Side spin does not transfer

[Colin Colenso]

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.

Pete,
It seems we are getting down to semantics now. I thought that initially you were arguing that a straight on shot would not cause the OB to turn with SOME side after hitting the rail.

No one has ever claimed that a ball that starts off with pure side spin does not pick up a topspin component from the cloth friction.

A couple of points I want to state to see if you still differ in opinion:

1. One can play a cueball with pure sidespin (say 1 tip) or play with running english (also 1 tip) and the two shots, after travelling a few feet result in entirely identical CB spins, that will act identically off the cushion. *In this case the center ball struck ball would need to be hit a little harder as the cloth friction would slow the ball down as it converts the slide to roll.

2. A cut shot, (Contact Induced Spin) can deliver the identical rotational properties to an OB as can a straight on spin induced spin.

If you disagree with any of these we can begin to isolate where the differences of opinion lie. But otherwise, seems you are basically saying the same things as we are now, but making an arguement against a hypothetical that no one has made claim to.

Have you changed you mind on anything regarding this topis, since you made your first posts in the thread that preceeded this, or have we, for all this time, simply been trying to clarify the parameters of the meaning of the point you've been trying to make?

If the first, then I think you ought to concede some ground...we all make errors in trying to work this stuff out. If it's the second, then either you've worded you arguments poorly or the the lot of us are incapable of perceiving your insights into this matter.

 

[pete lafond]

When side english is applied to the CB and it comes in contact with the OB opposite side spin is induced in the OB....

I agree 100%

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.

I agree 100%

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.....

I agree 100%, though I was keeping these examples out - trying to stay with side only.

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

I agree 100%.

I completely agree with you and is what I have been stating. Your are describing the effects of a twist. Hitting the ball harder slows down the twist by causing the OB to slide more before it begins to roll forward. Nothing being said that is any different here. These combined events are the cause of the twist that occurs.

My statement was that you can not apply left spin on the CB in a direct hit and have the OB travel spinning with its bottom axis on the table. (yes you can bang the balls to get more slide - even air time but these are not comon shots)

 

[Jaden]

I agree 100%



I agree 100%



I agree 100%, though I was keeping these examples out - trying to stay with side only.



I agree 100%.

I completely agree with you and is what I have been stating. Your are describing the effects of a twist. Hitting the ball harder slows down the twist by causing the OB to slide more before it begins to roll forward. Nothing being said that is any different here. These combined events are the cause of the twist that occurs.

My statement was that you can not apply left spin on the CB in a direct hit and have the OB travel spinning with its bottom axis on the table. (yes you can bang the balls to get more slide - even air time but these are not comon shots)

Ok we now know what he was saying, only that there will not be any pure sidespin for any length of shot on a direct hit, this was misleading because even the cuestick to CB side spin does not cause the CB to have pure sidespin, which made us all think he was talking about something different than he was...

 

[Chris]

Pete Lafond said:

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.

If the OB is hit by a CB that has pure side spin (at the time it impacts the OB), the result will be pure side spin on the OB.

Newton said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Could you please reconcile that statement with your claims that it is impossible to apply pure side spin to an OB?

 

[iacas]

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.

I think both sides of this argument are right because both sides are talking about different things.

The physics geeks (and I'd include myself in this group) look at the instant of impact and the few instants after it.

Pete is looking at what an object ball is doing "up table."

In other words, physics geeks are looking at what happens in the time it takes the OB to travel this far: || (distance between those lines).

Naturally, Pete, the friction of the cloth then puts "follow English" on the ball after it's had a chance to interact with the ball. The distance at which roll develops naturally depends on the speed (of the cloth, of the object ball, etc.) and other factors.

But in the instants of and directly after contact, pure side spin is transferred because the OB has yet to pick up "roll" from interactions with the cloth. That being said, you can transfer forward roll (slight bit of backspin on OB) or draw (a little initial forward roll on the OB) too if your cue ball is not sliding with pure sidespin at contact.

Someone else said it best: the cue ball, regardless of the directon of its rotation (whether pure forward/back, side, or any combination) transfers the exact opposite spin to the OB at the moment of impact.

Further than || down the table, obviously a ball will develop roll.

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.

This is wrong, Pete, but only because you're looking at the down-table effects after roll has developed. At impact, if a cue ball is sliding (no horizontal rotation) and has only english (rotation about vertical axis), then the object ball will, for the instant after it separates from the CB, have rotation ONLY about the vertical axis (and in the opposite direction as the CB) with none about the horizontal.

Two inches down table, sure, rotation about the horizontal axis sets in due to friction with the cloth.

 

[pete lafond]

Pete Lafond said:


If the OB is hit by a CB that has pure side spin (at the time it impacts the OB), the result will be pure side spin on the OB.

Newton said for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Could you please reconcile that statement with your claims that it is impossible to apply pure side spin to an OB?

Yes and in space it will spin and it will spin and it will spin. I do not understand what this has to do with a pool table that has billiard ball and felt that are friction-ous. You can not ignore the variables.

