As described, my analysis says it can't be done. I look forward to refutations involving actual video footage, with chalk marks on cue balls.
Thank you kindly.
Spin applied during contact
- Thread starter Player
- Start date
As described, my analysis says it can't be done. I look forward to refutations involving actual video footage, with chalk marks on cue balls.
Thank you kindly.
This explains where that 5/14 comes from, thanks.
It also might explain the results I was seeing, 1) my intuitions about how to produce max spin transfer were a bit off, 2) my calls are newly cleaned.
Are the ranges given for the friction reasonable, in terms of what one might see in the real world?
Thank You Kindly.
Forgive the very crude diagram but I don't have InDesign on my work computer.
Blue mark is contact point.
Red line represents line the cue should take with a straight and level stroke.
Green line represents the direction change just prior to, through contact, and after contact.
What I think is being suggested here is that by following the green path by raising and extending the cue out and to the left of perpendicular, you are creating more spin and a shot that can't be achieved with any other stroke....
Another way to look at it is the second (very) rudimentary diagram.
If red is the contact point stretching perfectly straight or perpendicular to the graph, then green begins at the same point but travels a few degrees up and a few degrees to the left.
Is this what this the magical stroke being discussed here?
Blue mark is contact point.
Red line represents line the cue should take with a straight and level stroke.
Green line represents the direction change just prior to, through contact, and after contact.
What I think is being suggested here is that by following the green path by raising and extending the cue out and to the left of perpendicular, you are creating more spin and a shot that can't be achieved with any other stroke....
Another way to look at it is the second (very) rudimentary diagram.
If red is the contact point stretching perfectly straight or perpendicular to the graph, then green begins at the same point but travels a few degrees up and a few degrees to the left.
Is this what this the magical stroke being discussed here?
Attachments
Your 1st. diagram is not it. Did you read what Ms. Crimi said?
Your 2nd. diagram I think could perhaps maybe be a crude representation, but it lacks the regular stroke representation for comparison & would need to be placed in the appropriate point on the ball to relay any visual perception of what it is trying to represent.
Are you left handed?
Your 2nd. diagram I think could perhaps maybe be a crude representation, but it lacks the regular stroke representation for comparison & would need to be placed in the appropriate point on the ball to relay any visual perception of what it is trying to represent.
Are you left handed?
Last edited:
Your namesake please?
Funny, but that does show my lack of 'typing' skills.
I was just quickly holding the place so as not have to not quote the large diagram.
Last edited:
and for a second I thought I was being called a Satanist.
Actually, all hits, whether off center or not, have only 1 force. The concept of vectors is a mathematical construct to describe the force and analyze it mathematically. The "component" vectors are just that...a component of the force. There is a component force in an infinity of directions, people just don't care about most of those directions for the mathematical models we use. There is a force *down* towards the table bed on above center hits. There is an upward force component on below center hits, etc.
To talk about "matching" one of these vectors illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of vectors. The "vectors" are not real forces, they are results that can be isolated mathematically from the one actual force. Any hit on the cueball has a whole pile of potential vectors you could look at. So any attempt to "match" one of the vectors with a stroke will instead result in a different pile of vectors, rather than only the one you are trying to "match".
I do not disagree that the direction of the cue tip at contact can alter the net force on the cue ball by altering 1 or many of the various vectors you could look at. I just think it is not accurate to talk about "matching" a particular vector. Math and physics is great, but it isn't reality. It is a representation of reality.
Food for thought, since we are "thinking about this".
KMRUNOUT
No, but see how crap can happen in a text only format & when sometimes a comma can make a HUGE difference.
StraightPool99 left an "and" out & the sentence read entirely differently than how he had intended it.
Sometimes such things are caught & sometimes they are not & can be the basis of much turmoil.
Why not just say what they are? Other people in the thread might like to hear. Is it more important to spite PJ?
KMRUNOUT
You are conversing with everyone in this thread, and everyone that will ever look at this thread. Not just the posters you don't like.
KMRUNOUT
No rational individual believes that the past affects the present. Only the present affects the present. The past may provide an explanation for how the conditions of the present came to be, but it never, ever influences the present one bit. If Neil posted 9000 times that the earth was flat, and today said it is round, the 9000 errors have zero bearing on the correctness of the one post today. Logic 101. Actually I believe the course was PH107 freshman year, but not important.
English, you are in a position to make yourself look bad by dodging a direct question. Many have asked, and while I'm only up to page 4 in the thread, you are basically running interference. Sadly the interference is pretty transparent.
I like lots of your posts. But sometimes you have to take a breath, and reconnect to reality. This might be one of those times. Friendly advice sir.
KMRUNOUT
What I said was in counter to what was being said & suggested.
No one that I know of is talking about trying to match force vectors.
Some are saying that something can NOT be done that can not also be done by a completely different type of stroke.
That would be true IF those differences resulted in the same NET effect.
That would requires a complete different set of forces that are represented by the vectors to come down to the same NET vector...
But where the force is applied also comes into play.
What is often the problem that comes up is when some almost always seem to do 1 or 2 or both things.
1. the over isolation of parameters
2. application of parameters, but leaving out one aspect that must be different for a true comparison to be made in the larger picture.
Best Wishes,
Rck
I have learned so much, it's incredible.
