If balls skid more on new cloth, I would suspect that this is mostly due to the slipperiness of the new cloth. By being slippery, it would allow one ball to more easily throw another ball (a skid). Given any amount of lateral force being applied at the point of contact between two balls, the only resistance that the thrown ball can present is that of its inertia and the friction of the cloth. If you reduce the friction of the cloth, the lateral force will have a greater effect. Interestingly, this would mean that a skid in the vertical plane (such as happened to Gau Min) should be less likely on a new cloth, because the thrown ball can more easily rotate upon being struck, thus less rotational energy transfer and less climb from the cue ball. Does that make sense ?
Skid
- Thread starter Paul Mon
- Start date
TheOne said:
Yeah, I tried browsing through different sites but couldn't find any trace of that vid...
As far as the experiment done with acetone I admit it doesn't prove anything on chalk-related skids (wasn't really scientific when I said that) but I fail to to see that those skids would be acetone-related or that the slipperyness of a new cloth creates the skids. I don't think that wiping (cleaning) the balls with a chemical substance would make a huge difference either, because it has been shown, that electrostatical forces are not great enough to create skids and I don't think the acetone will change the friction coefficient enough change the experiment. But to me it proves that the skid isn't always created by a chalk residue between contact points but there are other factors involved as well.
Quote from Williebetmore which has my thought in a nutshell:
"It seems dead certain that there are MULTIPLE CAUSES of skid (ie. surface irregularities, static cling, sticky substances, chalk, etc.)"
As the saying goes: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence
Interesting subject though, so far no one has proven anything yet to my knowledge
Last edited:
mjantti said:Yeah, I tried browsing through different sites but couldn't find any trace of that vid...
As far as the experiment done with acetone I admit it doesn't prove anything on chalk-related skids (wasn't really scientific when I said that) but I fail to to see that those skids would be acetone-related or that the slipperyness of a new cloth creates the skids. I don't think that wiping (cleaning) the balls with a chemical substance would make a huge difference either, because it has been shown, that electrostatical forces are not great enough to create skids and I don't think the acetone will change the friction coefficient enough change the experiment. But to me it proves that the skid isn't always created by a chalk residue between contact points but there are other factors involved as well.
Quote from Williebetmore which has my thought in a nutshell:
"It seems dead certain that there are MULTIPLE CAUSES of skid (ie. surface irregularities, static cling, sticky substances, chalk, etc.)"
As the saying goes: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence
Interesting subject though, so far no one has proven anything yet to my knowledge
Have to agree. I'm sure chalk causes it on occasions but I'm still looking for an explanation as to why it happens significantly more on TV matches and why it happens after the cue ball has been cleaned of all chalk. They thought it was static as you say but that theory seems to have been dismissed now.
When you see it occurring several times a frame even when the referee cleans the cue ball multiple times its hard to accept chalk is the primary cause. It's clear nobody has conclusively proved what causes kicks yet but IMO oil seems to be out in front at the moment.
Agree amazing that it's still a mystery.
The cue tip leaves a chalk residue on the cue ball on each shot. I think that under dry (TV) conditions, static electricity could increase the amount of chalk that sticks to the cue ball. The simple explanation of chalk is sufficient for normal playing conditions. It puzzles me that some search so hard for other reasons. Occam's razor.TheOne said:
Bob Jewett said:
So are you convinced that chalk and only is to blame for skids(kicks)?
What about when chalk is removed from cue balls and shots played with a chalkless tip?
PS
I considered the possibility of the chalk from the shot but the odds of that meeting the contact point of the two balls are far far greater than the number of times kicks occur on live snooker matches - trust me on this Bob I've wasted years of my life watching it!
EDIT:
Just to give you an idea how bad it gets on TV at its worse....
"There's only one thing that sums up the match and that's the table," said 36-year-old Swail, a two-time World Championship semi-finalist. "I've been a professional for 15 years and it's about time they got it sorted out. There was a 'kick' every other shot and balls were rolling off into the middle pocket.
"The standard out there is high enough without having to worry about things like that and it's very frustrating.
"I'm absolutely disgusted with the table. When you're on a break and trying to win a frame the last thing you want to worry about is getting a 'kick'. It's an absolute joke. "
Last edited:
> So are you convinced that chalk and only is to blame for skids(kicks)?
No. I'm convinced that it is sufficient. If someone wants to hypothesize that there are acetone-swigging pocket gnomes who spill their swill on balls as they pass by, and that it is the resulting action of the acetone on the surfaces of the abused balls that usually causes kicks -- or often -- or at least 1% -- or somebody saw it once -- that's fine, but not really necessary.
