Shaft Deflection or Squirt

[greyghost]

12 bucks I think. Click below to see it.

New Generation Low Defelection - Molavia Cue Tips!!!

Hi Guys, Introducing the new generation Molavia low deflection cue tips: The Molavia LITE hybrid tip is only 5mm thick and weighs in below 0.03 oz, lower tip, and harder hit provides for lower deflection and complement low deflection shafts...

forums.azbilliards.com

Jesus it would be that prick Duc Lam or however you spell it. This guy used to get cuemakers to finish his not so great factory seconds from predator and others then he’d try and sell them as the cuemakers own work.

Dirt bag


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[garczar]

Jesus it would be that prick Duc Lam or however you spell it. This guy used to get cuemakers to finish his not so great factory seconds from predator and others then he’d try and sell them as the cuemakers own work.

Dirt bag


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

'Low-defrection'. Bet he drives a Rincoln.

 

[Thunder Thighs]

Jesus it would be that prick Duc Lam or however you spell it. This guy used to get cuemakers to finish his not so great factory seconds from predator and others then he’d try and sell them as the cuemakers own work.

Dirt bag


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Wow.. this deserves it's own thread

 

[MattPoland]

So much gets lost in the terminology. CB deflection and CB squirt are the same thing. Stiffness is confusing because it’s associated with the scale of bendiness (or whippyness). That is a form of staff deflection but not the only form.

A CF shaft is very stiff but you watch a slow motion shot of a hit with side spin and the shaft does still get out of the way of the cueball (shaft deflection) and wobbles after the shot. After all, it’s not steel. It just accomplishes its high shaft deflection thanks to low end mass and not due to bendiness.

So in the end where we are in the industry today, people ought to drop any mention of “shaft deflection” because it only adds ambiguity to the conversation. When the industry talks of “deflection” they are largely referring to CB deflection now (or squirt). And if you’re not getting on board with that terminology, you’re quickly becoming a minority that causes this debate to re-emerge for the millionth time every time this conversation happens.

So now we are at this place where a “low deflection shaft” means a shaft that imparts low “CB deflection” on a shot.

 

[greyghost]

Wow.. this deserves it's own thread

It already had it’s own thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[greyghost]

So much gets lost in the terminology. CB deflection and CB squirt are the same thing. Stiffness is confusing because it’s associated with the scale of bendiness (or whippyness). That is a form of staff deflection but not the only form.

A CF shaft is very stiff but you watch a slow motion shot of a hit with side spin and the shaft does still get out of the way of the cueball (shaft deflection) and wobbles after the shot. After all, it’s not steel. It just accomplishes its high shaft deflection thanks to low end mass and not due to bendiness.

So in the end where we are in the industry today, people ought to drop any mention of “shaft deflection” because it only adds ambiguity to the conversation. When the industry talks of “deflection” they are largely referring to CB deflection now (or squirt). And if you’re not getting on board with that terminology, you’re quickly becoming a minority that causes this debate to re-emerge for the millionth time every time this conversation happens.

So now we are at this place where a “low deflection shaft” means a shaft that imparts low “CB deflection” on a shot.

How about we have this thing called science, physics in this case as applied to structural engineering and material science.

In engineering deflection is the degree to which a structural element is displaced under a load.


It also falls under a number of stress moduli

Modulus of Elasticity “young’s modulus”
(How much load till it bends)

Modulus of Rupture
(how much side load till it breaks)

Elasticia (the theoretical shape of a flexible object) such as the exact curve of deformation m, maximum tip displacement, maximum tip deflection angle, distribution of curvature, and distribution of bending moment has all been described since the 17th century by Euler-Bernoulli’s beam equations.

As far as stiffness being confusing for its association with bendiness and whippyness real scientific terms there.

The Stiffness main factor is the taper, the closer it is to a true cone the stiffer it will be.

Bendiness main factor is little to no taper

Whippy is from the same lack to no taper plus a nodal point closer to the center of the cue. So it flops around like a fish out the water.

Inverted tapers/ parabolic are another method of nodal shifting.

But anyway I digress

Shafts deflect, just like steel beams or beams of light, moving objects don’t deflect into motion, they get deflected off course while in motion.

