No...
a learned & experience AZB member is correct. You & the words that come from your type of tongue are not worth one second of my time.
Even this was too much.
Practical demonstration of cue tip path with a Pendulum stroke.
- Thread starter gregcantrall
- Start date
No...
a learned & experience AZB member is correct. You & the words that come from your type of tongue are not worth one second of my time.
Even this was too much.
So am I correct to say that this whole bloody crusade of yours was personal and not entirely under the guise of understanding how and why Randy stated this?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Hate and pride are not good qualities for you to be embracing Rick. So sorry to hear you say that.I really thought you would come through after all your speeches about honesty, truthfulness, ect. I will admit I was wrong about you, it's not about the truth for you at all. You have now made it very clear to me that you can't stand the truth and won't waste your time with it. So sad.
The distance travelled by the cue during contact is about 4mm according to this excellent video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhNgiAwQ1jo (from DBK's blog here: http://dbkcues.ru/2011/06/12/another-couple-of-hs-video-now-24-000-fps/?lang=en)
Here is a still from the video exactly at first tip-CB contact (note 37.7 cm at left edge of frame)
and then again once cue ball is away (note 38.1 cm at left edge of frame)
Here, I've overlayed what the 4mm contact distance looks like, relative to Greg's experiment result:
English, are you really concerned that the cue path is not "perfectly" straight during that 4mm distance, or is this just an elaborate long-form troll?
For that center hit & depending on the speed of that hit & with a very 'level' cue, I would not be too concerned. But for a hit off center and with an angled cue I would.
What is lost by 'many' is that it is not just about one parameter at a time.
Just as an example, let's say I need precise position and I intend to hit 2 tips, which is what, about 6 mm below center, & due to the arcing motion of the tip I hit 3 tips, 9mm below center & then the tip does not move straight through the line but arcs down even farther while it is in contact. What happens? Do I get my precise position? Now add to that the cue is not 'level' but is already angled down some.
What speed was that hit? The tip hardly looked compressed at all.
Bob, I think you will understand why I saved this one for last. I set up with a 16" arm (within the realm of my elbow to loosely looped fingers), 54" from cue tip (pencil) to stroke hand (pivot) and 6 3/8" from bridge to cue tip. So I would be gripping the cue very near the butt with a short bridge.
[/IMG]I did find a rusty old framing square.
The smallest lines are 1/8" on the square. The line does start to drop as soon as the arm reaches perpendicular.Things that make you say "Hmmmmm"
I hope you can see my points. I thought this was a discussion forum. I did not know that it is a bully pulpit for a select few.
Mr. Cantrell's models have shown me that the tip movement is not exactly as I had envisioned it & appears different than what I remember Mr. Jewett's charts.
His modelings are making me think a bit differently but my own experiments seem to contradict his & I am looking for a reason why they might be different, & then there is Mr. Jewett's charts.
Anyway, Thanks for your input & advice.
Last edited:
Instead of attaching the forearm to the cue in a single point could you use to Popsicle sticks and attach them to a single point on the forearm piece and 3-3.5 inches apart on the cue piece? I would like to see how much ulnar and radial rotation would be required to keep the cue online...
The grip and it's ability to alter contact points on the cue has always been the way that I could create a straight stroke using a pendulum... If the ulnar and radial rotation is beyond human range of motion then the grip has to be involved as well as the wrist joint......
The grip and it's ability to alter contact points on the cue has always been the way that I could create a straight stroke using a pendulum... If the ulnar and radial rotation is beyond human range of motion then the grip has to be involved as well as the wrist joint......
None of this matters one whit to the outcome. You're still looking at a maximum of 4mm of linear travel, with a tiny, tiny amount of non-linear travel.
ENGLISH! said:
If you set up your shot where the tip is ~1" from the cue ball (at rest - i.e. vertical forearm, before the backstroke), with your bridge positioning the tip 6mm below center of the CB (again, at rest), and you do not have a blatant stroke error, then it not possible for the tip to contact the CB 9mm below center. Simply not possible.
ENGLISH! said:
Completely irrelevant.
I have applied for neither patent or copyright on my device. I give the design to the world. You are free to copy or build upon it what you will.
I see no need for any wrist input to keep the cue online. If you would like to delve further into adding wrist input I would love to see the result.
I have applied for neither patent or copyright on my device. I give the design to the world. You are free to copy or build upon it what you will.
I see no need for any wrist input to keep the cue online. If you would like to delve further into adding wrist input I would love to see the result.
FOSS - Free and Open Source Stroker :wink:
The other Linus would be proud.
What arcing motion of the tip? You can clearly see that it doesn't arc down much at all until half way through the cb. How long will you keep up this charade of trying to make mountains out of mole hills?
Linux on the Starship Enterprise?
Thank you for naming my machine. Foss, I feel as proud as Data with his cat Spot.:thumbup:
I like Woody Willy myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Oh, I like that even better! Amazing what can be achieved with Open Source! :grin-square:I like FLOSS....M.
Free Lean Open Source Stroking Machine
You know something, Neil? I would welcome an apology from Rick, based on the fact that no longer can he "hide" behind the excuse that "everyone is being evasive, and not providing the concrete answer he is looking for."