 

[Chris]

Yes and in space it will spin and it will spin and it will spin. I do not understand what this has to do with a pool table that has billiard ball and felt that are friction-ous. You can not ignore the variables.

I am not ignoring any variables. I am just acknowledging the fact that it is not impossible for the cue ball to be hit in such a manner that, at the instant of impact with the OB, the cue ball can have pure side spin; that is it is spinning around its vertical axis only.

In such conditions, without any cut angle between the CB and the OB, the result is pure side spin transferred to the OB. Of course the felt is then going to cause the OB to acquire some roll in addition to the side spin, but that has zero to do with what forces the CB applied to the OB.

 

[pharaoh68]

Chris-
You are fighting a losing battle. Peter does not seem to recognize scientific fact so any and all arguments made against his theories are little more than wasted words on a an impenetrably thick skull. You and I and scores of others know that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. But in Pete's argument, that basic principle does not apply to billiards.

 

[fred_in_hoboken]

But in Pete's argument, that basic principle does not apply to billiards.

In Pete's defense, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the object ball picks up "twist" which has, as a component, side spin transferred from the object ball, and as another component, follow created by friction with the cloth.

The confusion is that he's claiming that's not side spin, or "pure side spin".

 

[pharaoh68]

In Pete's defense, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the object ball picks up "twist" which has, as a component, side spin transferred from the object ball, and as another component, follow created by friction with the cloth.

The confusion is that he's claiming that's not side spin, or "pure side spin".

What Pete needs to realize is that this "twist" is a direct result of applying english to the cue ball. If Pete were to hit the cue ball dead center, this so called "twist" would not be there. If he applies a bit of English, the "twist" (or as the rest of us call it, english or spin) would appear. Whether this is a result of friction between cue ball and object ball or object ball and cloth or all three, none of this would be happening if english wasn't applied in the first place. Thus, spin is trasferred from cue ball to object ball.

 

[Jaden]

Dude get off it already...

What Pete needs to realize is that this "twist" is a direct result of applying english to the cue ball. If Pete were to hit the cue ball dead center, this so called "twist" would not be there. If he applies a bit of English, the "twist" (or as the rest of us call it, english or spin) would appear. Whether this is a result of friction between cue ball and object ball or object ball and cloth or all three, none of this would be happening if english wasn't applied in the first place. Thus, spin is trasferred from cue ball to object ball.

This thread is done. We've established that Pete wasn't thinking incorrectly just that he worded it in a poor way to start off.....

 

[96supersport]

The Key Word Here Is Negligible

When the balls contact each other at speed they are in contact for an infinitesimal period of time, during which any forces are exerted. This combined with the fact that though there is friction between the balls, it is very small, and that the friction force between the OB and the cloth is many times that of the friction between the balls, I would say there is a negligible amount of spin transferred to the OB. This is also why the CB retains so much spin and you can go several rails after contact. Of course the OB frozen to the rail changes everything, and this is what was replicated by the "smoosher" because the balls were being forced together.

Plus on top of all that, Jerry Briesath said so.

Also, a good way to explain the motion of a rolling cue ball with english is to imagine a single point on the surface of the ball, this point would travel in a helical pattern either counterclockwise for left english, or clockwise for right.

But most of all, who gives a rat's a$$? Just like throw and deflection and all the other crap people on here fight about for 10 pages, with enough practice, we just start to adjust for them automatically. So then we start reading this and we're conscious of it, so we compensate on top of what our mind is already doing and get all f'ed up.

 

[Jaden]

It has nothing to do with being able to make the shotsss!!!!

When the balls contact each other at speed they are in contact for an infinitesimal period of time, during which any forces are exerted. This combined with the fact that though there is friction between the balls, it is very small, and that the friction force between the OB and the cloth is many times that of the friction between the balls, I would say there is a negligible amount of spin transferred to the OB. This is also why the CB retains so much spin and you can go several rails after contact. Of course the OB frozen to the rail changes everything, and this is what was replicated by the "smoosher" because the balls were being forced together.

Plus on top of all that, Jerry Briesath said so.

Also, a good way to explain the motion of a rolling cue ball with english is to imagine a single point on the surface of the ball, this point would travel in a helical pattern either counterclockwise for left english, or clockwise for right.

But most of all, who gives a rat's a$$? Just like throw and deflection and all the other crap people on here fight about for 10 pages, with enough practice, we just start to adjust for them automatically. So then we start reading this and we're conscious of it, so we compensate on top of what our mind is already doing and get all f'ed up.

Having the knowledge of it is for planning..... NOT for making shots.. KNowing what squirt is or opposite applied spin, all of it is for PLANNING, without the knowledge all of the feel in the world isn't going to tell you which shots to shoot without the knowledge of what will happen.....

 

[pete lafond]

In Pete's defense, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the object ball picks up "twist" which has, as a component, side spin transferred from the object ball, and as another component, follow created by friction with the cloth.

The confusion is that he's claiming that's not side spin, or "pure side spin".

Thank you.

(for anyone interested)
I'm looking at the complete shot. If I were just paying attention to spin and the ball were to skid the entire way, it would be less meaningful. Simply put, a skidding ball means the bank shot is played with greater speed which would negate the spin somewhat. The result because the ball were hit harder into the rail would be a shorter return angle.

