the experiment was to:
a) Remove all traces of chalk
b) Remove all traces of static
In addition the surface of the balls where cleaned and therefore friction was reduced. Two massive kicks still occured.
If you had asked me my opinion a while ago I would have said chalk, its the simplest explanation for people to visualise. However I'm open minded to new theories and from what I've seen the chalk theory just doesnt stand up to examination. Maybe it's oil, maybe its any kind of dirt, who knows but the IMO thejury is still out. I certainly don't think we are at the point where we can present chalk being the cause of kicks/skids as FACT.
The point of the experiment was to:
a) Remove all traces of chalk
b) Remove all traces of static
In addition the surface of the balls where cleaned and therefore friction was reduced. Two massive kicks still occured.
If you had asked me my opinion a while ago I would have said chalk, its the simplest explanation for people to visualise. However I'm open minded to new theories and from what I've seen the chalk theory just doesnt stand up to examination. Maybe it's oil, maybe its any kind of dirt, who knows but the IMO thejury is still out. I certainly don't think we are at the point where we can present chalk being the cause of kicks/skids as FACT.
jsp said:
JSP,
Maybe theOne is not talking about the "skid" phenomenon; that could explain his hesitance to believe that increased friction between cue ball and object ball could change the intended cut angle.
As Winston Churchill said, "America and England are 2 countries separated by a common language."
TheOne said:
TheOne, you said several times (and I paraphrase) that chalk does not cause skids. NOT, chalk alone isn't the cause. You've been arguing that chalk is not a cause. I don't think anyone has stated that chalk is the only possible cause.
It has been said that the underlying cause of a skid is an increased coefficient of friction at the point of contact between CB and OB. Do you agree with that? If yes...
Do you agree that chalk has a higher coefficient of friction than a clean ball surface? If yes...
... then why can't chalk be a cause of skids?
Jigger said:Have you heard of SKID before?
Is this real or just a BS excuse for missing the shot?If skid is a real freak of physics, is it due to dirty balls or table cloth condition or phase of the moon??
Robert Byrne calls it "cling". It happens because there is excess friction between the balls, the same friction that causes throw. Even with very clean balls this can happen if you are shooting close to the object ball. Smart players will note the quality and cleanliness of the balls and adjust their game accordingly. If you don't adjust and miss a shot as a result, you have no one to blame but yourself.
TheOne said:I watched the video again, its quite amusing reading some of these comments afterwards, oh well.
Two SUPER CLEAN balls, ZERO CHALK on the cloth, on the object ball, on the cue ball, or on the tip, zero, none. Cue ball surface almost perfect or atleast more spherical than normal and....Two MASSIVE skids/kicks in a row. They cleaned the balls not only with ethonol but also with another substance, ethonol actually makes the surface of the cb more spherical by removing imperfections.
Must have been that new invisible chalk theyre selling on seyberts!
www.seyberts.com/invisiblechalk/
Willie,
It's not what I'm saying, it's what the proffessor was saying and I'm betting he knows more about physics than anyone on hereI'm still trying to figure out how you could ever have zero friction between two balls no matter how perfect?
It is safe to say that we have all come to one conclusion and that is you are mentally retarded. You have to be the dumbest bastard I have ever come across. As we have ALL tried to tell you many things can cause skids. BUT, now listen to this dummy.. In game play the chalk marks cause the skid... What the hell does and I quote you "Two SUPER CLEAN balls, ZERO CHALK on the cloth, on the object ball, on the cue ball, or on the tip, zero, none. Cue ball surface almost perfect or atleast more spherical than normal and....Two MASSIVE skids/kicks in a row. They cleaned the balls not only with ethonol but also with another substance, ethonol actually makes the surface of the cb more spherical by removing imperfections." Have to do with actual game play. When are those factors present in actual play DUMMY!!
Cuebacca said:
Cueb,
Well said. I'm not sure though that we are even talking about the same phenomenon as theOne.
We are talking about a "cling" effect where the object ball fails to cut as much as we intend. He may be talking about the object ball scooting (without forward roll for an initial period after contact) over the cloth after contact. I hope so, otherwise I'm just mystified.
Cuebacca said:
A number of people have implied that chalk is the sole cause, I am passing on information that seems to dissprove this. I am also now of the belief that chalk is not the major cause of kicks, the reasons I now feel this have already been laid out. Until we know what causes kicks for sure I am not going to discount anything 100%. I have now seen videos of a chalk covered cue ball resulting in zero kicks and a chalkless cue ball resulting in consecutive kicks.
You don't have to beleive it, you don't have to like it, the information is there, it was presented by world class professionals, make of it what you please!
The One it is clear the only way anybody can make you understand something is to write it down in brail and shove it up your ass. Do an experiment on that.
DougT
Illustrated Principles
NO, thebighurt, we dcon
I don't have to agree with either one of you, and I'm no dummy.
You, on the other hand, have shown that you would rather attack someone for disagreeing with you, than to debate them.
Bring us your experiments and proof, thebighurt. Or are you only willing to say that skid occur when chalk is present?
DougT
No, that is NOT safe to say that we have all reached such a conclusion.thebighurt said:
I don't have to agree with either one of you, and I'm no dummy.
You, on the other hand, have shown that you would rather attack someone for disagreeing with you, than to debate them.
Bring us your experiments and proof, thebighurt. Or are you only willing to say that skid occur when chalk is present?
DougT
Well, of course. As shown on the Jacksonville tapes, a rolling cue ball going into a normal cushion will leave with zero spin. No follow, no draw. If the cushion is very sticky (chalk it or rip the cloth off to expose the rubber) the cushion can actually "wind up" and release the cue ball with reversed follow from the cushion.TheOne said:
TheOne said:
The analogy is apt. You completely missed his point. Whether or not you think that smoking is the only possible cause of lung cancer is beside the point. By the way, radon, according to a simple google search, is considered to be the number 2 cause in the U.S. The fact that there even is a number 2 cause, means that there is not only 1 cause.
TheOne said:
Well, at least now (I think) you are admitting that it might be a cause of skids, even if you maintain its not the leading cause.
Draw whatever conclusions you like, but the experiments you have described do not prove that chalk cannot cause a skid.
Last edited:
It is unfortunate that their experiment was sufficently flawed to prove nothing. Acetone? Good Lord!TheOne said:
Chalk is a sufficient explanation. It can be easily shown to cause the increase in friction that is observed on skid/cling/kicks. It is observed to be transferred from the tip to the cue ball. And when kick/skid/cling has occurred, if you look closely at the cue ball you can sometimes see a scuff mark in chalk residue.
For me the case is quite well proven that it is chalk at the contact point that causes cling/kick/skid.
You must be The Ones brother, siamese jackoffs. So I will now spell it out for you in brail also MORON!!! Skid is caused by friction between the object ball and cueball. In Game Play MORON, the chalk on the cueball hittng the chalk mark on the object ball causes the skids in GAME PLAY. O.K. you 2 MORONS. What the hell does what The One is saying have to do with actual play. Explain it to me like I am a moron like you.