Pool ball cut-induced throw and cling/skid/kick experiment

[lfigueroa]

Lou,

Are you sure you aren't a Novus sales representative?
... because you sure make their product sound good.

I plan to try it out.

Catch you later,
Dave

No franchise or dealership here, lol.

But I will tell you that there is the possibility that there's a pool connection to Novus: back when I was stationed at Great Falls, Montana, in the late 70's, I'd sometimes run into the crew from Missoula at some of the bigger state events. My recollection on this is a bit fuzzy but I seem to recall that there was one player from Missoula we all called Cue Ball, last name perhaps something like Quandy, who was playing around with coming up with a product to either remove or fill scratches in plastic. He called it Novus. So who knows.

I did play for a couple of hours today and the balls cleaned with Novus did seem to stay cleaner and smudge free for much longer than with the Aramith product. YMMV.

Lou Figueroa

 

[dr_dave]

No franchise or dealership here, lol.

But I will tell you that there is the possibility that there's a pool connection to Novus: back when I was stationed at Great Falls, Montana, in the late 70's, I'd sometimes run into the crew from Missoula at some of the bigger state events. My recollection on this is a bit fuzzy but I seem to recall that there was one player from Missoula we all called Cue Ball, last name perhaps something like Quandy, who was playing around with coming up with a product to either remove or fill scratches in plastic. He called it Novus. So who knows.

I did play for a couple of hours today and the balls cleaned with Novus did seem to stay cleaner and smudge free for much longer than with the Aramith product. YMMV.

Lou Figueroa

I look forward to trying it out.

Thanks again for the info.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[rhatten]

I look forward to trying it out.

Thanks again for the info.

Catch you later,
Dave

While your trying things out... you might have a look at Brillianize Glass and Acrylic ... Cleaner/Polish ...this works great in my 5gal bucket Ball polisher (microfiber cloth)/

I also use Meguiar's Scratch X 2.0 by hand to remove 'pocket marks' etc prior to high speed polish above. Results: Sparkling clean minimal throw action... ie Heaven. If you test this combination, I'd love to hear how it compares to your best results.


One thing I will add (unlike in the videos) I rarely touch the balls with a bare hand. I play with a glove on my left hand and retrieve the balls only with my gloved hand to avoid oils/sweat etc getting on the balls. The table surface within a short amount time is loaded with chalk dust and room dander (even if cleaned regularly... lol like weekly right??) .. With oil/sweat etc from normal palm perspiration- think fingerprint oils (and the between shot face/nose handling), the moisture (and not even considering room humidity) quick coats the balls to pick up the table chalk/room dander residue that quickly change the throw (clinging characteristics) of the game... like Lou suggests in a short amount of time.

Personally after I clean my 860HR table surface and polish the balls (as above) I get 3 to 5 hours of "clean ball" 'minimal throw' play. My mantra is "Stop handling the balls"... Remember not everyone washes their hands at important times of the day... not everyone is aware (or cares) that they have a sinus infection... not everyone knows their hands get 'clamming' when their body temp got or their getting mentally squeezed. (Some good friends can NEVER play at my house..ever again. lol. The table equipment and ball cleanup is simply too laborious/ they get a direct referral to the local tavern for that 'kind of sport' on preferably Valley bar boxes- thats where that mess belongs).

Simply Stop Handling The Balls... All of a sudden bank angles work, kisses, combination and carum tangent lines are true and yes there is a consistent (clean ball) throw calculation available. Pros playing on clean equipment have their "most consistent" game. Ask any of them.

Clean balls need to stay clean... not just the cue ball... like Dr Dave's study experiment shows. Demand clean high quality equipment and enjoy pool for a change. Imo a good first step is to learn to Simply Stop Handling The (clean) Balls with your bare hands.