Like the one that cracked into mine and bounced over the fence for a auto double


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Bob Callahan]

Elasticia (the theoretical shape of a flexible object) such as the exact curve of deformation m, maximum tip displacement, maximum tip deflection angle, distribution of curvature, and distribution of bending moment has all been described since the 17th century by Euler-Bernoulli’s beam equations.

I'm a rock climber, and once upon a time, a long time ago, I got it into my head that I would design a lightweight tent. When I realized it would involve solving elastica equations I gave up. This guy discusses that very thing: https://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/a-script-for-elastic-bending-aka-the-elastica-curve

 

[MattPoland]

How about we have this thing called science, physics in this case as applied to structural engineering and material science.

In engineering deflection is the degree to which a structural element is displaced under a load.


It also falls under a number of stress moduli

Modulus of Elasticity “young’s modulus”
(How much load till it bends)

Modulus of Rupture
(how much side load till it breaks)

Elasticia (the theoretical shape of a flexible object) such as the exact curve of deformation m, maximum tip displacement, maximum tip deflection angle, distribution of curvature, and distribution of bending moment has all been described since the 17th century by Euler-Bernoulli’s beam equations.

As far as stiffness being confusing for its association with bendiness and whippyness real scientific terms there.

The Stiffness main factor is the taper, the closer it is to a true cone the stiffer it will be.

Bendiness main factor is little to no taper

Whippy is from the same lack to no taper plus a nodal point closer to the center of the cue. So it flops around like a fish out the water.

Inverted tapers/ parabolic are another method of nodal shifting.

But anyway I digress

Shafts deflect, just like steel beams or beams of light, moving objects don’t deflect into motion, they get deflected off course while in motion.

Like the one that cracked into mine and bounced over the fence for a auto double


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I’m not sure we can put that on a package and sell it.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...a “low deflection shaft” means a shaft that imparts low “CB deflection” on a shot.

How about we have this thing called science, physics in this case as applied to structural engineering and material science.

Yes, shaft deflection is a thing - but it's largely irrelevant to what happens to the CB, which we should call "squirt" to avoid confusion.

pj
chgo

 

[greyghost]

I’m not sure we can put that on a package and sell it.

I’ve been saying that for 20 years. Low Squirt isn’t marketable and sounds like idiocy to those not in the know. And high deflection also is in marketable and sounds terrible to those not in the know.

So they went with what sounds good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[greyghost]

Yes, shaft deflection is a thing - but it's largely irrelevant to what happens to the CB, which we should call "squirt" to avoid confusion.

pj
chgo

Agreed 100%


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[greyghost]

I'm a rock climber, and once upon a time, a long time ago, I got it into my head that I would design a lightweight tent. When I realized it would involve solving elastica equations I gave up. This guy discusses that very thing: https://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/a-script-for-elastic-bending-aka-the-elastica-curve

This is great stuff!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[greyghost]

Yes, shaft deflection is a thing - but it's largely irrelevant to what happens to the CB, which we should call "squirt" to avoid confusion.

pj
chgo

The thing about cues tho is of course the feel of the hit. The tone, harmonics and sustain of the cue. It is for all intents and purposes a percussion instrument. For such a simple object there can be Beautifully complex….and I’m not talking about inlays lol.

These CF shafts don’t address nodal points and harmonics….sustain is non existent.

Theres no such thing as a sought after carbon fiber musical instrument that isn’t electronic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[garczar]

The thing about cues tho is of course the feel of the hit. The tone, harmonics and sustain of the cue. It is for all intents and purposes a percussion instrument. For such a simple object there can be Beautifully complex….and I’m not talking about inlays lol.

These CF shafts don’t address nodal points and harmonics….sustain is non existent.

Theres no such thing as a sought after carbon fiber musical instrument that isn’t electronic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

CF cellos, violins and guitars.

Its not the material's fault but how its used. CF can be just as 'tonal' as wood if used properly. A friend of a friend has a cf copy of an old Martin and it sounds fantastic.

 

[whammo57]

12 bucks I think. Click below to see it.

New Generation Low Defelection - Molavia Cue Tips!!!

Hi Guys, Introducing the new generation Molavia low deflection cue tips: The Molavia LITE hybrid tip is only 5mm thick and weighs in below 0.03 oz, lower tip, and harder hit provides for lower deflection and complement low deflection shafts...

forums.azbilliards.com

hahahahahah

 

[greyghost]

CF cellos, violins and guitars.