> What about when chalk is removed from cue balls and shots played with a chalkless tip?
I have not seen this experiment. Since I often do experiments, I know how hard it is to do them well. Can you do this experiment yourself? I can demonstrate skid with chalk.
Speaking of experiments, last night I got some acetone, rubbed it on a cue ball and an object ball and tried shots that had a chance to show increased ball-ball friction. There was no significant increase in friction, and certainly nothing I'd describe as a kick. I think that the species Gnomus acetonus is a fiction.
> I considered the possibility of the chalk from the shot but the odds of that
> meeting the contact point of the two balls are far far greater than the number
> of times kicks occur on live snooker matches
There is often more than one spot of chalk on a cue ball at any one time.
Here's a different theory to work on: snooker players see lots of kicks because of the particular type of chalk they are using. Where I play, the snooker chalk is green rather than blue, and it seems softer, finer and stickier. The "normal" blue chalk for pool seems "cleaner" somehow. Also the snooker players might consider letting the chalk rest on the rail where it can dry rather than keeping it in their waistcoats where it will stay damp.
No. I'm convinced that it is sufficient. If someone wants to hypothesize that there are acetone-swigging pocket gnomes who spill their swill on balls as they pass by, and that it is the resulting action of the acetone on the surfaces of the abused balls that usually causes kicks -- or often -- or at least 1% -- or somebody saw it once -- that's fine, but not really necessary.
> What about when chalk is removed from cue balls and shots played with a chalkless tip?
I have not seen this experiment. Since I often do experiments, I know how hard it is to do them well. Can you do this experiment yourself? I can demonstrate skid with chalk.
Speaking of experiments, last night I got some acetone, rubbed it on a cue ball and an object ball and tried shots that had a chance to show increased ball-ball friction. There was no significant increase in friction, and certainly nothing I'd describe as a kick. I think that the species Gnomus acetonus is a fiction.
> I considered the possibility of the chalk from the shot but the odds of that
> meeting the contact point of the two balls are far far greater than the number
> of times kicks occur on live snooker matches
There is often more than one spot of chalk on a cue ball at any one time.
Here's a different theory to work on: snooker players see lots of kicks because of the particular type of chalk they are using. Where I play, the snooker chalk is green rather than blue, and it seems softer, finer and stickier. The "normal" blue chalk for pool seems "cleaner" somehow. Also the snooker players might consider letting the chalk rest on the rail where it can dry rather than keeping it in their waistcoats where it will stay damp.
I like the many responses here but still we notice skids in our pool room more often when the felt is brand new, first time playing on it, skids occur more often. Balls are cleaned and polished before play each day. Our pool room has high humidity, it is in the basement section of the building.
Is it possible in this case because static charge is less likely due to humidity and chalk on the cloth is at its minimum, that oils cause the problem? It seems to me in our case, this might be the reason. At least this is all I can figure out. I do agree if more oils are present, then chalk will stick, but it happens too frequently when the cloth is new. (don't TV matches almost always use new felt?)
Is it possible in this case because static charge is less likely due to humidity and chalk on the cloth is at its minimum, that oils cause the problem? It seems to me in our case, this might be the reason. At least this is all I can figure out. I do agree if more oils are present, then chalk will stick, but it happens too frequently when the cloth is new. (don't TV matches almost always use new felt?)
They're not invisible. In fact, the more acetone you drink, the more of them you see. (Kids, don't try this at home.)jsp said:Phew. I thought I was the only one that believed in invisible acetone-swigging pocket gnomes.
pete lafond said:
That would seem to be logical wouldn't it? This along with stacks of other observations made me open my mind a little and question the "chalk theory".
Bob,
All I know is I saw with my own eyes an experiment on TV. The scientist behind this experiment was introduced as an expert. The player playing the shots was Steve Davis, I hope you agree an expert in his field also. There was no chalk on the TIP, no chalk on the BALL and kicks still happened, not small kicks or rare kicks either.
Judging by your recent post you may also believe in the magic chalk elf that flew down just as Steve was about to hit the cb and sprinkle a little of that nasty chalk dust (prob green and damp if the little elf was a snooker player and had left it in his little pocket!) on the balls before Steve pulled the trigger.
Now I have to confess I only saw this clip twice so I didn't get chance to view it frame by frame so I don't want to rule this out as a possibility just yet, but I am leaning towards there was zero chalk present.
Of course you shriek what about the acetone, the acetone!!!
