Question about follow thru

[DoomCue]

Tons of nonsense deleted

I suggest you go back and read my posts again. I think I made it perfectly clear what my points were. Stop your pseudo-intellectualizing and try to actually understand what I wrote.

If you truly believe that a player doesn't have to accelerate the cue to get it moving, I don't expect you to understand any of my posts anyway.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret - the idea behind my posts was to get kollegedave thinking in the right direction, not to hand him the answer on a silver platter. As he's said twice before, he's got it, so drop it already.

I'm sure you've got plenty more to say, how about thinking before you say anything?

-djb

 

[FLICKit]

I suggest you go back and read my posts again. I think I made it perfectly clear what my points were. Stop your pseudo-intellectualizing and try to actually understand what I wrote.

Ironic that you talk about intellectuallizing.

Especially considering that the issue of longer strokes staying on the cue ball, is such an intellectual discussion to begin with. You're talking about a phenomenon that happens at a level of fraction of a second (not second, probably not even milli, but more like nano or pica second).

If you truly believe that a player doesn't have to accelerate the cue to get it moving, I don't expect you to understand any of my posts anyway.

You've already been proven wrong on this one. I explained to you that a player does not have to accelerate the cue at all to get it moving. With a pendulum swing, it'll happen by forces without player involvement. That's a fact. Review your physics. If you don't understand that,....

You could suspend the butt of a stick by tieing a string to it. Then simply pull it back. At this point, just releasing the cue stick would provide enough force to accelerate the cue, without any player involvement.

As was said, simple pendulum theory... see the earlier post if you need more details.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret - the idea behind my posts was to get kollegedave thinking in the right direction, not to hand him the answer on a silver platter. As he's said twice before, he's got it, so drop it already.

Given that was your goal, then job well done.
If you want to drop it, then fine, let it go... Discussion over.

I'm sure you've got plenty more to say, how about thinking before you say anything?
-djb

Since you were having such an intellectual discussion, I pointed out areas where your reasoning was not quite accurate. That's what forums are about discussions that challenge one's normal way of thinking, and thus provides insights and knowledge about how things work.

That's what makes it fun.

 

[DoomCue]

More nonsense deleted

Since you were having such an intellectual discussion, I pointed out areas where your reasoning was not quite accurate. That's what forums are about discussions that challenge one's normal way of thinking, and thus provides insights and knowledge about how things work.

That's what makes it fun.

Seriously, you need to go back and read the thread. You have absolutely no clue what's going on.

-djb

 

[FLICKit]

Seriously, you need to go back and read the thread. You have absolutely no clue what's going on.

-djb

Now you're just getting flat out non-responsive....

OK OK... just give it up.. let it go... I understand what you're trying to do...

 

[DoomCue]

Now you're just getting flat out non-responsive....

OK OK... just give it up.. let it go... I understand what you're trying to do...

I doubt it.

 

[FLICKit]

I doubt it.

Yeah I have.... That's why I posted this in response. Which you still insist on avoiding. Yet instead of presenting any rebuttal. You post those little one liners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomCue
I suggest you go back and read my posts again. I think I made it perfectly clear what my points were. Stop your pseudo-intellectualizing and try to actually understand what I wrote.



Ironic that you talk about intellectuallizing.

Especially considering that the issue of longer strokes staying on the cue ball, is such an intellectual discussion to begin with. You're talking about a phenomenon that happens at a level of fraction of a second (not second, probably not even milli, but more like nano or pica second).


Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomCue
If you truly believe that a player doesn't have to accelerate the cue to get it moving, I don't expect you to understand any of my posts anyway.


You've already been proven wrong on this one. I explained to you that a player does not have to accelerate the cue at all to get it moving. With a pendulum swing, it'll happen by forces without player involvement. That's a fact. Review your physics. If you don't understand that,....

You could suspend the butt of a stick by tieing a string to it. Then simply pull it back. At this point, just releasing the cue stick would provide enough force to accelerate the cue, without any player involvement.

As was said, simple pendulum theory... see the earlier post if you need more details.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomCue
I'm going to let you in on a little secret - the idea behind my posts was to get kollegedave thinking in the right direction, not to hand him the answer on a silver platter. As he's said twice before, he's got it, so drop it already.


Given that was your goal, then job well done.
If you want to drop it, then fine, let it go... Discussion over.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomCue
I'm sure you've got plenty more to say, how about thinking before you say anything?
-djb


Since you were having such an intellectual discussion, I pointed out areas where your reasoning was not quite accurate. That's what forums are about discussions that challenge one's normal way of thinking, and thus provides insights and knowledge about how things work.

That's what makes it fun.