Randy

 

[AtLarge]

Just a reminder on what the WPA Equipment Specs say about balls:

"Balls should be unpolished, and should also not be waxed. Balls should be cleaned with a towel or cloth free of dirt and dust, and may also be washed with soap and water. Balls contaminated with any slippery substance - treated with a polishing or rubbing compound and/or waxed - must be cleansed and dewaxed with a clean cloth moistened with diluted alcohol before play."

 

[Bob Jewett]

Just a reminder on what the WPA Equipment Specs say about balls:

"Balls should be unpolished, and should also not be waxed. Balls should be cleaned with a towel or cloth free of dirt and dust, and may also be washed with soap and water. Balls contaminated with any slippery substance - treated with a polishing or rubbing compound and/or waxed - must be cleansed and dewaxed with a clean cloth moistened with diluted alcohol before play."

I think this suggestion is broken. Alcohol is the wrong thing to use. Further, I think it is bad idea to leave scuff marks on either the cue ball or the object balls if the set is new, and it takes a product like Aramith ball polish to remove scuff marks. "Unpolished" taken literally would mean that new balls are not allowed since they are polished at the factory. "Not waxed" is a good idea because the wax wears off quickly relative to a long match and the playing characteristics would change during that loss of wax.

I think that Aramith ball polish does not leave a residue, but I could be wrong. What it does do is make the surface of the ball smooth.

 

[AtLarge]

I think this suggestion is broken. Alcohol is the wrong thing to use. Further, I think it is bad idea to leave scuff marks on either the cue ball or the object balls if the set is new, and it takes a product like Aramith ball polish to remove scuff marks. "Unpolished" taken literally would mean that new balls are not allowed since they are polished at the factory. "Not waxed" is a good idea because the wax wears off quickly relative to a long match and the playing characteristics would change during that loss of wax.

I think that Aramith ball polish does not leave a residue, but I could be wrong. What it does do is make the surface of the ball smooth.

Bob -- Will you be participating somehow in the next revision of the rules and specifications?

 

[3kushn]

3kushn (is this Tom?), I have noted than fresh out of the Diamond ball polisher and a dose of Aramith Billiard Ball Cleaner the balls will stay consistent for about 30-45 minutes of 14.1 practice. The balls in the stack come apart well and the CB draws easily. Then not so much as the practice session goes on. Soooo, my experience correlated along with Dr. Dave's video leads me to believe something is wearing off the balls rolling over the cloth.

Yesterday for the first time in over a year I cleaned the balls with Novus Plastic Clean & Shine and felt that the balls behaved much more consistently for most of a three hour practice session. I'll try again today and pay more attention.

Lou Figueroa

Lou You are correct with the name. You may also be correct with your suspicion that there's some wax in the Aramith product. I know you try to play on/with clean equipment, but I still contend your study needs more work, making sure the cleanliness of the cloth is consistent comparing both products. Two new cloths would be best. This would help confirm that something isn't Wearing ONTO the balls. Micro Scratches.

Looking at the Novus website it states: 4.Reapply NOVUS No. 1 regularly to maintain the antistatic, smudge and scratch resistant properties. How does it maintain scratch resistant properties? Could it be a harder surface treatment than say Carnauba? The "Clean and Shine" product is a cleaner only and I'd say is not helpful by itself.

Not trying to argue here. I'm been looking into this for years, even made my own cleaner. Worked well but a pain in the butt and couldn't find an adequate suspension system. Novus 1 may contain a higher quality abrasive giving even a better surface finish than Aramith. May have to try it too.

Check out 3M Finesses-It. My belief is there's no wax. MSDS sheets never tell the story.

Gotta Verhoeven warm and ready over here. Just so you know.

 

[dr_dave]

While your trying things out... you might have a look at Brillianize Glass and Acrylic ... Cleaner/Polish ...this works great in my 5gal bucket Ball polisher (microfiber cloth)/

I also use Meguiar's Scratch X 2.0 by hand to remove 'pocket marks' etc prior to high speed polish above. Results: Sparkling clean minimal throw action... ie Heaven. If you test this combination, I'd love to hear how it compares to your best results.