No sarcasm intended - honest questions
Please correct me if I’m wrong, for this discussion, swoop or swipe is being used to define a lateral movement of the tip at moment of impact. If that is correct, please continue.
How much lateral movement is happening in the .001-.002 seconds that the tip is in contact with the CB? I get a lateral swipe at the ball with my hand will certainly generate more spin than if I hit it direct on but a slap motion at the cue is significantly more lateral movement than forward.
In thinking of how much lateral movement on the tip would be necessary to create additional English, I think of apparent wind. If the actual wind is at 5 mph and from the west and I’m traveling in a car driving north at 45mph, the apparent wind altered approx 80 degrees to the North.
With a swoop stroke, how much lateral compared to forward are you stating takes place? I did a little math and for every mph you’re stroking the cue, the amount of distance the cueball travels while in contact with the tip is .0176 of an inch per MPH of the stroke if in contact for .001 seconds (obviously double if in contact for .002)
Example shot of 8 MPH - the distance during contact between tip and cue ball is between .1408 and .2816 of an inch. If an 8 mph stroke, in that time how much lateral movement do you think is possible? The same 8mph rate? Would that not create a 'path of travel' at 45 degrees? Should be easy to see in slow motion. Contact to center or to the side of the swoop direction would be moving the tip away from contacting the ball. Moving away, the tip friction doesn’t seem like it would be enough to impart extra English if moving away from the contact, certainly not maintain any level of accuracy. Forward force at any speed is more significantly forward than lateral or the cue ball would not move forward.
While I respect that there is belief a swoop does create more English, I’d like to see proof, with video, that a cue tip is traveling laterally at moment of impact because while people are professing this as laws of physics, most things in physics can be proven. We're not there yet - plenty of opinions though.
I offer my current opinion: I think 'swoop' is either placebo or a “Jim Furyk” in that you’re seeing an odd swing, but its square and true on impact.
Last point, I’d call a foul anyway, you need to contact the cueball in a stroking motion, not a swooping one.:wink:
ps - English, my answer is "yes I have"
Please correct me if I’m wrong, for this discussion, swoop or swipe is being used to define a lateral movement of the tip at moment of impact. If that is correct, please continue.
How much lateral movement is happening in the .001-.002 seconds that the tip is in contact with the CB? I get a lateral swipe at the ball with my hand will certainly generate more spin than if I hit it direct on but a slap motion at the cue is significantly more lateral movement than forward.
In thinking of how much lateral movement on the tip would be necessary to create additional English, I think of apparent wind. If the actual wind is at 5 mph and from the west and I’m traveling in a car driving north at 45mph, the apparent wind altered approx 80 degrees to the North.
With a swoop stroke, how much lateral compared to forward are you stating takes place? I did a little math and for every mph you’re stroking the cue, the amount of distance the cueball travels while in contact with the tip is .0176 of an inch per MPH of the stroke if in contact for .001 seconds (obviously double if in contact for .002)
Example shot of 8 MPH - the distance during contact between tip and cue ball is between .1408 and .2816 of an inch. If an 8 mph stroke, in that time how much lateral movement do you think is possible? The same 8mph rate? Would that not create a 'path of travel' at 45 degrees? Should be easy to see in slow motion. Contact to center or to the side of the swoop direction would be moving the tip away from contacting the ball. Moving away, the tip friction doesn’t seem like it would be enough to impart extra English if moving away from the contact, certainly not maintain any level of accuracy. Forward force at any speed is more significantly forward than lateral or the cue ball would not move forward.
While I respect that there is belief a swoop does create more English, I’d like to see proof, with video, that a cue tip is traveling laterally at moment of impact because while people are professing this as laws of physics, most things in physics can be proven. We're not there yet - plenty of opinions though.
I offer my current opinion: I think 'swoop' is either placebo or a “Jim Furyk” in that you’re seeing an odd swing, but its square and true on impact.
Last point, I’d call a foul anyway, you need to contact the cueball in a stroking motion, not a swooping one.:wink:
ps - English, my answer is "yes I have"
Rick,
The purpose of the video and article was not to demonstrate how to execute a swoop stroke or its variations. The real purpose was to clearly document and demonstrate a simple, meaningful, and reliable procedure that people can use on their own to test claims concerning any swoop stroke.
I hope you, Fran, and other swoop believers out there give it a try. The test is not that difficult, and it doesn't take very much time (especially for a well-practiced swooper).
If you or others do try it out with your swoop stroke, please share your results and observations.
Regards,
Dave
PS: Tom Ross, who participated in my early swoop videos (on the swoop stroke resource page) was a accomplished and well-practiced swooper, and he agrees with all of my observations and conclusions (after doing careful tests together with me).
That is correct. From the shooter's perspective (and from the mark on the CB), the "actual" tip offset (as indicated by the distance between the dotted line and CB center in the diagram below) is smaller than the "effective" tip offset of the shot (shown with the purple-arrowed line in the diagram).
Excellent point and suggestion. By "actual," I mean as perceived (by the shooter and as shown by the chalk mark on the CB).
I agree. I've done the best I can in the diagram and with my explanations and demonstrations in the article and video, but maybe we can come up with something better.
Regards,
Dave
Well stated. If people want more info on this topic, see:
"squirt," "deflection," "stiffness"
and
endmass and stiffness
Enjoy,
Dave