 

[DoomCue]

Gibberish DELETED for the 2nd time

Since you were having such an intellectual discussion

You're right, I was having an intellectual discussion with kollegedave, not a pseudo-intellectual discussion with you (and I will refuse to lower myself to such). As I've stated before, the idea was to get him thinking in the right direction, which he has done. Apparently, said discussion went way over your head. You are over-analyzing what was written, making leaps in deduction where there are none to be made, and losing sight of what the discussion was about in the first place. If you really need me to spell it out for you and translate my posts into whatever your native tongue happens to be, all you have to do is ask. Otherwise, FLICK off.

-djb <-- hasn't met a player yet who uses string to hold the cue....

 

[Bob Jewett]

... How can it be that an accellerated cue might be in contact a shorter time? Would it not take longer for the cueball to reach a higher response velocity than a lower? OR...are we saying the difference in this interval is not relevant?

I think you are confusing acceleration and velocity.

In any case, in order to understand how long the tip will be on the cue ball, you have to understand how the force between them increases as the tip compresses. If you want to study that, you should look up "Hooke's Law" and "Hertz' Law" which describe a simple spring relationship and a more complicated relationship that applies to colliding spheres. This has been discussed extensively in news:rec.sport.billiard which you can search in on Google Groups. It turns out that Hertz' Law predicts that the faster the cue is moving, the shorter will be the contact time, by a little bit. As for why, see rec.sport.billiard, or any of the on-line presentations of Hertz Law.

In the case of the simpler "Hooke's Law," it turns out that the contact time of tip and ball are independent of the speed of the stick.

If you have back issues of Billiards Digest, see August 2001.

 

[FLICKit]

You're right, I was having an intellectual discussion with kollegedave, ... Apparently, said discussion went way over your head. You are over-analyzing what was written, making leaps in deduction where there are none to be made, and losing sight of what the discussion was about in the first place... If you really need me to spell it out for you and translate my posts into whatever your native tongue happens to be, all you have to do is ask...
-djb <-- hasn't met a player yet who uses string to hold the cue....

You have said nothing of any value to go over anyone's head.

You have demonstrated an inability to grasp and recognize obvious important details.

-djb <-- hasn't met a player yet who uses string to hold the cue....

You also said...

-If you truly believe that a player doesn't have to accelerate the cue to get it moving, I don't expect you to understand any of my posts anyway.

So in response to your blatantly erroneous post, you were given a specific demonstration of proof. Yet your mind is unable to grasp the concepts in order to make the connection.

You should not even begin to act knowledgeable on this topic, if you can't even understand simple pendulum theory.

That's the point. Your comments are so far off and inaccurate, that they aren't even worth merit.

You are over-analyzing what was written, making leaps in deduction where there are none to be made, and losing sight of what the discussion was about in the first place...

OK... In your own words... Prove it.

Rise to the challenge, or drop it and let it go...

In any case, in order to understand how long the tip will be on the cue ball, you have to understand how the force between them increases as the tip compresses. If you want to study that, you should look up "Hooke's Law" and "Hertz' Law" which describe a simple spring relationship and a more complicated relationship that applies to colliding spheres. This has been discussed extensively in news:rec.sport.billiard

In order to address the topic at hand, it looks like Bob Jewett has a firmer grasp of the concepts involved to determine length of time cue ball remains in contact with cue stick.

Your comments were so far off, Doomcue, that they weren't even relevant. You've clearly overlooked important information, necessary to address the issue at hand. That's the point that has been stated. That's what has been proven.

Stop trying to hide stupidity with idiocy. Just read the proof given, understand it, and admit to your errors.

 

[DoomCue]

You have said nothing of any value to go over anyone's head.

Obviously, I have. Kollegedave understood, you don't. Whose head do you think it went over?

So in response to your blatantly erroneous post, you were given a specific demonstration of proof. Yet your mind is unable to grasp the concepts in order to make the connection.

Here's where your inability to understand English shows your lack of intelligence. I ASKED QUESTIONS OF KOLLEGEDAVE TO GET HIM TO THINK IN TERMS OF VELOCITY, NOT ACCELERATION. Get that through your thick skull.

You are over-analyzing what was written, making leaps in deduction where there are none to be made, and losing sight of what the discussion was about in the first place...

OK... In your own words... Prove it.

You just did with these moronic posts.

In order to address the topic at hand, it looks like Bob Jewett has a firmer grasp of the concepts involved to determine length of time cue ball remains in contact with cue stick.

I have no doubt Bob understands more physics than I do. I also have no doubt I understand more physics than you do. What's your point?

Stop trying to hide stupidity with idiocy.

Finally, we've reached your area of expertise, stupidity and idiocy. As soon as you find a player who holds the cue with string, let me know.