Thank you for the suggestion; although, it is fairly easy to test it yourself. If you do, please report back (for example, by comparing these product treatments to alcohol cleaning).

One thing I will add (unlike in the videos) I rarely touch the balls with a bare hand. I play with a glove on my left hand and retrieve the balls only with my gloved hand to avoid oils/sweat etc getting on the balls. The table surface within a short amount time is loaded with chalk dust and room dander (even if cleaned regularly... lol like weekly right??) .. With oil/sweat etc from normal palm perspiration- think fingerprint oils (and the between shot face/nose handling), the moisture (and not even considering room humidity) quick coats the balls to pick up the table chalk/room dander residue that quickly change the throw (clinging characteristics) of the game... like Lou suggests in a short amount of time.

Personally after I clean my 860HR table surface and polish the balls (as above) I get 3 to 5 hours of "clean ball" 'minimal throw' play. My mantra is "Stop handling the balls"... Remember not everyone washes their hands at important times of the day... not everyone is aware (or cares) that they have a sinus infection... not everyone knows their hands get 'clamming' when their body temp got or their getting mentally squeezed. (Some good friends can NEVER play at my house..ever again. lol. The table equipment and ball cleanup is simply too laborious/ they get a direct referral to the local tavern for that 'kind of sport' on preferably Valley bar boxes- thats where that mess belongs).

Simply Stop Handling The Balls... All of a sudden bank angles work, kisses, combination and carum tangent lines are true and yes there is a consistent (clean ball) throw calculation available. Pros playing on clean equipment have their "most consistent" game. Ask any of them.

Clean balls need to stay clean... not just the cue ball... like Dr Dave's study experiment shows. Demand clean high quality equipment and enjoy pool for a change. Imo a good first step is to learn to Simply Stop Handling The (clean) Balls with your bare hands.

Excellent advice.

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Just a reminder on what the WPA Equipment Specs say about balls:

"Balls should be unpolished, and should also not be waxed. Balls should be cleaned with a towel or cloth free of dirt and dust, and may also be washed with soap and water. Balls contaminated with any slippery substance - treated with a polishing or rubbing compound and/or waxed - must be cleansed and dewaxed with a clean cloth moistened with diluted alcohol before play."

I think this suggestion is broken. Alcohol is the wrong thing to use. Further, I think it is bad idea to leave scuff marks on either the cue ball or the object balls if the set is new, and it takes a product like Aramith ball polish to remove scuff marks. "Unpolished" taken literally would mean that new balls are not allowed since they are polished at the factory. "Not waxed" is a good idea because the wax wears off quickly relative to a long match and the playing characteristics would change during that loss of wax.

Bob -- Will you be participating somehow in the next revision of the rules and specifications?

I hope he will, because that rule needs to be re-written after putting much thought into how it should be worded (ideally, after determining the best types of products to use to clean and polish pool balls to create a reasonable amount of throw).

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

I think that Aramith ball polish does not leave a residue, but I could be wrong. What it does do is make the surface of the ball smooth.

Bob,

I don't know the Aramith cleaner ingredients (because they are not listed on the bottle), but judging from the look, feel, and smell, it obviously contains a solvent (for cleaning), a fine grit (for polishing) and a significant post-drying residue that can be buffed off to create a shine (which, IMO, similar in look, feel, and action to a waxing products).

In the 2nd set of tests I did in the video, when I cleaned the balls with alcohol after they had been previously cleaned and polished with Aramith cleaner (with some subsequent use), the throw increased dramatically; and when I treated them with Aramith again, the throw decreased dramatically (but not quite as low as with the Aramith-treated balls after some use).

Doesn't that seem to imply that the Aramith cleaner is leaving a low-friction residue on the ball surfaces? Or do you think the alcohol does more than clean off dirt and residue? Do you think the alcohol could somehow be damaging the phenolic surfaces? I wouldn't think so, but I'll ask one of my materials expert friends the next time I see him on campus.

