Are there any Dr Dave videos or any slo mo one that can break down how a cue’s balance point affect how a cue ball reacts?
Rear vs balance weighted - any videos?
- Thread starter RichSchultz
- Start date
According to Chris Lawson's Meucci video, a more rearward balance point allows the tip to stay on the cueball longer. If this is true then i guess more spin should be a result. http://meuccicues.com/
Contact time has very little to do with how much spin you get on the cue ball. How far from center you hit the cue ball and speed of the cue stick determine how many RPMs you get. Other effects are very minor.
In fact too long a contact time is bad because it allows the cue ball (and tip contact point) to rotate around to where you get a miscue.
I see that. Makes sense when you visualize the contact period.
In particular, I like the cue not to be tip heavy--thus no metal in the joint other than the threaded member.
totally disagree ......... a slightly nose weighted cue will stay down ............ a rear weighted cue will tend to rise as the cue ball is struck............ rear weighted cues feel heavier than a cue of equal weight that is slightly nose heavy........... the balance point should be 19 to 19 1/2 inches from the butt ........ not including the bumper.
Kim
Kim
What physics model is Mr Lawson using?
How did you come to guess that staying on the cueball longer gets more spin? Thousands of people make this same guess, so I'm wondering how that came to be. I think it must be the feeling of a longer contact shot.
One could argue that a more rear-weighted cue results in more potential energy,considering most shots have an angle at the last backstroke. But we're talking hairs of difference.
And longer contact generally means more losses, so I expect less spin for longer contact.
This test you keep referring to. Did you test with multiple cues that all had different CoR's? Did you test different tips on each cue? If I remember correctly, you've stated that no you didn't do that thourough of testing. Which in any other industry, would have shamed your results for being biased. Yes the tip of a cue affects the spin of a cue ball. it also affects the rpm:distance traveled of the cue ball. A ratio that is more important to determine than just the CoR of the cue/tip.
Sounds to me...............
like we're all kinda guessing here. Quite a few good points have been raised and as the OP asked, it would be nice to have solid empirical data. What we need is a pool/billiard version of golf's IronByron robot and some high-speed video. Anybody up to building one??
like we're all kinda guessing here. Quite a few good points have been raised and as the OP asked, it would be nice to have solid empirical data. What we need is a pool/billiard version of golf's IronByron robot and some high-speed video. Anybody up to building one??
like we're all kinda guessing here. Quite a few good points have been raised and as the OP asked, it would be nice to have solid empirical data. What we need is a pool/billiard version of golf's IronByron robot and some high-speed video. Anybody up to building one??
This has been done, probably by at least several different people. A Canadian cue maker had one to prove his cues had less squirt. It was on internet several years ago. So much junk on net now, I don’t know if I could find it. His device was not intended to answer the OPs question, but it was well built and would probably work.
like we're all kinda guessing here. Quite a few good points have been raised and as the OP asked, it would be nice to have solid empirical data. What we need is a pool/billiard version of golf's IronByron robot and some high-speed video. Anybody up to building one??
So... I don't think a lot of us are guessing. And many of the "robots" out there are totally missing the basic concepts of trying to separate their mechanism from mechanical collisions they are trying to measure.
This novelle idea of yours for a pool version Iron Byron...the Predator robot used by Bob Jewett and team for the high speed video study known as the Jacksonville Experiment was called Iron Willie for some reason...
The coefficient of restitution (how efficiently the tip transfers energy to the cue ball) changes both the spin and the speed. The spin/speed ratio is still determined by the eccentricity of the hit. I think the majority of the CoR is from the tip unless the cue is very poorly built.
If you have a different theory that says that the spin/speed ratio is not directly related to the eccentricity of the tip contact, please state it clearly along with a test that will show the defects in the current theory.
like we're all kinda guessing here. Quite a few good points have been raised and as the OP asked, it would be nice to have solid empirical data. What we need is a pool/billiard version of golf's IronByron robot and some high-speed video. Anybody up to building one??
As Freddie pointed out, you seem to be missing some history.
At first there was Meucci's Myth Destroyer and then there was Clawson/Predator's Iron Willie. Dr. Dave has had his mechanical engineering students construct mechanical cue stick movers as class projects. Iron Willie was upgraded to Iron Willie II -- perhaps there is a III -- to fix some of its inhuman characteristics. There is a Russian cue maker who posted some very interesting ultra-high-speed videos but I'm not sure whether he has a mechanical stick actuator or not.
Here are three articles about the so-called "Jacksonville Experiment": http://www.sfbilliards.com/Misc/jax_bd150.pdf
Very cool. One last question: back to the OP's balance-point query: if two cues with polar opposite balance points were compared via a robot hitter, would there be any measurable difference(s) in how the cueball reacted? Reason i ask is i've owned heavy front(steel-joint, ivory ferrule) and Meucci-style(rear weighted) cues and could not tell difference in how the played. Any differences must be minute. Thanks to all those who provided all the testing stuff.
Very easily done. Look at spin as a data point of distance, not time. Pool isn't about how long it takes a shot to finish, it's about the distance between balls. There are shots I can perform with ease when I have soft tip. Those same shots with a hard tip, near impossible. It's solely due to lack of cue ball speed that allows the soft tip to do that. It's also seen in the cue balls impact mark on the tip. The larger mark left on soft tips is a direct proponent of it being in contact with the cue ball longer.
Now, I do believe the max spin rate(rpm) for both a soft and hard tip is about the same. But there is no way that a 20 year old experiment, with all the changes in technology and methods, would still produce the same results. I mean the PGA has changed their testing technology for clubs almost yearly to keep up with current ideas/methods.
I don't think the balance point will have any affect on the cueball. It will affect your personal feel towards the cue and maybe how well you can move it in a straight line.
If you got hit in the nose with a bowling ball, do you think you could tell if the center of mass was exactly in the middle or if the weight was shifted a bit from center? But I bet the person swinging it could tell the difference in the balance if they were experienced enough. Shaft is the key here.
Are you sure this is not due to the player rather than the tip?
I used my words correctly. If you don't see that, well I can't help you grasp this then. But if you insist that I can stroke both a soft and hard tip the exact way, why are there different tip hardness' then?
Some people like a soft tip to hold chalk better. Some like a hard tip because it holds it's shape.