Is it hair mousse first, and then piss? Or do you mix the hair mousse and piss together?
Scientist explains why laminated tips perform as they do
- Thread starter arnaldo
- Start date
Is it hair mousse first, and then piss? Or do you mix the hair mousse and piss together?
Ron Swanson
Banned
That's correct, Jim Odom, here in Ft. Worth put a "Milk Dud" on my cue three days ago and I already won two local tournaments and $800 in a "break and run contest" with it.
I have had some that he replaced, however, I have Milk Duds on all my cues now. I wore the last one down to the ferrule before replacing it.
Chris Renfro also has some great tips, although they are a variation of the standard "Milk Dud" (he uses some high-tech milk)
Ah. So he does just doctor elks, then.
Ron Swanson
Banned
Do i sound scientific enough to know that?
I'm thinking of adding snot next time.
I got the sample pack. If I had to guess, based on looking at the bottoms of the tips, the soft is a doctored elk or blue diamond, the medium is a doctored triangle, and the hard is a doctored Le Pro. Bottom of the Le Pro and Triangle look similar, so I can't tell. Vegetable tanned leather usually makes for a harder tip than chrome tanned leather, so I think my initial eval may be correct. I'll know as soon as I sand the bottoms to install them.
Ron Swanson
Banned
Has it really only been two years since this drivel?
Saying all tips produce the same amount of spin is as moronic as saying all cues/shafts produce the same amount of spin.
And what idiot would say that, PJ?
Ron Swanson
Banned
Good work if you can get it, but fair play to the boy. The game needs new products and I'm far too lazy to piss into a bucket of tips on a regular basis, so good luck to him.
Easy enough for you to test, "Ron". But then that would show who's what, wouldn't it? Can't have that.Has it really only been two years since this drivel?
Saying all tips produce the same amount of spin is as moronic as saying all cues/shafts produce the same amount of spin.
And what idiot would say that, PJ?
pj
chgo
Has it really only been two years since this drivel?
Saying all tips produce the same amount of spin is as moronic as saying all cues/shafts produce the same amount of spin.
And what idiot would say that, PJ?
Pat's test is flawed. No need for the "i" word. Problem with Pat's test is that it doesn't account for the lost of sidespin due to forward roll picked up from friction with the cloth.
I've always thought that there's a magic blend between the speed and spin produced by a tip. The most speed will be achieved with a hard tip, as there is little compression of the tip at contact. With a softer tip, the tip will compress more, thus remaining in contact with the cueball slightly longer. You'll get increased spin, but with a slight loss of energy, due to the cue slowing down as the tip compresses.
Cuemakers are increasing spin transfer and reducing cueball deflection by using softer ferrules, and reducing end mass of shafts. To say that a softer tip doesn't transfer more spin is flawed. All of those softer materials allow the shaft to buckle when it hits the cueball, as it moved out of the way of the heavier object during collision. The softer tip will give more as well.
Hey, I'm hoping he's found some magic juice that makes them better. They're already excellent products on their own, but lack consistency. If he's found an agent that he can add to the leather that allows him to precisely control their durometer readings per tip, he's onto something, and should be rewarded.
I thought he was making his own tips. I'm not going to lie - I was a little disappointed when I opened the packs, and found tips that looked quite familiar. However, I'll reserve judgment once I get the tips on the table. There are a lot of people swearing by them, so I doubt it's the placebo effect.
It's a comparison test - all shots will be the same speed. Whatever (small amount of) spin is lost for one will be lost for all.
By the way, I don't think side spin is lost "due to forward roll picked up". You can hit a side spin shot with nearly immediate forward roll, yet it continues to lose side spin - how does that happen?
As I said, the test shots are controlled for speed consistency. Maybe a more careful reading...?
pj
chgo
Pat,
Your test has too many assumptions. First, does an end rail have 100% spin energy return when it contacts the rail? If so, how can the ball have more or less spin running into the second rail? The rail accepts a percentage of cueball or object ball spin, but doesn't transfer all the spin. I'd estimate that at high spin speed, there is probably about 30% of the spin that is lost on the first rail. The slower the spin rate and speed, the more resultant grab the rail has.