Catch you later,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

FYI, I just posted a follow-up video:

NV D.17 - Does a pool and billiards frozen combination throw more than a small-gap stun shot?

Check it out. I'm sure the results will surprise some people.

Regards,
Dave

 

[Johnnyt]

What amazes me is that pool has been around for centuries and just in the last decade we have learned more than we did for 100's of years. It makes me wonder what new stuff will be out there in the next decade. I'm sure just these videos of DR Dave's have opened a lot of eyes on the importance of clean balls and how much they mean in this game of tiny fractions of inches, and how and how often to clean them. With the pockets getting tighter and tougher this kind of stuff is more important than ever. Johnnyt

 

[Bob Jewett]

What amazes me is that pool has been around for centuries and just in the last decade we have learned more than we did for 100's of years. It makes me wonder what new stuff will be out there in the next decade. I'm sure just these videos of DR Dave's have opened a lot of eyes on the importance of clean balls and how much they mean in this game of tiny fractions of inches, and how and how often to clean them. With the pockets getting tighter and tougher this kind of stuff is more important than ever. Johnnyt

While a great deal has been learned in the last 20 years or so (the cause of squirt was figured out about 1998), there is also a fair amount that was known but forgotten along the way. For example, correcting for squirt using backhand english was illustrated in a book about 175 years ago in a diagram that also shows swerve. That was about 25 years after the tip was invented.

 

[Johnnyt]

While a great deal has been learned in the last 20 years or so (the cause of squirt was figured out about 1998), there is also a fair amount that was known but forgotten along the way. For example, correcting for squirt using backhand english was illustrated in a book about 175 years ago in a diagram that also shows swerve. That was about 25 years after the tip was invented.

Cool. Thanks for that history. Johnnyt

 

[swest]

Yes, that was a very surprising result...

But I think I know why it was initially surprising.

When I am presented with the situation where I have frozen OBs that are nearly aligned with a pocket, such that striking OB1 on, or close to, the line of centers would send OB2 to the point and not the pocket, I use my knowledge of throw, and hit OB1 on a cut angle (that might also depend on the distance of OB2 to the pocket, or my desired CB position results) of, say, 10°-45° and, hopefully, pocket the ball.

However, when I am evaluating this same situation, where the line of centers of OB1 and OB2 are aligned to the pocket corner but there is a small gap between OB1 and OB2, I know that I can NOT throw OB2 sufficiently to pocket it. But this is because: The gap is along the line of centers, and not along some cut angle to that line.

I must assume, therefore, that the gap you introduced for your experiment was along the 30°, or 45° cut line, and not along the line of centers of, the formerly frozen, OB1 and OB2. Is that a correct assumption?

Thanks for doing these experiments. Very useful!

FYI, I just posted a follow-up video:

NV D.17 - Does a pool and billiards frozen combination throw more than a small-gap stun shot?

Check it out. I'm sure the results will surprise some people.

Regards,
Dave

 

[3kushn]

To me, it is fairly clear that something is left behind that creates the shine and less friction.

Here's the reason I think the Aramtih cleaner leaves a wax-like substance on the ball surfaces.

1.) If you clean the balls with the Aramith cleaner, the amount of throw decreases (and the balls are shiny).
2.) if you then clean the balls with alcohol, which is a solvent that helps remove substances on the ball, the amount of throw increases (and the balls are less shiny).
3.) If you then use the Aramith cleaner again, the amount of throw decreases again.

What do you think?

Dave

Forgot to give you my assumptions directly.

First of all and just to be nit picky, we don't know exactly what alcohol does the surface properties of the ball. Just a thought and grabbing at straws.

Couple days ago I was trying different things to get some sharpie pen ink off my kitchen counter. My 4th compound was Clorox. Guess what. It bleached the plastic laminate. Crap! Had to bleach the entire counter so it all matched.