There's something to be said, when in the company of studied professionals (i.e. instructors) -- and you've heard this expression before -- of a "reader / student exercise" -- where the onus is on the STUDENT (or reader) to seek the proof that has long been out there. It's not up to the instructor to "solve for the variable 'x'" but rather the STUDENT to do so. It's not up to the instructor to do the student's homework assignment for him/her.
In this case, it was up to Rick to go do the research, read up on the pendulum stroke, go find those videos, and just in general "come to terms with what you perceive as the 'enemy' of your own common sense." That enemy exists for a reason, and if it "offends" your own reasoning, it's up to you -- not anyone else -- to go find it, come to terms with it, etc.
In Rick's case, everything is "you guys go dig that stuff up, and send it hither. I know you say the proof is out there, but I want you guys to do the research and spoonfeed me. Send it hither, and I'll decide what I want to read and what I don't want to. And if it's too much to read or reference, or if I don't like the packaging [read: you haven't put enough sugar on top for me], I'll just hit you with 50 questions to keep you busy."
When presented with overwhelming proof, heck, I've been known on these boards to take a step back, and go, "you know guys, I've been wrong about this -- it doesn't make sense to me, but you know what? I'm going to sit down with this stuff, digest it, come to terms with it, and reintegrate it into my knowledge base. Kudos to so-and-so for showing me where I was going awry."
It's not a question of "where one stands in relation to that old question of whether the world is flat" or not. This is not Galileo's or Copernicus's time at the start of the science of astronomy. This is the 21st century -- science has advanced a LOT since then, and we have cameras and high-speed video proof. In fact, science has changed the thinking of people as a whole to "break things down and let's see how they work" -- not believe in something because someone told us so. Example, go to any science class in today's schools, and what are they doing? Experiments and proofs. Go read up about science classes back in the "flat earth society" days, and what do you see? Students being told how things are based on drawings and text in books. Big difference. The whole methodology to learning has changed since the days of the "flat earth" society, and that analogy is no longer applicable nor appropriate to trivial discussions of the travel of the cue during a pendulum stroke. Video and "experimental device" evidence SOUNDLY prove that stuff.
Anyway, I just wanted to append on what Neil wrote, because I also agree, it's very unhealthy to retreat into a corner, and hold vendettas because that bone of information that one is clenching hard between the teeth (and refuses to let go), is actually not correct at all. It's also very inappropriate to place the blame at RandyG's or Bob Jewett's feet for presenting information where the onus was on *Rick* to understand what the information is, where it came from (and the context of how/why it was used or offered), come to terms with it, find out why it "seemingly" conflicts with something else, etc.
-Sean
Last edited:
Great pendulum stroke simulator Greg!
I also wondered about the results if the cue was at 15 deg. to the slate.
In the true spirit of science/engineering, I used a parametric cad program to verify your findings.
As the screen capture shows, the variation at the cue tip in the vertical plane takes on a slight "s" curve in shape,
and in my example deviates no more than 0.075" and in the last 3" there is no more than 0.016" deviation.
In my opinion, that's pretty damn straight!
I also wondered about the results if the cue was at 15 deg. to the slate.
In the true spirit of science/engineering, I used a parametric cad program to verify your findings.
As the screen capture shows, the variation at the cue tip in the vertical plane takes on a slight "s" curve in shape,
and in my example deviates no more than 0.075" and in the last 3" there is no more than 0.016" deviation.
In my opinion, that's pretty damn straight!
Attachments
I was only jesting
But it turns out I don't need to show you the straight line, another poster posted Gregs picture with a green computerised line against the pencil line. If you can't see atleast 1" of straight line in that then there is no more that can be done for now.
You may not see it as backing up RandyGs statement, but you have to understand others, including my self do.
I'm sure in a few days or so we will have a new thread to bicker and squabble over
Pidge,
I'l say this & I know that it will be twisted & distorted.
That pencil line is nearly straight. But...If you look close at both ends you will see some small variation on the opposite sides of the green line at the end points. So, if you aligned it more precisely with each end of the green line on the lower edge of the pencil line, I think you would see more of a belly or arc on top of the green line. That has me thinking, as that appears to be the opposite of Mr. Jewett's chart has I remember it. As I remember it, the curve was bellying out on the bottom side representing the tip arcing up before contact.
Also, since the 'cue' is a piece of square wood, I am not so sure that it is a straight piece of wood. The small arc being on the 'wrong' side made me think of that. If the wood has any bow in it, that would certainly effect the tracking.
I guess I am being 'whatever' for pointing out that possibility.
Best to you Pidge,
Rick
The wrist has give...
As the wrist rotates from back to front, it allows the cue to flow straight in a pendulum swing for a period of time.
That's the how anyways...
Jaden
As the wrist rotates from back to front, it allows the cue to flow straight in a pendulum swing for a period of time.
That's the how anyways...
Jaden
In the video I had provided, my wrist moves very, very little. I also explained in detail to him what causes the cue to stay level. He just chooses to ignore it, and now states that he has never been given that explanation. He will just keep picking at little tiny slivers that have everyone shaking their heads in disbelief instead of admitting to being wrong.