prove me wrong
- Thread starter Ballistic Billiards
- Start date
1) Read Kohler's work. There is a measurable effect to throw.teebee said:
2) Set the shot up yourself and see. Move the balls closer and closer until there is no possible way for any curve to affect the shot. It still goes in.
3) You assume that the ball curves, but would the ball curve with just english applied? Are you saying you can curve the cue ball with just right english? Do you believe that as well?
4) You assume the ball curves, but did you also contemplate that hitting with english also causes squirt, making it harder to pocket the ball.
Interesting...
-td
teebee said:
There is no math here to show the how
and no explanation for the why either.
In the shot you referenced, we're looking at a cut angle shot.
Cut angle shots "can" be made to go off the intended line, in theory.
I really don't think that it has much, if anything to do with CB spin.
The throw that I think is practical and used by many here looks like this.
page 1 is the actual shot.
page 2 is what happens with "throw"
-cOOp, hates the term throw.
**coins term contact induced skid**
no way!
I wasn't aware that a shot I've been shooting for years was impossible due to negligible spin transfer. I've taken the liberty of slapping myself silly for breaking the laws of physics. My bad!
I wasn't aware that a shot I've been shooting for years was impossible due to negligible spin transfer. I've taken the liberty of slapping myself silly for breaking the laws of physics. My bad!
Franky said:
Don't let it happen again!
this looks more like a double kiss shot to me.
I'm going to have to try this one.
It's not. It's an absolutely standard one pocket shot, but it is accomplished with collllision-induced throw. That balls are thrown with spin on the cue ball has been shown many, many times. So has the fact that some side spin is transferred to the object ball.coopdeville said:
It's OK if you don't believe in throw or transfer of side spin. There is no law that requires you to believe the facts. Even at least one former world champion doesn't believe in such things either. Sadly, some otherwise well-regarded instructors have muddied these waters.
If you are interested in learning more about this, read Jack Koehler's book and a bunch of articles that address throw on the www.sfbilliards.com web site.
This shot is not really a good example of spin transfer, imo. The 1-ball moves forward mostly because of the less than perfect elasticity of the collision(s). Most if not all of the topspin that it acquires from the cueball is wiped out by the 2-ball, I think, but I'll take your word if you're sure this is not the case. Bob Jewett, who probably understands this shot better than anyone here, would tell you that it can be made without draw on the cueball.Franky said:
Speaking of "spin transfer", people, including myself, use it very freely, but it's very misleading. While a convenient shorthand, be aware that it has no real physical meaning.
Jim
coopdeville said:
The situation you show in this two-part diagram is not an example of "throw". You show the cue ball and the object ball "sticking together" for a bit before they separate thereby creating a new line-of-centers which allows the object ball to pass the interfering ball. (Whether this "sticking together" occurs at all should be the topic of a separate thread, but is is not what is meant by "throw".)
When an object ball is thrown (either with SIT or CIT or both) the line-of-centers does not change. Rather the direction of travel of the object ball changes so that it is not along the line-of centers. The friction between the two balls has introduced another component to the object ball's velocity vector which is (essentially) perpendicular to the line-of-centers.
Mark
Jal said:
I will grant you that we do not yet have billiard balls that are perfectly elastic. I feel fairly confident that their near, but not precisely perfect elasticity is not the reason you can pocket the spotted ball. If someone can post a video of pocketing that ball with a dead ball stop shot and clean balls that supports your theory, I will be both impressed and confused.
When I said "spin transfer", I do of course imply "partial spin transfer due to a slipping cogwheel type of action between colliding spheres". Is that better?
Contact induced throw would be when you shoot a 30 degree cut and the cue ball makes contact with ob with no sidespin and the object ball gets thrown in the direction the cue ball is travelling. People undercut especially when the cue ball is travelling at slow speeds because the balls are in contact for longer and it throws further.
Spin induced throw would be more like a 0-5 degree angle with sidespin and it absolutely changes the object balls path enough to make the difference between rattling the ball or pocketing it.
So if someone says it doesn't make enough of a difference to really notice they would certainly notice that they just lost $1000 because the 9ball rattled just enough to miss the set winning shot. The reason they missed is because they didn't know the effects of throw or how to spin it in.
Another thing. Once you learn to pocket balls with right or left hand english your game will step up. It actually becomes easier to pocket balls using sidespin.
Spin induced throw would be more like a 0-5 degree angle with sidespin and it absolutely changes the object balls path enough to make the difference between rattling the ball or pocketing it.
So if someone says it doesn't make enough of a difference to really notice they would certainly notice that they just lost $1000 because the 9ball rattled just enough to miss the set winning shot. The reason they missed is because they didn't know the effects of throw or how to spin it in.
Another thing. Once you learn to pocket balls with right or left hand english your game will step up. It actually becomes easier to pocket balls using sidespin.
