yes it does
yes it does
yes it does
Side spin does not transfer
- Thread starter pete lafond
- Start date
seems as if many completely missed the point.
Lets say instead of my using the word twist (to describe the overall effects), I say that yes english is transfered (which is only part of what happens). My entire point is and has never changed that the OB DOES NOT travel down the table with english as follows in the first diagramed illustration. It travels as illustrated in the 2nd one.
I am referencing pool played on a pool table. Not a frictionless environment or a suspended one.
Can any one prove to me that a CB with "side english" only on a direct hit to the OB will cause EXACTLY the first illustraion which is PURE "side english" on the OB as it rolls forward. I do not mean within the first 1/2 inch and I do not mean after the OB has rolled around enough to the point it begins to roll naturally.
Important and the reason for my illustration is to differentiate between "Side English) and "Top right English) because the OB to the rail will cause different results.
Which illustration is wrong? Keep in mind that the degree of diagonal spin is not important here, rather it is the twist effect that is. If anyone can make illustration 1 happen and can prove it, I will never post on another topic about pool principles again.
Lets say instead of my using the word twist (to describe the overall effects), I say that yes english is transfered (which is only part of what happens). My entire point is and has never changed that the OB DOES NOT travel down the table with english as follows in the first diagramed illustration. It travels as illustrated in the 2nd one.
I am referencing pool played on a pool table. Not a frictionless environment or a suspended one.
Can any one prove to me that a CB with "side english" only on a direct hit to the OB will cause EXACTLY the first illustraion which is PURE "side english" on the OB as it rolls forward. I do not mean within the first 1/2 inch and I do not mean after the OB has rolled around enough to the point it begins to roll naturally.
Important and the reason for my illustration is to differentiate between "Side English) and "Top right English) because the OB to the rail will cause different results.
Which illustration is wrong? Keep in mind that the degree of diagonal spin is not important here, rather it is the twist effect that is. If anyone can make illustration 1 happen and can prove it, I will never post on another topic about pool principles again.
Attachments
Hi Pete. I know what point you're trying to make. But please be consistent. You have always been saying that the CB cannot transfer pure side spin to the OB when hit directly. Okay...I understand what you mean. But you've also always been saying that the only way you can transfer pure side spin to the OB is if the CB hits the OB at an angle, as quoted from a previous post...pete lafond said:
I know what you're going to say next...that this thread isn't about the CB hitting the OB at an angle. However, the above quote is totally contradictory to all your arguments that the OB can only "twist" when hit by a CB directly. If you think it's impossible for the OB to spin sideways after hitting a CB (with side spin) directly, then you ALSO MUST think it's impossible for the OB to spin sideways when hit at an angle with the CB (or off a rail). The felt will be a contributor in both cases.pete lafond said:
You're not being consistent with your statements. Please reconcile the two above quotes for me.
jsp said:
Did not mean to imply that. Keep in mind that I can cause pure side spin to the OB but my point is on a direct hit, the OB twists when the CB has pure side spin on it.
I do not believe this 2nd part. I can cause the OB to have pure side spin and I can also cause the OB to have zero spin when hit at an angle (extreme inside english which will cause near zero friction).
Regarding the felt. This is an enabler for effects, as collision is and as spin is. The felt is not unique to this shot. It is always a factor on every shot.(sorry for editing, what I wrote was not clear enough)
Last edited:
You've never seen a pool ball stop moving, while still spinning?
I understand the distinction you're making (I think), but as Colin and others have pointed out, vertical axis spin and horizontal axis spin can be treated seperately. There's no need to contort ones mind to imagine "twisting": the ball has follow or draw, and has left or right english. These will all be transferred (and reversed) to another ball in a collision.
I think your statement is needlessly complicated and a bit misleading. Side spin is absolutely transferred to the object ball. What you're arguing (I think)is that the distance it takes for the object ball to pick up draw or follow is negligible. However- the side spin is not lost.
Pete -- I know it's said that a picture is worth more than 1000 words -- but honestly, the only thing I see in your illustration are four slightly elliptical circles, two with oval dots positioned pretty much at the same place, and then you have two other circles above, one with a thick arrow and the other with a thinner one (the thicker one points halfway upwards, while the thinner points straight to the right), and those four circles are grouped into two categories; "No" and "Yes". No indication is given whether this is a bird-eye's view or down at aim-sight or whatever...
Maybe you're just pulling everyone's leg here -- if so, I'm too dumb to understand the joke. To me this spoony theory that there suppose to be "no side english transfer" from a spinning cue ball is not funny at all.
Instead, why don't you try explaining this clip:
http://tinyurl.com/mw3ye
-- peer
Maybe you're just pulling everyone's leg here -- if so, I'm too dumb to understand the joke. To me this spoony theory that there suppose to be "no side english transfer" from a spinning cue ball is not funny at all.
