Roundest ball ever made

What if balls were manufactured cheaply and easily with drastically improved roundness?
Click to expand...
Cheaply and easily is the opposite of roundness and smoothness. The cost increases with labor, which is what it takes to polish every ball. The silicon sphere cost around $3M to make because it was so labor intensive, and a single crystal with almost no defects was used.
What impact would it have on the game?
Click to expand...
Probably not much. The roundness (sphericity) is already so close to 1.0 that wouldn't cause the Newtonian mechanics to change in any perceivable way (moment of intertia).
Does this roundness equate to smoothness?
Click to expand...
No, they are different. Roundness is better defined as sphericity, which is the ratio of the surface area of a perfect sphere to that of the object. Any defect will cause the ration to be less than 1.0. Smoothness refers to the short-term defect density variation, specifically in the radial axis, which more closely relates to the coefficient (@Texas Carom Club) of friction on the ball, and how quickly that changes by picking up dirt and oil. A "smoother" ball will probably have a lower CoF for longer since stuff doesn't stick to it as easily.
Would gearing english be less important?
Click to expand...
Gearing English is related to static CoF so yes
Would the miscue limit move inward?
Click to expand...
I actually don't know. This might be a bit more complicated.
Would chalk be less effective?
Click to expand...
Also I am not sure.
Would we seek different materials for tips?
Click to expand...
Also a good question. Probably not since leather is a very good material for a lot of things and is cheap.
 
nataddrho said:
Cheaply and easily is the opposite of roundness and smoothness. The cost increases with labor, which is what it takes to polish every ball. The silicon sphere cost around $3M to make because it was so labor intensive, and a single crystal with almost no defects was used.

Probably not much. The roundness (sphericity) is already so close to 1.0 that wouldn't cause the Newtonian mechanics to change in any perceivable way (moment of intertia).

No, they are different. Roundness is better defined as sphericity, which is the ratio of the surface area of a perfect sphere to that of the object. Any defect will cause the ration to be less than 1.0. Smoothness refers to the short-term defect density variation, specifically in the radial axis, which more closely relates to the coefficient (@Texas Carom Club) of friction on the ball, and how quickly that changes by picking up dirt and oil. A "smoother" ball will probably have a lower CoF for longer since stuff doesn't stick to it as easily.

Gearing English is related to static CoF so yes

I actually don't know. This might be a bit more complicated.

Also I am not sure.

Also a good question. Probably not since leather is a very good material for a lot of things and is cheap.
Click to expand...
IMG_4871.jpeg
 
nataddrho said:
Cheaply and easily is the opposite of roundness and smoothness. The cost increases with labor, which is what it takes to polish every ball. The silicon sphere cost around $3M to make because it was so labor intensive, and a single crystal with almost no defects was used.

Probably not much. The roundness (sphericity) is already so close to 1.0 that wouldn't cause the Newtonian mechanics to change in any perceivable way (moment of intertia).

No, they are different. Roundness is better defined as sphericity, which is the ratio of the surface area of a perfect sphere to that of the object. Any defect will cause the ration to be less than 1.0. Smoothness refers to the short-term defect density variation, specifically in the radial axis, which more closely relates to the coefficient (@Texas Carom Club) of friction on the ball, and how quickly that changes by picking up dirt and oil. A "smoother" ball will probably have a lower CoF for longer since stuff doesn't stick to it as easily.

Gearing English is related to static CoF so yes

I actually don't know. This might be a bit more complicated.

Also I am not sure.

Also a good question. Probably not since leather is a very good material for a lot of things and is cheap.
Click to expand...

That’s very interesting, I had the opposite intuition…that the balls with less surface roughness would stick more, because (edit) the contact density per unit area is higher. However you make a good point regarding chalk and dust/contaminants being less embedded due to there being less/smaller crevices available.

Thanks to your argument, I’m not sure now about the competition between chalk/contaminant and smoothness induced sources of friction.

Sincere regards from one scientist to another,

Dr. Science, PhD
 
Tolerances, some folks have little appreciation.

Dave <-- becoming less tolerant of knuckle-draggers
 
Rickhem said:
The primary mirror on the Hubble space telescope was polished to a level where that same comparison of expanding it to earth size would result in a difference between the high and low spots being only six inches. The Hubble mirror is 7.9 feet in diameter, which is orders of magnitude more in surface area than the sphere, but I'm guessing the shapes pose their own set of complications. And we all know what happened when the Hubble was first deployed.

This stuff is very interesting to me, so thanks for posting!
Click to expand...

You know they f-ed up the Hubble mirror right and had to fix it after they put it in orbit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The direction of sports has not been to make balls more round.

Basketball, baseball, tennis and soccer use a system of grooves or channels to make the ball round with additional mechanics to exploit.

If billiard balls were easier to masse or hit with cue elevation of 30 degrees than maybe more action and advanced physics can be demonstrated.

Rounder balls are great for template building.

I'd like to trap marine life in round subs.
 
justnum said:
The direction of sports has not been to make balls more round.

Rounder balls are great for template building.

I'd like to trap marine life in round subs.
Click to expand...
Let me try:

The music entertainment industry has a history of suppressing advancements in media technology.

Woodwind instruments can beat stringed instruments in a cage fight.

My uncle almost met Steve Martin.
 
nataddrho said:
Let me try:

The music entertainment industry has a history of suppressing advancements in media technology.

Woodwind instruments can beat stringed instruments in a cage fight.

My uncle almost met Steve Martin.
Click to expand...

Tell them the application of such round spheres and polishing tolerances. Round bullets have lots of targets.

Are you inventing a cheaper or more stealthy explosive device?
 
AF pool guy said:
You know they f-ed up the Hubble mirror right and had to fix it after they put it in orbit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yes. That's what I meant with that last sentence:
<<<And we all know what happened when the Hubble was first deployed.>>>

Heard a few different versions of what went wrong. One was that they failed to account for the absence of gravity in space when designing the concave shape of the mirror, which altered the focal point slightly. Another was that something about a small chip of paint being removed on the null-corrector during the years it took to fabricate the mirror at Perkin Elmer. (that one is from some people involved, so take that with a grain of salt)
After a small adjustment to the equipment while already in orbit, we got the full view of what that could do, and the Deep Field, and Ultra Deep Field images are incredible. It takes a while to fully comprehend all that they capture, and grasp the vastness of space.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top