Franky said:I will grant you that we do not yet have billiard balls that are perfectly elastic. I feel fairly confident that their near, but not precisely perfect elasticity is not the reason you can pocket the spotted ball. If someone can post a video of pocketing that ball with a dead ball stop shot and clean balls that supports your theory, I will be both impressed and confused.
When I said "spin transfer", I do of course imply "partial spin transfer due to a slipping cogwheel type of action between colliding spheres". Is that better?
The reason the two ball goes toward the pocket (on two rails) is because of CIT. The reason the one ball goes toward the pocket has nothing at all to do with throw.
"Slipping cogwheel ... action" is jibberish.
Mark
Last edited:
i believe it exists.
Bob,
Thanks for the reply.
Here is the proof.
not showing sidespin effects
this on page 34 shows effects of spin.
Great information but practical?
not without the precision of a neuro-surgeon
and one of those heiroglyphic calculators
or w/e they call them.
-coop, only shoots with natural or stun.
where were you guys with these links 100 posts ago?
Bob Jewett said:
Bob,
Thanks for the reply.
Here is the proof.
not showing sidespin effects
this on page 34 shows effects of spin.
Great information but practical?
not without the precision of a neuro-surgeon
and one of those heiroglyphic calculators
or w/e they call them.
-coop, only shoots with natural or stun.
where were you guys with these links 100 posts ago?
Last edited:
It's been a while since I've practiced this shot, but if memory serves, I played it with stun (or near stun), and it worked okay. But the cueball has to be closer to the center of the table. If the angle of attack you use is the one shown in your diagram, perhaps it does need an assist from draw.Franky said:
The situation is similar to a Newton's Cradle, where you have several steel balls hanging by threads in tandem, and you bang into them with one ball and out pops a ball at the other end. Ideally, none of the intermediate balls have any velocity after the collision. In reality, they do move forward because of some inelasticity. But people still submit papers on the subject, trying to come up with a relatively simple analytical scheme for predicting the outcome without having to resort to number crunching methods. (Simple physics, ie, conservation of energy and momentum, does not provide an answer as there are many possible outcomes allowed by them.)
So I'm certainly not going to say I understand your shot. But when the angle of attack is such that it can be made with stun, I do think that inelasticity is the explanation. I really don't know enough about it to say anymore.
I didn't mean to pick on your use of the term since we all use it. What I meant is that none of the cueball's spin is actually, literally, transfered to the object ball.Franky said:When I said "spin transfer", I do of course imply "partial spin transfer due to a slipping cogwheel type of action between colliding spheres". Is that better?
Just a nitpicky point.
Jim
Try This one
A bank shot that I learned from Banking With the Beard. The principle has many applications. The 9 ball is only there to be sure you hit the 8 square and don't cheat and cut it.
I can only come up with two explanations for the success of this shot. Transferred spin or magic.
I practice this shot and other similar shots routinely and attest that it works.
If you set it up using a striped ball as the Object Ball with the stripe turned vertically you can see the effect of the transferred spin(or magic) after the CB strikes the OB. It is not dramatic but in this case is enough to alter the path of the OB.
A bank shot that I learned from Banking With the Beard. The principle has many applications. The 9 ball is only there to be sure you hit the 8 square and don't cheat and cut it.
I can only come up with two explanations for the success of this shot. Transferred spin or magic.
I practice this shot and other similar shots routinely and attest that it works.
If you set it up using a striped ball as the Object Ball with the stripe turned vertically you can see the effect of the transferred spin(or magic) after the CB strikes the OB. It is not dramatic but in this case is enough to alter the path of the OB.
The World is Flat!
The world is flat! I'm not talking about no hills or valleys, I'm talking about this round ball conspiracy foolishness. I have flown many thousands of miles in an airplane at thirty thousand feet flying level and at the end of the trip I was still thirty thousand feet above the earth before started our descent to the airport, certain proof that it is flat.
I defy anyone to prove my claim the earth is flat wrong! You can not use scientific proof or empirical data to prove your case as I will simply declare the science invalid and the testing flawed that gathered the empirical data!
Nobody on this board can prove to me to my satisfaction that the world is round!
Hu
The world is flat! I'm not talking about no hills or valleys, I'm talking about this round ball conspiracy foolishness. I have flown many thousands of miles in an airplane at thirty thousand feet flying level and at the end of the trip I was still thirty thousand feet above the earth before started our descent to the airport, certain proof that it is flat.
I defy anyone to prove my claim the earth is flat wrong! You can not use scientific proof or empirical data to prove your case as I will simply declare the science invalid and the testing flawed that gathered the empirical data!
Nobody on this board can prove to me to my satisfaction that the world is round!
Hu
ShootingArts said:
I think you are right but there must be a helluva worldwide conspiracy to perpetuate the "round earth" hoax. I have flown east from New York to Frankfurt, then Beijing, then Los Angeles and finally back to New York. While I was asleep they must have tricked me and turned around.
Go Figure!