Instead, why don't you try explaining this clip:
http://tinyurl.com/mw3ye
-- peer
pharaoh68
Banned
pete lafond said:
You can't be serious. Look, I was not a physics major throughout the tenure of my higher eductation but this is a basic scientific principle. Its not even debatable. Look, if you really believe that this is NOT possible and that it does NOT happen, fine. But don't try to argue a point that is completely innaccurate.
jsp said:
This is not the focus of what I am talking about. I am stating that the OB can not have pure side spin if hit directly with a CB that has pure side spin on it. This is all I am stating. I am not stating any other types of hits or English. The reason for my entire post is that Colin had mentioned in some post in another thread that he can prove the OB has side spin on it as he demonstrated on a bank. I did not discount that the OB had some side spin at all, my debate was that it did not have pure side spin and the ball gets twisted and had running English on it which has a different effect than side English (no need to say the word pure because when using the word side English by itself means just that, not top right or bottom right - these have different results off the rail)
However if you want to cause pure side spin, the OB need to be resting next to another ball or rail and then the CB brush by it.
Again my debate was using one shot. I am not discussing cut shots, curving CB's. As we create angles we begin to affect the outcome of the OB's rotation and direction.
pharaoh68 said:
Yes I am serious. So you are saying that the first illustration is correct and the 2nd one is not? Please tell me.
pharaoh68
Banned
pete lafond said:
The surface of an object ball and a cue ball may seem to be completely smooth to the thouch. But beyond what we can see with the naked eye and what we can feel with our fingerstips, the surface of these balls is actually NOT 100% and thus, when they contact one another, a friction is created.
Imagine shooting a cueball with left english into a rail. Because there is a degree roughness (moreso on the cloth lining the rail than the cueball) the cueball grips and spins off the rail accordingly. It is clear as day. Now, shoot the same cueball with the same spin into an object ball and the same transfer of energy occurs but on a smaller scale. why? Because the surface of the two balls is smoother than the cloth on the rail. The object ball will still counteract though it will be less noticable.
Compensate by adding more speed and more of a stroke and you will see the result more clearly.
pharaoh68 said:
Schmoosed is a physics and business term for making contact and trasferring spin.
(especially if you're in the PR business)
pharaoh68 said:
So what you are telling me is that on a direct hit on a pool table with pool balls, given a CB with left spin only striking an OB directly will cause the OB to spin with right hand only english up table. So illustration 1 is accurate which I say in the real pool world it is not accurate. In fact my point has been; it has running english on it. Pure right spin would cause the OB to come off the rail at a wider angle. Help me understand better because my OB does not react the same way, I get the effect of running english not side english. I also play 3 cushion billiards and I know the difference between a ball going inot the rail with running english vs. right english. If I use the wrong english, I miss the carom.
Last edited:
pete lafond said:
Have you looked at the Dave Alciatore's video, linked many times now? It shows very clearly a transfer of english, with the object ball moving 3x its length spinning only on a vertical axis.
Just in case you haven't here it is again:
HSV A.84 - throw and spin transfer for a large offset and slow, medium, and fast speeds
fred_in_hoboken said:
Very hard to follow as it is short, seems as if the OB is still sliding. Wish there were a better video.
I explained the effect you're seeing already......
Pete, I explained the exact effect you're seeing here and I guess I just didn't explain it well enough....
When side english is applied to the CB and it comes in contact with the OB opposite side spin is induced in the OB....
As the OB rolls down table, the friction between it and the cloth causes the OB to start rolling forward. The harder you hit it the longer rolling time will be required to cause this forward roll. If you use follow in conjunction with spin, then there will be a alight transfer of reverse spin along with opposite side spin that will make the friction with the cloth take longer to bite and take effect. If you use draw then it will cause some follow to take place and it will take less time to take effect.....
But the CIS (contact induced spin) is all that is caused by a CB with only spin. It is the friction with the felt that causes any forward roll and it takes time with the OB rolling forward for it to occur
pete lafond said:
Pete, I explained the exact effect you're seeing here and I guess I just didn't explain it well enough....
When side english is applied to the CB and it comes in contact with the OB opposite side spin is induced in the OB....
As the OB rolls down table, the friction between it and the cloth causes the OB to start rolling forward. The harder you hit it the longer rolling time will be required to cause this forward roll. If you use follow in conjunction with spin, then there will be a alight transfer of reverse spin along with opposite side spin that will make the friction with the cloth take longer to bite and take effect. If you use draw then it will cause some follow to take place and it will take less time to take effect.....
But the CIS (contact induced spin) is all that is caused by a CB with only spin. It is the friction with the felt that causes any forward roll and it takes time with the OB rolling forward for it to occur
Last edited:
pete lafond said:
If by "still sliding", you mean "only rotating on a vertical axis", then - yeah, that's the point!
There are 3 hits. The first shows what you argue happens. The second two show what you claim is impossible.