Likewise the benefit to making a pocket seem larger by use of english would also be negated because of the harder hit ball.

I have seen countless times were a player was trying to hide an object ball in 9 ball and it pops out only because the player did not understand the english effect on the OB. And these shots are not played hard either.

(added) As I also mentioned is a cut shot down a rail that need to go past the side pocket. This shot ca not be made if the OB has either left or right English on it. One English hugs the rail and then curves in to pop out when it hits the furthest side pocket tip. The other English cause the OB to immediately drift away from the rail. Knowing the effect of English on an OB improves the chances of making this shot.
My purpose for this argument was based upon a normal pool shot w/side english and the entire effect is a "twist".

 

[onepocketchump]

You're not just a dumb ass, at least in this post. It's impossible (unless zero-friction pool balls are invented) for a side-spinning CB to hit an OB full without giving it some minute amount of spin. Sometimes this spin is negligible, but sometimes, especially on bank shots, it's a very important factor in the shot.

-Andrew

Scott, my engineer brainiac boss, just said that because of friction some sidespin must be transfered to the object ball. He said the formula is something like (amount of spin)x(amount of friction)x(amount of contact time). I would add that another variable might be the volume of contact, i.e. a full ball hit vs. a half ball hit.

I also concur with the bank crowd. There is no logical explanation other than spin for an object ball to be able to hit the rail to the left of it's postion and bank back to the right of it's original position. There is no possible way to hit a cueball and make it do the same thing other than the application of sidespin. At least none that I have found.

John

 

[twilight]

You know, the OB having top right spin or twist or what ever you want to call it can be viewed as having pure side. what is top right spin but a combination of 2 vectors one pure top spin, the other pure side spin. Now if you want to we could spend another 10 pages where I will try to get everyone to agree with me but it looks like pete is on a mission to get everyone to view things in his eyes with his terminology.

2+2 = 1 I keep telling you. well, 2 drops of water added to another 2 drops gives you one big one doesn't it? This isn't about pool it's about perception. Pete, you're just perceiving things one way that others are not. you're absolutely right and absolutely wrong at the same time. It depends on who's eye's you're looking through.

"maybe there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe"
- Dr. Beverly Crusher Star Trek TNG

Now who wants to play pool?

 

[pete lafond]

You know, the OB having top right spin or twist or what ever you want to call it can be viewed as having pure side. what is top right spin but a combination of 2 vectors one pure top spin, the other pure side spin. Now if you want to we could spend another 10 pages where I will try to get everyone to agree with me but it looks like pete is on a mission to get everyone to view things in his eyes with his terminology.

2+2 = 1 I keep telling you. well, 2 drops of water added to another 2 drops gives you one big one doesn't it? This isn't about pool it's about perception. Pete, you're just perceiving things one way that others are not. you're absolutely right and absolutely wrong at the same time. It depends on who's eye's you're looking through.

"maybe there's nothing wrong with me, maybe there's something wrong with the universe"
- Dr. Beverly Crusher Star Trek TNG

Now who wants to play pool?

No need to. Best to keep it separate because results are different. This was a difficult task. I have 6 brothers and sisters who are Dr.s', Chemists and a research microbiologist. Every time I make a statement they all get caught into frames of detail and I get frustrated because I'm after the overall effects of things - the end so-to-speak. Or maybe I create the frustration because of poor communication skills. I think I just might have hit it. There are quite a few brilliant people on this board and I think I overlook what they are saying instead of developing it to what I am expressing.

 

[pharaoh68]

Just to negate a key point of yours, freeze an object ball to a rail and shoot the cue from off the rail. A little outside english will force the object ball to hug the rail and roll right in. Inside english will bring it off the rail almost immediately.

Secondly, freeze both balls to the rail and you're better off hitting it with inside english. This way, if the object ball does come off the rail just a bit, the spin that is supposedly not tranferred, will roll it back towards the pocket.

 

[pete lafond]

Just to negate a key point of yours, freeze an object ball to a rail and shoot the cue from off the rail. A little outside english will force the object ball to hug the rail and roll right in. Inside english will bring it off the rail almost immediately..

I'm not sure I follow you. You are doing this with with OB only right, just the ball by itself w/o a CB? This is what I was stating and never mentioned how to hit a CB into it.

Secondly, freeze both balls to the rail and you're better off hitting it with inside english. This way, if the object ball does come off the rail just a bit, the spin that is supposedly not tranferred, will roll it back towards the pocket

If you are using a CB then you must consider distance when hitting this shot.

I welcome you to help others with the 3 questions in the post "Making balls the easy way" at http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=27951

You can help lots of players by answering the questions. I'm sure there are many who would be anxious to hear what you have to say.

Thanks for helping out and look forward to your response to the post.

 

[djp2k6]

My god, why are you all still discussing this? In the situation being discussed, side spin is transferred from the cueball and only sidespin, forward spin is caused from the friction of the felt. Those are two different effects caused by two different things. These are indisputable facts.