Now I am willing to concede that yes this particular PhD scientist may have been a complete buffoon and not taken this liquid and its properties into consideration. If he did I will personally hunt him down and spank him to death with a wet sausage. Again though I have to tell you I'm leaning more towards the Phd expert than yourself on this one. What I find most interesting is that it's pretty much accepted that the skid/kick phenomenon is still a mystery, in fact I have still failed to find any credible source on the internet that makes the claim chalk is soley or even mainly responsible.
TheOne said:
I have yet to find reason to beleive that skid even happens. I make balls all day, 7 days a week... Is there some way you can show me this "skid"? When I say, "No, you just missed it," how will you convince me otherwise?
It sounds to me like you have been very, very lucky.seymore15074 said:
I claim that you can see skid by putting chalk on the object ball at the contact point of a shot and then shooting the shot in such a way that the large resulting increase in friction will be noticeable. This is as simple as a perfectly straight follow shot. If skid occurs, the cue ball will jump in the air and will not follow as far forward as normal. Unfortunately, for this particular demo to be convincing, you need to have a good feel for how far the ball should follow, but the funny noise that occurs during a kick and the hop on the cue ball may be enough.
Bob Jewett said:
I know if you put two object balls froze together and you hit the first one from the side, the other ball drifts off of the line forward a little bit. That would be the same skid that we're talking about, right? If so, all I am saying is that I do not see it enough on a cut shot to ever notice...not that I've chalked by object balls or anything to find out. I also use clean balls each day, if that helps...
I just don't see the concern. Maybe I'm the odd one...
seymore15074 said:
Can you give us an idea of your conditions?
What is the humidity?
Type of balls used?
Type of chalk used?
Tables played on?
Name and variety of felt on tables?
How often are the balls cleaned?
What method and cleaning solution is used for the balls?
Average felt replacement time period?
I have also played in rooms where "skid" didn't happen, though didn't play there regularly. I do know that when I play on a heavier felt (cloth) I must strike the ball a bit firmer, this alone minimized the chances for skid, though still will happen to a smaller degree.
If you can help with info, it would be appreciated.
seymore15074 said:
Actually when you aim and your eyes are locked into the point of the OB to strike, you will see the CB climb up the OB. The sound you hear is a double hit, once at initial contact of CB and OB, and the 2nd when the CB drops on the OB from the climb.
pete lafond said:
Humidity: Fairly dry
Balls: Super Pro Aramiths w/ Pro Cup Cue, or Centenials; both are new sets kept in the box for the local regulars only.
Chalk: Masters
Table: GC III
Cloth: Simonis 760 (~1 year old)
Balls Cleaned: Almost daily, with some ball cleaner in a purple bottle...I'm not sure which, I don't clean them myself.
Re-clothing period: Every 3 years, if I were to guess.
Also, if the cue ball climbs the object ball, are you sure that the cue ball is not air-born at contact? Are these hard follow shots or medium pace, or what?
I'm going to try chalking up an object ball tonight...maybe I should try some old dirty balls?
I find it interesting that nobody responded to my post about why there might be more skid on new cloth. Was my post difficult to understand ? Basically, I said that the minimal friction under the object ball on new cloth will allow the friction at the cueball-object ball interface to have a larger effect. When the object ball skids, it is the lateral movement of the object ball that is excessive. The only two things preventing this lateral movement normally are the inertia of the object ball and the friction underneath it. Take away the friction of the cloth and you have more lateral movement. Seems simple to me.
seymore15074 said:
Apparently you don't have the accuracy to make the object ball go a precise direction or play position on a dime if you can't tell throw from skid or then perhaps you've been very lucky to miss them. Or your observation on the quality of your shot is based on the result, not observing the balls on the table while they're moving. Can't imagine any long-time player declaring that there is no skid.
You also seem to compare skid to throw but they are two different things. For instance, the skid happens also in straight-in shots. If I play a straight in shot and expect the cueball to follow 2' for a position and I can make the shot more or less accurately 100 out of 100, the skid causes the cueball (and the object ball) bounce of the surface of the cloth and instead of getting 2' or follow, I get 2". And that's not a "bad shot" but a clear skid.
Tried to find a video on a skid, couldn't find any. In snooker matches I see skids (they call it kicks) all the time. They look nasty in slow-motion.
No, it's not. Skid is normal friction multiplied by 10 or 50. It gets a very different, unexpected, and often disastrous result. Every good player I know is familiar with it. As you see here, it is not well understood.seymore15074 said:
For weak players, skid is not such a big thing. Maybe they were going to miss the ball anyway. For better players, who miss maybe one shot in 50 or one in 200, skid -- under bad conditions like TheOne has described -- can be the largest cause for bad misses.
Believe in it.