Its not the material's fault but how its used. CF can be just as 'tonal' as wood if used properly. A friend of a friend has a cf copy of an old Martin and it sounds fantastic.

I didn’t say they didn’t make them. I said they are not sought after. Now don’t get me wrong once their pricing comes down I’m sure they will become very popular as they of course should be much more durable and won’t warp necks and such. Economics will rule that one.

They do project sound well because of their stiffness but no they can’t be just as tonal the material itself and how fast sound moves through it will always be an issue with non electric instruments. Their tones are very bright and tinny. They lack warmth and that’s because of much increased frequencies above 15,000KHz. And as a string instrument they are more piano like because of this and produce a less rich tone…a rich tone is the opposite of what you would think it means the tone has width it’s not perfect almost branching out to other pitches/frequencies.

They are diff. They do have their place and cf is also well suited to work added to wood for these instruments.

Man made materials are a problem in these areas because they are too precise producing too consistent of a reaction. Wood is rich because it is imperfect. The oily tone woods are amazing because they have that rigid dense structure like a CF but unlike cf they can have bright tones that have muted highs….the oils in the tone woods produces that more mellow high.

There’s more to it than this tho. The biggest reason is here, taken from a manufacturer.

“In general, composites can be designed to be a consistent medium for sound propagation. Woods have hard and soft parts within the material, inconsistencies which can produce a variety of sonic and structural effects. In wood, long continuous fibers produce the most powerful sound. Fibers in a longitudinally-oriented composite achieve the same goal. Composites, properly produced, do not have pockets, splits, non uniform density and non-cohesive materials altering their internal structure. Such discontinuities can alter the speed and quality of transmission of a sound wave. Properly designed composites also do not produce frequency peaks and dead spots associated with wood and some other materials. They are not susceptible to variations in humidity. - Moses, Inc.”

Being more isotoropic (the same properties in all directions ) stops the richness and depth that of tone and harmonics that can be found in anisotropic (diff properties/structure in diff directions). It is the imperfection in a not quite perfect material that makes the best music.

As it pertains to cues…well all cues without doubt pocket balls just fine, they all apply the same quantity of English because it’s a property of angular acceleration and angular velocity not how stiff the shaft or tip is. They all can be weighted and balanced to our liking.

And yet make two of them out of the same materials with different tapers, or two with the same tapers and differing materials…..and one will without doubt prefer one of them.

I personally have used cues that I very much liked how they played, but couldn’t stand the sound or the feel of it. How many of us have taken just one pop shot with a cue and instantly it felt foreign, pick up yet another and so the same and it’s wow it feels like an extension of your hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[BC21]

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but it looks like you're saying more shaft deflection = less CB deflection (and vice verse). That's what I was reacting to - saying no, it's only end mass that causes more or less CB deflection (squirt).

Sorry if I'm still reading you wrong...

pj
chgo

Yes, but one has to give way in order for the other to not deflect as much.

Let's give total deflection a value of 10. CB deflection + shaft deflection = 10. If the the shaft has a heavy end mass, or if it has zero flexibility, it won't be pushed out of the way much when it strikes the cb. Let's say the heavy/stiff shaft deflection value is 3. This would make the cb deflection a 7. But if the shaft has a light end mass and it's flexible enough to bend away from the cb at impact, it's deflection value might be something like 7 or 8, which means the cb would only be deflected at a value of 2 or 3.

If a shaft could be constructed of super lightweight material but with zero flexibility, it would affect the cb quite a bit more than a lightweight shaft with plenty of flexibility. I mean, the mass of the cb would not push the shaft off its path any more than than the spongy bridge hand would allow. So maybe the shaft would deflect at a value of 2 while the cb deflection ends up being a value of 8.

It's hypothetical of course, because no shaft like that exists. It's just a way to imagine the extreme case of "what if?", to show that shaft stiffness can have a bigger effect than the known testing indicates. There just aren't any super lightweight shafts that happen to also have little to no flexibility. If such a shaft existed, I'm sure stiffness would prove to be a major factor, though in reality it's not significant enough to cause major differences in cb deflection with the different shafts we use.