Second is we don't know the surface condition of the ball prior to cleaning with alcohol. Or did you clean a new, unused ball for the alcohol test? In this case refer to #1.

My conjecture is, using a mild highly friable abrasive no (or very little) material is removed. This abrasive "burnishes" the micro scratches caused by chalk residue on the cloth. The scratches are actually much smaller. With the right speed and an abrasive that breaks down (friable) these scratches can become even smaller. 100 Perfection is not possible.

IMO a highly burnished ball not only displays more surface lubricity, its effectively harder on the surface which could explain the playing life differences of the of the balls as Lou noted with Novus. Novus very well could be a better product. Needs testing.

 

[dr_dave]

Yes, that was a very surprising result...

But I think I know why it was initially surprising.

When I am presented with the situation where I have frozen OBs that are nearly aligned with a pocket, such that striking OB1 on, or close to, the line of centers would send OB2 to the point and not the pocket, I use my knowledge of throw, and hit OB1 on a cut angle (that might also depend on the distance of OB2 to the pocket, or my desired CB position results) of, say, 10°-45° and, hopefully, pocket the ball.

However, when I am evaluating this same situation, where the line of centers of OB1 and OB2 are aligned to the pocket corner but there is a small gap between OB1 and OB2, I know that I can NOT throw OB2 sufficiently to pocket it. But this is because: The gap is along the line of centers, and not along some cut angle to that line.

Excellent point.

Also, with a stun shot at a larger distance between the CB and single OB, it is difficult to achieve the exact line of aim (and pure stun) perfectly, so a margin of error is added to the throw amount.

I must assume, therefore, that the gap you introduced for your experiment was along the 30°, or 45° cut line, and not along the line of centers of, the formerly frozen, OB1 and OB2. Is that a correct assumption?

I actually tilted the first OB back in a direction between the 30° and 45° lines and re-tapped the OB into this new position (so I cheated a little). However, the gap was so small (about 1 mm or 1/32") that it didn't affect the cut angles much. With a larger gap, I would have needed to be more precise with the gap directions.

Thanks for doing these experiments. Very useful!

You're welcome, and thank you!

Regards,
Dave

 

[dr_dave]

Forgot to give you my assumptions directly.

First of all and just to be nit picky, we don't know exactly what alcohol does the surface properties of the ball. Just a thought and grabbing at straws.

True. The alcohol could be chemically etching the phenolic surface in some way. I personally doubt this, but I will ask my materials expert colleague when I get a chance.

Second is we don't know the surface condition of the ball prior to cleaning with alcohol. Or did you clean a new, unused ball for the alcohol test?

The balls I used for most of the tests were not new. Also, I used different balls (from the same set) for different tests, and they resulted in slightly different amounts of throw after being cleaned with Aramith (for 30 degree cut: 4.4, 5.3, 4.5), so there are obvious differences from one ball to the next. There are also differences with surface properties at different locations on the same ball. In the tests, I tried to set up the balls the same way every time so the parts of the surfaces being tested were always nearly the same, but there could also be some slight wear effects during a long set of tests (although, I didn't notice this in the measurements).

My conjecture is, using a mild highly friable abrasive no (or very little) material is removed. This abrasive "burnishes" the micro scratches caused by chalk residue on the cloth. The scratches are actually much smaller. With the right speed and an abrasive that breaks down (friable) these scratches can become even smaller. 100 Perfection is not possible.

IMO a highly burnished ball not only displays more surface lubricity, its effectively harder on the surface which could explain the playing life differences of the of the balls as Lou noted with Novus. Novus very well could be a better product.

Interesting points.

Needs testing.

Agreed!

Regards,
Dave

 

[Shaft]

Well, I've seen many unjustified, unproven, and inaccurate "marketing claims" in the past. Again, I will remain very skeptical of this claim until I see extremely convincing proof.

