Pool Ball Weights

I'm surprised about balls wearing down, I'd imagine the surface would become rough before they got smaller. the only time I see material loss is if they fly and land on concrete or something. then you might get a chip. If one has actually worn the cue ball down to a smaller size, I can only imagine how much experience ( or fun) that represents ;-)
 
snookered_again said:
I'm surprised about balls wearing down, I'd imagine the surface would become rough before they got smaller. the only time I see material loss is if they fly and land on concrete or something. then you might get a chip. If one has actually worn the cue ball down to a smaller size, I can only imagine how much experience ( or fun) that represents ;-)
Click to expand...
I mentioned this earlier. When I checked out a set of balls I would put the cue ball between two object balls then place the flat part of a wood triangle on top of the three balls and the cue ball was always smaller than the object balls.

This is an easy test to try the next time you are in a pool room. Please let me know if your test shows the cue ball is smaller than the object balls.
 
snookered_again said:
I'm surprised about balls wearing down, ...
Click to expand...
Chalk is ground up sand. Really. Quartz plus binder and color.

Chalk dust in cloth turns that cloth into sandpaper. Fine sandpaper but still abrasive. Brushing mostly just evens out the dust.

Any time a ball is travelling across the cloth and not rolling smoothly -- such as for a stun shot -- the ball is being abraded by sand paper.

With those facts in mind, it should be obvious that balls will wear down.

An additional problem is when the ball polisher doesn't have the pads cleaned or changed. A room I used to play in polished all 30 sets of balls every day. The balls were not replaced for the life of the room. I'm not sure about the pads. The object balls were all small and the cue balls were worse.

I have seen a red circle cue ball that had turned into a pink half-circle cue ball.
 
If balls are not kept clean.... then balls collisions create a rough/pitted ball surface, allowing the ball to pick up dirt quicker.
 
Last edited:
rexus31 said:
I was bored today so I weighed some of the ball sets I have for comparison purposes. About the sets at time of weight:

Aramith Tournament Set: Brand new, used a few times
Brunswick Centennial Set 1: Brand new, used a few times
Brunswick Centennial Set 2: Older, well used
Brunswick Centennial Set 3: Older, well used
Hyatt Bicentennial Set: Very Nice Condition, wouldn't be surprised if they were never played with
Dynashperes Bronze Set: Brand new
Dynashperes Platinume Set: Used condition, no blemishes
Dynaspheres Rhodium Set: Brand New
Original Cyclops Set: Used condition, no blemishes
Cyclops Athena Set: Used condition, no blemishes
Cyclops Hyperion Set: Used condition, no blemishes
Cosmos Diamond Ultra-C TV Set: Brand new, used a few times
Olhausen Signature Set: Brand new, used a few times
Predator Arcos I Prototype Set: Brand new, never played with
Predator Arcos II Set: Used condition, no blemishes
Vigma Zig-Zags Set: Brand new, used a few times
Vigma Diamonds Set: Brand new, used a few times

The Data:

View attachment 656547


View attachment 656549


View attachment 656550
Click to expand...
Dude, I hope you get bored many more times in the future!!!👍🏻🤣
 
i use the bronze dyna at one of my tables. i hate them as they are perfectly round and weigh right so my misses are me

other sets of balls sometimes are obviously the cause of my misses.
 
More Data. The Brunswick Centennials are in good used shape with no nicks or cracks. Centennial Cueball is missing, set has another kind of CB.
From the data, it looks like the Centennials were used more for 9 ball games.

The Aramith Black and Super Pro are brand new just unwrapped and never played or polished.

1715009115668.png
 
Last edited:
When the measles first came out I noticed it played tougher. I was used to the red circle cue ball. The measles didn't spin as well. It didn't draw as well either. I've heard they are made "the same" but it's clear to me they don't play the same. All I can figure is maybe it has something to do with the center of mass. The measles might have more mass to the out side and the red dot has its center of mass more near the center. Think of an ice skater with her arms out spinning slowly then she brings her arms in and speeds up quite fast. Just my thoughts.
 
When cue ball weights are the same, yet the end results are different from brand to brand, some not as much, there's a reason.
It may be what your saying, or it may be the mixture of ball resin from diff mfg, which would be my guess.
Or it could be density, which Jewett would know if it ties in with your mass thinking. I have not clue.
I'd think PGA golfers, different brands, same weights play quite differently.
 