Also, a ball rolling forward MUST lose sidespin as it travels forward. Think about the physics and applied, plus resultant forces. Sidespin is applied in a forward direction. The ball skids from the initial launch. How can a ball accumulate natural forward roll, and NOT lose sidespin? There is only one axis of rotation for a spinning ball. As the ball slows down, the sidespin is gone. So. the cueball, or spotted ball you're shooting into the rail is losing sidespin from the exact moment it picks up forward roll.
Ron Swanson
Banned
Rather than spending the last two years of your life with your nose pressed up to the screen, simpering and pining, you could have been developing enough of a stroke to know these things for certain.
Can't have that.
Ron Swanson
Banned
Anyway, when comparing performance, everyone knows we are talking DRAW, right?
Obviously, you have to be actually able to cue a ball in order to notice the difference, which is, perhaps, where our returning wordsmith loses out.
Obviously, you have to be actually able to cue a ball in order to notice the difference, which is, perhaps, where our returning wordsmith loses out.
I don't know what "spin energy return" is. Are you asking if the ball loses some side spin when it hits the rail? Of course it does (at least for a straight-into-the-rail shot), some side spin is "used up" to change the ball's direction.
By the way, this test uses a shot to the side rail. It doesn't really matter, except I'm getting the impression you're trying to critique a test you haven't given much careful attention.
I don't understand that question. But it doesn't matter, since the test is only designed to measure spin effect on the first rail.
Sorry, but I also don't know what you mean by that.
Greater spin/speed ratio (more RPMs per foot of ball travel) produces a larger angle change off the rail, but not slower speed with the same spin/speed ratio. In other words, hitting the CB on the same spot but slower probably doesn't help.
That might be interesting to discuss, but I don't think it's relevant to this comparison test (as I explained above).
pj
chgo
LOL. Apparently that's one of the conversations you're having that we can't hear.
pj
chgo
Let's say that, at speed, the back rail only absorbs 30% of the side spin. Let's say a softer tip returns 20% more spin than a harder tip. That, in total, will make a resultant difference of only 6% when it's hitting the rail, and traveling towards the side rail, in your test.
20% more spin makes a ton of difference on direct contact, such as straight draws or follows where the ball doesn't touch a side rail. 6% looks like something insignificant. Do you get what I'm saying now?
20% more spin makes a ton of difference on direct contact, such as straight draws or follows where the ball doesn't touch a side rail. 6% looks like something insignificant. Do you get what I'm saying now?
Tip and shaft width can have a large effect on many things, including squirt and net CB deflection. For more info, see cue tip size and shape effects.
Cue tip hardness and density differences can affect some things (see the cue tip hardness effects resource page); however, in my experience, the effects on squirt seem to be negligible. For proof, see:
NV D.15 - Cue and Tip Testing for Cue Ball Deflection (Squirt)
and the explanations at the bottom of the what causes squirt resource page.
Best regards,
Dave
Sorry, but no.
Let's say we hit two CBs, both at 10 MPH, but one has 50 RPMs and the other has 60 (20% more). If the rail absorbs 30% of each ball's RPMs, then the first will rebound with 35 RPMs (.7 X 50) and the second will rebound with 42 RPMs (.7 x 60). 42 RPMs is still 20% more than 35.
I think so, but I don't think you do.
pj
chgo
50RPMs? On a pool ball? Really? Could you show me that? A ball struck with sidespin of about 1 revolution per second....that strikes the back rail with enough force to even HIT the side rail?
Ron Swanson
Banned
Yup, you're back, there's no doubting that.
The conversation originated when geno said layered tips "grab too much". Where I'm from, that means draw. If it doesn't mean the same where you're from, move.
Observational bias, indeed.