The only way I think this claim could be true is if the chalk it is being compared to allows the tip to slide or partially slide on the CB during contact. But if that happened, the shot would be a miscue (or partial miscue) and the CB direction would be somewhat unpredictable (because it wouldn't slide the same way or the same amount every time). If the tip didn't completely grab the CB with traditional chalk, this game would be much more difficult.

Regards,
Dave

Dave:

Are you saying that you doubt "Kamui's chalk is superior to other chalk in reducing squirt,"
or
Are you saying that you doubt "better cue tip friction in general reduces squirt?"

The very videos you have posted here demonstrate very convincingly that contact friction on the OB contact point increases throw in the direction of the contacting body's motion vector. In the case of the friction at the cue tip-CB contact point, that would create "throw" on the CB in the direction of the cue movement and have the effect of reducing squirt.

By simply generalizing CB-OB friction to cue tip-CB friction, you have yourself provided, at least theoretically, the convincing evidence you are looking for.

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, better cue tip friction on the CB should create a type of "throw" on the CB that offsets and reduces squirt.

It is clear this effect exists, because CBs struck with English do not careen off in the exact direction of the cue tip-CB contact vector, which would be the case if the impact was frictionless. Instead, they travel in a direction between the contact vector and the cue movement vector. That difference can only be accounted for by the cue tip-CB contact friction.

 

[dr_dave]

Well, I've seen many unjustified, unproven, and inaccurate "marketing claims" in the past. Again, I will remain very skeptical of this claim until I see extremely convincing proof.

The only way I think this claim could be true is if the chalk it is being compared to allows the tip to slide or partially slide on the CB during contact. But if that happened, the shot would be a miscue (or partial miscue) and the CB direction would be somewhat unpredictable (because it wouldn't slide the same way or the same amount every time). If the tip didn't completely grab the CB with traditional chalk, this game would be much more difficult.

Are you saying that you doubt "Kamui's chalk is superior to other chalk in reducing squirt,"

Yes, until I see convincing evidence.

Are you saying that you doubt "better cue tip friction in general reduces squirt?"

Yes, until I see convincing evidence.

The very videos you have posted here demonstrate very convincingly that contact friction on the OB contact point increases throw in the direction of the contacting body's motion vector.

... only when there is sliding between the OBs during the entire collision. When the balls gear together, added friction makes no difference (as when the added friction from the sandpaper and chalk failed to increase the 30-degree-cut throw values).

In the case of the friction at the cue tip-CB contact point, that would create "throw" on the CB in the direction of the cue movement and have the effect of reducing squirt.

... only if the tip were sliding on the CB during contact, but this occurs only during a miscue. If a tip had more friction, the direction the CB heads on a miscue shot might be different; but when a chalked tip is grabbing the CB during contact, added friction has no effect because there is already enough friction to create grabbing.

By simply generalizing CB-OB friction to cue tip-CB friction, you have yourself provided, at least theoretically, the convincing evidence you are looking for.

I disagree.

ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, better cue tip friction on the CB should create a type of "throw" on the CB that offsets and reduces squirt.

I disagree. Although, one thing added cue tip friction could provide is a miscue limit further out on the CB. I would be interested to know if Kamui's chalk allows for larger tip offsets from center, and therefore more spin. If that is true, then this is what they should market, because that would be of great value.

It is clear this effect exists, because CBs struck with English do not careen off in the exact direction of the cue tip-CB contact vector. They travel in a direction between the contact vector and the cue movement vector. That difference can only be accounted for by the cue tip-CB contact friction.

The CB would head a lot closer to the cue-tip-CB-contact-vector direction if the tip slips (in which case there would be a throw effect in the cue-motion-vector direction due to sliding friction between the tip and CB). However, when the tip grabs the CB (no sliding), the CB heads mostly in the cue-motion-vector direction. Squirt (CB deflection) off this line is a very different effect than throw, per the following:

"What causes squirt?"

Excellent questions! I hope my answers make sense.

Regards,
Dave