Scientific Question!!!!

Black Cat 5791

Black Cat 5791

I get all the Breaks
Silver Member
Okay, here goes.

1. Does a soft tip cause or create more or less deflection than a medium or hard tip?

2. Does a dime radius deflect more or less then a nickle radius?

Alright have at let's get some answers, I have my thoughts but I want to know what everyone else thinks.

Black Cat :cool:
 
Come on 71 views and not one single opinion!!! Somebody's got to have some thoughts on this.

Black Cat :cool:
 
Black Cat,

All of your answers are on Dr. Dave's site.

Some are waiting for opinions to be expressed so they can jump in & prove the opinions wrong.

Your questions are a baited pit waiting for someone to fall in.

I believe that is how they catch Big Black Cats.:wink:

Regards to You &
 
Black Cat 5791 said:
Okay, here goes.

1. Does a soft tip cause or create more or less deflection than a medium or hard tip?
Click to expand...
All else equal (which they rarely are) soft will give more squirt for two specific scientific reasons.

1. Longer contact time which means more shaft mass in play during contact (based on transverse wave propagation rate down the shaft)
2. Longer contact time for the tip to rotate around the cueball such that the average tip offset is greater than the equal hard tip shot resulting in more squirt.

There is at least one more theory and observation, but I'll leave that to recent tests from Barioni Cues who have been exhaustively working with a cue testing robot (Dyno) of his own design.

2. Does a dime radius deflect more or less then a nickel
Click to expand...
Based solely on geometry, with the same centerline aim, a nickel would hit slightly less offset than a dime which would suggest less squirt but less spin.

I struggle with this because there are too many reports that suggest a dime has less squirt. I wonder if the simple act of shaping to a dime significant decreases tip mass. "All things being equal" often aren't.

People aren't answering because its talked to death. The science debates ceased being interesting a long time ago.

If I were you, I'd go to Dr Dave's site here

I think these particular attributes contribute a small amount to squirt. Latest testings suggest their contribution to squirt as significant or at least more significant than previously considered .

Freddie <~~~ you sure you wanted a science answer?
 
Last edited:
I will take the bait.

I think experiments have been done that do not corroborate what I am about to say, but this is what I think makes sense:

A theoretically super soft tip should conform more to the face of the cue ball, imparting more frictional force and keeping the CB track closer to the axial direction of the cue stick. (Less squirt)

A theoretically super hard tip (at its theoretical limit, approaching the hardness of a billiard ball) would impart the least amount of frictional force, and put the CB on a track approaching the contact/impact vector. (More squirt)

In truth, I think the difference between real-life tips is small, and the deflection effects can be masked by other factors.

As to the nickel/dime radius, I have no guess.

Flame away.
 
Last edited:
Black Cat 5791 said:
Okay, here goes.

1. Does a soft tip cause or create more or less deflection than a medium or hard tip?

2. Does a dime radius deflect more or less then a nickle radius?

Alright have at let's get some answers, I have my thoughts but I want to know what everyone else thinks.

Black Cat :cool:
Click to expand...

I'll agree with Freddie on #1. Using a hard tip, the tip will be in contact with the QB for the shortest period of time. I would think that 3 cushion billiard players would use a soft tip.

2. When the cue ball is struck off center (I mean dead center) it is struck with the side of the tip. A nickle radius has more side area, where a dime radius has less side area. So, putting a tip of spin on a QB is not the same because of the two differnt types of radiuses.

JMHO

John
 
Well as you all may know I just recently put on a Predator Soft Tip, with mixed results. As history would have it I've alway's played with Moori Soft Tips and was alway's happy. Last year I started playing with Kamuii Black Softs and found them to be quite nice as well. Well the ferule on my old shaft cracked and I ended up sending it to Predator for repair, but being that I only had the one at the time while at the SBE last year I picked up another shaft which came with an Everest Medium. After grooming the tip and playing with it for almost the last year I became quite accustomed to it and the hit. So for the last few day's with the new Predator Soft Tip I've started to over cut the Object Ball. So this is why I've posed the question.

Today I was able to put in about 3 1/2 to 4 hrs of practice and I'm just about dialed back in, but there is definately a difference in performance.

Has anyone else had these same experiences.

Black Cat :cool:
 
Opinion

Black Cat 5791 said:
Okay, here goes.

1. Does a soft tip cause or create more or less deflection than a medium or hard tip?

2. Does a dime radius deflect more or less then a nickle radius?

Alright have at let's get some answers, I have my thoughts but I want to know what everyone else thinks.

Black Cat :cool:
Click to expand...

There was is a similar question I was involved in.....I maintained that as a person who banks a lot a stiff cue imparted less throw that a skinny shaft to wit all in the know told me I was wrong.

All I can tell you from that question is that something yet unexplained was going on because that is not only my opinion but the opinion of other bankers I had conferred with.

Could have been something to do with the ease of application of spin from a smaller shaft I dont know but all I do know is that the spin is easier to control from a stiffer shaft when playing banks.

Any kind of off center hit playing banks seems to have an exponential effect after it hits a rail.

Thats all I know. So I keep it simple. I tried playing with my break cue....I ran out but I did plan for some more deflection if thats an answer. It would seem to me that a quicker departure from the tip would be the result of more force and more force would mean a little more possibility for deflection.
 
Cornerman said:
All else equal (which they rarely are) soft will give more squirt for two specific scientific reasons.

1. Longer contact time which means more shaft mass in play during contact (based on transverse wave propagation rate down the shaft)
2. Longer contact time for the tip to rotate around the cueball such that the average tip offset is greater than the equal hard tip shot resulting in more squirt.

There is at least one more theory and observation, but I'll leave that to recent tests from Barioni Cues who have been exhaustively working with a cue testing robot (Dyno) of his own design.

Based solely on geometry, with the same centerline aim, a nickel would hit slightly less offset than a dime which would suggest less squirt but less spin.

I struggle with this because there are too many reports that suggest a dime has less squirt. I wonder if the simple act of shaping to a dime significant decreases tip mass. "All things being equal" often aren't.

People aren't answering because its talked to death. The science debates ceased being interesting a long time ago.

If I were you, I'd go to Dr Dave's site here

I think these particular attributes contribute a small amount to squirt. Latest testings suggest their contribution to squirt as significant or at least more significant than previously considered .

Freddie <~~~ you sure you wanted a science answer?
Click to expand...

I understand the rotational argument, but I think the duration of contact time is too minuscule to allow for any significant angular rotation.

I always favor robot testing to answer these questions, but the devil is in the details of the rigor of their protocols.
 
Shaft said:
I understand the rotational argument, but I think the duration of contact time is too minuscule to allow for any significant angular rotation.

I always favor robot testing to answer these questions, but the devil is in the details of the rigor of their protocols.
Click to expand...

I agree on both statements.

Freddie <~~~ agreeable
 
The answer to your first question is: yes, quite possibly.
The answer to your second question is: no, not hardly. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top