Bob Jewett said:
Here are the weights of my usual practice set taken with my new high-resolution scale. I weighed each ball three times to check on repeatability.

Aramith Tournament Pro, broken circle eye, traditional colors, made about 2016.
Weight is last two digits of reading .... divide by 10 and add 160 to get grams.

Ballwt1wt2wt3AverageError
1818081168.070.46
2878787168.701.09
3838484168.370.76
4737373167.30-0.31
5737373167.30-0.31
6818282168.170.56
7767776167.630.02
8676767166.70-0.91
9737474167.37-0.24
10717271167.13-0.48
11767777167.670.06
12747474167.40-0.21
13777678167.700.09
14757576167.53-0.08
15767677167.630.02
Cue717072167.10-0.51
Ave =167.61
Click to expand...
So, the important question to me is are these differences in mass important, and in what context are they important. I'm not sufficiently adept at classical Newtonian physics to calculate if a difference of 1 gram out of 168 (the approximate maximum variability seen in this data) is likely to have a noticeable effect on the amount of draw one obtains from a shot, or the distance the cue ball or object ball travels. Intuitively I have my doubts, at least considering the reproducibility of my stroke (which ain't that good).

But it seems to me that the largest effect would be on racking the balls, and that I can calculate with some accuracy. Taking 168 g to be the average ball weight, the volume to be 4/3*pi*r^3, and the ball radius as 1.125" (28.575 mm) I calculate the density to be 1.719 g/cm^3. If the ball has been worn enough to lose 0.1 mm in diameter (28.475 mm radius), then it should weigh 166.2 g. That's a 0.2 mm loss in diameter.

I measure with calipers good to 0.01 mm that a piece of regular photocopier paper is 0.09 mm. Let's round that to 0.1 mm. A paper width gap between the balls is I think definitely visible. So my take from the data is that when you get to the point where you have a 2 g difference in ball mass you'll have a noticeable gap when racking.

This explains why I can get a visibly tight rack at home, where the Aramith Superpro balls are all within +/- 1 g in weight. Whereas at my local pool hall it seems to be impossible to get a visibly tight rack, even when using a template rack.

And Bob, your comment that balls rolling around on cloth infused with chalks is like rolling around on very fine abrasive is an important one. If you want to keep your equipment in good shape you need to clean your table on a regular basis! I wipe my cloth down with a solution of an ounce of Woolite in a 1/2 gallon of hot water every couple of weeks.
 
fritzwalker said:
So, the important question to me is are these differences in mass important, and in what context are they important. I'm not sufficiently adept at classical Newtonian physics to calculate if a difference of 1 gram out of 168 (the approximate maximum variability seen in this data) is likely to have a noticeable effect on the amount of draw one obtains from a shot, or the distance the cue ball or object ball travels. Intuitively I have my doubts, at least considering the reproducibility of my stroke (which ain't that good).

But it seems to me that the largest effect would be on racking the balls, and that I can calculate with some accuracy. Taking 168 g to be the average ball weight, the volume to be 4/3*pi*r^3, and the ball radius as 1.125" (28.575 mm) I calculate the density to be 1.719 g/cm^3. If the ball has been worn enough to lose 0.1 mm in diameter (28.475 mm radius), then it should weigh 166.2 g. That's a 0.2 mm loss in diameter.

I measure with calipers good to 0.01 mm that a piece of regular photocopier paper is 0.09 mm. Let's round that to 0.1 mm. A paper width gap between the balls is I think definitely visible. So my take from the data is that when you get to the point where you have a 2 g difference in ball mass you'll have a noticeable gap when racking.

This explains why I can get a visibly tight rack at home, where the Aramith Superpro balls are all within +/- 1 g in weight. Whereas at my local pool hall it seems to be impossible to get a visibly tight rack, even when using a template rack.