Once again, READ THE THREAD. You'll see that all I've done is shown kollegedave a different way to think about the problem (which, if you'll remember, is something along the line of "does contact time increase with follow through, and does that result in more spin?"). If you'd stop being so dense for two seconds, you'd realize that.

I'm done with you. You prove time and time again on these forums that you are nothing more than a windbag who either can't read or can't understand what he read. All you have to do is ask yourself this: "If kollegedave understood what Doom was saying, why can't I?" The only possible answer is that you either missed something in a post (can't read) or you're a dumbass (can't understand what he read). Which is it?

-djb <--yammer on flubbedit, I'm done with you

 

[FLICKit]

Once again, READ THE THREAD. You'll see that all I've done is shown kollegedave a different way to think about the problem (which, if you'll remember, is something along the line of "does contact time increase with follow through, and does that result in more spin?"). If you'd stop being so dense for two seconds, you'd realize that.

You have said nothing regarding this topic. You have only claimed to have said something to KollegeDave outside of this thread. You have never put forth any reasoned argument in this thread. You presented one little post about momentum, but did nothing to relate it to anything. You won't even admit to the concepts that you've missed, that I've pointed out, and that Bob Jewett pointed out. You have no correlation between spring theory (which Bob presented) and your theory about swings. You are so scared to admit to any errors in your logic, that you'd rather be right in your own mind (even if clearly wrong in reality).

You have never incorporated any more accurate pieces of information into your own opinions on the matter. Instead, you've done only mumbo jumbo about nothing.

You have demonstrated an inability to understand basic pendulum theory, which is step 1 regarding this thread topic. If you can't grasp that basic concept, then you really are DOOMED.

KollegeDave consider yourself warned. It's better to not know something, than to be taught wrong.

KollegeDave, if you're willing to actually engage in a reasoned discussion on the matter, then you could present the merits of your position. Maybe, you really have learned (information that isn't wrong) and your points have merit, like Bob's statements. If your points are flawed, like many of DoomCues statements, then they could be pointed out, if you're willing to listen and if you want to have accurate information.

 

[kollegedave]

Ok, I am warned. Much of what I have learned is that I think the p=mv equation for describing the collision of the cue and cue ball is more accurate a description than the f=ma equation.

I don't think Doom has any obligation to relate his discussion of momentum to anything else, as my discussion with Doom (which started this mess) was essentially f=ma vs p=mv. I think p=mv wins.

Bob did write that spring theory exists, but he did not grace us with an explanation or equation, and this really has nothing to do with whether f=ma is more accurate a description than p=mv...or maybe it does and Bob can enlighten us.

Flickit, if you or Bob want to pm me, I will listen to your points with an open mind. But some people have expressed a desire to keep heavily scientific posts out of the threads.

kollegedave

You have said nothing regarding this topic. You have only claimed to have said something to KollegeDave outside of this thread. You have never put forth any reasoned argument in this thread. You presented one little post about momentum, but did nothing to relate it to anything. You won't even admit to the concepts that you've missed, that I've pointed out, and that Bob Jewett pointed out. You have no correlation between spring theory (which Bob presented) and your theory about swings. You are so scared to admit to any errors in your logic, that you'd rather be right in your own mind (even if clearly wrong in reality).

You have never incorporated any more accurate pieces of information into your own opinions on the matter. Instead, you've done only mumbo jumbo about nothing.

You have demonstrated an inability to understand basic pendulum theory, which is step 1 regarding this thread topic. If you can't grasp that basic concept, then you really are DOOMED.

KollegeDave consider yourself warned. It's better to not know something, than to be taught wrong.

KollegeDave, if you're willing to actually engage in a reasoned discussion on the matter, then you could present the merits of your position. Maybe, you really have learned (information that isn't wrong) and your points have merit, like Bob's statements. If your points are flawed, like many of DoomCues statements, then they could be pointed out, if you're willing to listen and if you want to have accurate information.

 

[FLICKit]

I'm not saying that I have ALL of the answers. But, there is a path that you'd have to go down in order to accurately solve the question. This would take more physics than most would want to engage in...

Topic - Follow through and the effects of spin....

Theories involved

- Spring theory.
As Bob Jewett pointed out, a very important aspect to this conversation is spring theory, from the compression of the cue tip itself. I'm not positive that the compression of a cue tip 100% relates to springs, but it is definitely the right direction to start in for initial understanding.

You may have to keep in mind a bit about the strength. If you have a very weak spring, then it would immediately compress, upon impact. This would render the spring action neglible.

For the cue stick example, the tip doesn't fully compress so easily. Due to the time span in which it occurs, it could very likely be the primary factor of relevance to this discussion.