And Bob, your comment that balls rolling around on cloth infused with chalks is like rolling around on very fine abrasive is an important one. If you want to keep your equipment in good shape you need to clean your table on a regular basis! I wipe my cloth down with a solution of an ounce of Woolite in a 1/2 gallon of hot water every couple of weeks.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that any variance of mass, force or acceleration will alter any of the aforementioned practices - draw, follow, sidespin, racking.
You just need to calculate cue weight x shot speed/ball weight and allow for a friction variable. I bet Dr Dave already has some numbers on this.
In a game of inches such as ours, even the smallest fraction of difference will affect placement.
 
Mensabum said:
I think you'll find that any variance of mass, force or acceleration will alter any of the aforementioned practices - draw, follow, sidespin, racking.
You just need to calculate cue weight x shot speed/ball weight and allow for a friction variable. I bet Dr Dave already has some numbers on this.
In a game of inches such as ours, even the smallest fraction of difference will affect placement.
Click to expand...
Of course it will have "an effect." But how big of an effect? At small differences in weight it's simply going to reach the point where the differences in results will not be meaningful. The question to me is more how much of a difference in weight would be required to have a reproducible effect within the limits of the repeatability of your stroke. And yes, i'd love to see some calculations on this form the likes of Dr. Dave.
 
fritzwalker said:
Of course it will have "an effect." But how big of an effect? At small differences in weight it's simply going to reach the point where the differences in results will not be meaningful. The question to me is more how much of a difference in weight would be required to have a reproducible effect within the limits of the repeatability of your stroke. And yes, i'd love to see some calculations on this form the likes of Dr. Dave.
Click to expand...
We all would. I don't think it's going to take as much as people think. Just my 2¢.
 
fritzwalker said:
Of course it will have "an effect." But how big of an effect? At small differences in weight it's simply going to reach the point where the differences in results will not be meaningful. The question to me is more how much of a difference in weight would be required to have a reproducible effect within the limits of the repeatability of your stroke. And yes, i'd love to see some calculations on this form the likes of Dr. Dave.
Click to expand...
I consider myself a decent player, and a rising 470 Fargo. I don't think I could ever tell the difference between balls of minute weight differences. In fact, I don't think many players could unless you're up near professional level. People may think they can, but I doubt they could. At least that's my thoughts anyway.
 
SeniorTom said:
I consider myself a decent player, and a rising 470 Fargo. I don't think I could ever tell the difference between balls of minute weight differences. In fact, I don't think many players could unless you're up near professional level. People may think they can, but I doubt they could. At least that's my thoughts anyway.
Click to expand...
I like my measles ball, but it's a scootch heavier than most other commercial balls out there. Blue dot, red dot, etc... I can definitely tell the difference between the two when I swap them out for jumps and breaks. I like the heavier measles ball for 14:1 as it seems to hold spin longer and penetrate further into clusters and racks with less power.
That's just my 2¢, but I'm medicated, so...🤣
 
fritzwalker said:
So, the important question to me is are these differences in mass important, and in what context are they important. I'm not sufficiently adept at classical Newtonian physics to calculate if a difference of 1 gram out of 168 (the approximate maximum variability seen in this data) is likely to have a noticeable effect on the amount of draw one obtains from a shot, or the distance the cue ball or object ball travels. Intuitively I have my doubts, at least considering the reproducibility of my stroke (which ain't that good).
....
Click to expand...
As you mentioned, racking can be a large issue. If the balls are fairly old and the room has to replace one of them, a tight rack will be hard to get. If sets of different ages get scrambled, good luck.

As for position play problems, here is an analysis I did in my December, 2005 column in Billiards Digest -- at the end of the PDF. For the range of ball size errors we actually saw in that room, the difference is significant on draw shots.

 
Mensabum said:
I like my measles ball, but it's a scootch heavier than most other commercial balls out there. Blue dot, red dot, etc... I can definitely tell the difference between the two when I swap them out for jumps and breaks. I like the heavier measles ball for 14:1 as it seems to hold spin longer and penetrate further into clusters and racks with less power.
That's just my 2¢, but I'm medicated, so...🤣
Click to expand...
All modern cueballs weigh 168. the measel ball is no heavier. you must be medicated. ;)
 
garczar said:
All modern cueballs weigh 168. the measel ball is no heavier. you must be medicated. ;)
Click to expand...
Naw, he just has worn down object balls, as mentioned above. Of course a brand new cue ball will be larger and heavier.

Also there is a good chance that his usual cue ball is smaller than the object balls from wear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top