- Swing theory.
It's likely that we all know the basic details about swing theory. If the swing is to have any significant impact in this discussion, then the type of swing would be relevant.

o Basic followthrough - similar to the pendulum theory
o Accelerated followthrough - which can happen for a distance after contact with the cue ball.
o Decelerated followthrough - unlikely to relevant to this discussion

Another important aspect here would be distance of followthrough
o zero followthrough - stopping right at the point of contact
o small followthrough - less than 3 inches (arbitrary) after contact
o long followthrough - 5 inches (arbitrary) or more

Backstroke length would be useful for determining the type of speed and acceleration.
If you're delivering the cue stick with a consistent speed at impact
o short backstroke would be a very rapid acceleration
o long backstroke would be a more gradual acceleration


- Collision theory
Impacts from the cue stick hitting the cue ball

- Spin theory
Rotation and angular velocities of the cue ball after contact with cue stick


Now, here's where the physics experts would come into play. Of all those factors, which are the most important for deriving the solution to the problem.

Without having done any of the necessary calculations, I'd presume that Bob Jewett was on the right track. But, now we'd have to correlate spring theory along with stroke theory (long & short followthrough) in order to derive spin theory.

Simpler terms: spring + stroke = spin.

Now, with this baseline, the math & physics experts could go through the necessary calculations to derive an intelligent answer.

 

[FLICKit]

Ok, I am warned. Much of what I have learned is that I think the p=mv equation for describing the collision of the cue and cue ball is more accurate a description than the f=ma equation.

Cool... Nice reasonable response.

The only caution I'd have is that I don't think it's a battle between f=ma vs p=mv. It could be that both formulas are useful, when applied correctly.

 

[kollegedave]

Ok, you have set out all (or many) of the ideas you think should be discussed in a discussion on follow through and its effects, but I am uncertain on where you come down on the issue.

How far do you think someone should follow through...for normal and bigger stroke shots and why?

Here are my thoughts: IF p=mv is a more proper diescription of the collision between the cue and cue ball, then the follow through should exist in any form that allows a player to impart maximum (or some other desired amount)velocity to the cue ball. The follow through would likely continue some distance beyond the cue ball (perhaps not more than 6 in) so that the stroke comes to its natural conclusion. This prevents the shooter from unconsciously stopping his cue short, but the follow through itself is not providing the spin. The velocity that usually comes with a follow through is providing the spin.

Since I know nothing about spring theory I am not going to say much other than that I think one would achieve greater spin on the vertical axis of the cue ball with a harder tip, and greater spin on the horizontal axis with a softer tip.

kollegedave

I'm not saying that I have ALL of the answers. But, there is a path that you'd have to go down in order to accurately solve the question. This would take more physics than most would want to engage in...

Topic - Follow through and the effects of spin....

Theories involved

- Spring theory.
As Bob Jewett pointed out, a very important aspect to this conversation is spring theory, from the compression of the cue tip itself. I'm not positive that the compression of a cue tip 100% relates to springs, but it is definitely the right direction to start in for initial understanding.

You may have to keep in mind a bit about the strength. If you have a very weak spring, then it would immediately compress, upon impact. This would render the spring action neglible.

For the cue stick example, the tip doesn't fully compress so easily. Due to the time span in which it occurs, it could very likely be the primary factor of relevance to this discussion.

- Swing theory.
It's likely that we all know the basic details about swing theory. If the swing is to have any significant impact in this discussion, then the type of swing would be relevant.

o Basic followthrough - similar to the pendulum theory
o Accelerated followthrough - which can happen for a distance after contact with the cue ball.
o Decelerated followthrough - unlikely to relevant to this discussion

Another important aspect here would be distance of followthrough
o zero followthrough - stopping right at the point of contact
o small followthrough - less than 3 inches (arbitrary) after contact
o long followthrough - 5 inches (arbitrary) or more

Backstroke length would be useful for determining the type of speed and acceleration.
If you're delivering the cue stick with a consistent speed at impact
o short backstroke would be a very rapid acceleration
o long backstroke would be a more gradual acceleration


- Collision theory
Impacts from the cue stick hitting the cue ball

- Spin theory
Rotation and angular velocities of the cue ball after contact with cue stick


Now, here's where the physics experts would come into play. Of all those factors, which are the most important for deriving the solution to the problem.

Without having done any of the necessary calculations, I'd presume that Bob Jewett was on the right track. But, now we'd have to correlate spring theory along with stroke theory (long & short followthrough) in order to derive spin theory.

Simpler terms: spring + stroke = spin.

Now, with this baseline, the math & physics experts could go through the necessary calculations to derive an intelligent answer.