Steel rod break cue
- Thread starter Dawgie
- Start date
It would definitely be forward balanced. I think weight could be an issue of course for the BCA equipment specs that say something like cue weight must not exceed 25 ounces.
Personally I don't see the advantage..... I really think shooter technique is the answer.
Personally I don't see the advantage..... I really think shooter technique is the answer.
Why not just make the entire cue out of steel instead?
It's not like cues have to be wood(with fiberglass ones).
To answer, NO, i don't.
One, its going to be heavier and harder to accelerate.
Regardless of what some may think(ooh steel is harder than wood), what matters is how much momentum the cue has(mass x velocity) and how efficently the tip transfers that energy to the cueball. I think steel rod would slow down the cue too much to make the mass gained worth it.
It's not like cues have to be wood(with fiberglass ones).
To answer, NO, i don't.
One, its going to be heavier and harder to accelerate.
Regardless of what some may think(ooh steel is harder than wood), what matters is how much momentum the cue has(mass x velocity) and how efficently the tip transfers that energy to the cueball. I think steel rod would slow down the cue too much to make the mass gained worth it.
you just asked a question to keep the physics guys going for days!
Well, you have created a high deflection cue according to most of the cyphering so you had better hit the cue ball centered.
However you have opened up another can of worms that should be cut and dried but isn't. How much should a break cue weigh? It should be light for maximum speed but at least one of the physics guys maintains that your hand is so elastic that there is no difference in swinging a cue on a string or gripping it. If this is so then I think a heavier cue becomes more important. Break cues have weighed as much as 26 ounces in the past and monster breaks were reported with them. When a more forceful stroke was needed heavier cues were in vogue too. Apparently none of the folks just judging by what worked were nearly as smart as the folks that can do the math today.
As for your question, carbon fiber, titanium, or some of the better grades of aluminum would give you the stiffness without the weight of steel and be a better choice by today's thinking. If you want to play these folks will sell you pretty much anything you want.
http://www.mcmaster.com/
Hu
Well, you have created a high deflection cue according to most of the cyphering so you had better hit the cue ball centered.
However you have opened up another can of worms that should be cut and dried but isn't. How much should a break cue weigh? It should be light for maximum speed but at least one of the physics guys maintains that your hand is so elastic that there is no difference in swinging a cue on a string or gripping it. If this is so then I think a heavier cue becomes more important. Break cues have weighed as much as 26 ounces in the past and monster breaks were reported with them. When a more forceful stroke was needed heavier cues were in vogue too. Apparently none of the folks just judging by what worked were nearly as smart as the folks that can do the math today.
As for your question, carbon fiber, titanium, or some of the better grades of aluminum would give you the stiffness without the weight of steel and be a better choice by today's thinking. If you want to play these folks will sell you pretty much anything you want.
http://www.mcmaster.com/
Hu
I agree, Hu. I've always thought of it this way: would you rather be hit by a locomotive going 20 miles per hour, or by a baby carriage traveling at the same speed? I'll take the baby carriage.ShootingArts said:
In other words it seems to me that more power would transfer to a CB from a heavier object in comparison to a lighter object, if they were traveling at the same speed. On the other hand, I'm no physicist.
Doc
5x10's
Doc,
You were just talking about the five by ten tables in another thread. Remember the cues used with them? Felt like the big end of a baseball bat in your hand.
Hu
gulfportdoc said:I agree, Hu. I've always thought of it this way: would you rather be hit by a locomotive going 20 miles per hour, or by a baby carriage traveling at the same speed? I'll take the baby carriage.
In other words it seems to me that more power would transfer to a CB from a heavier object in comparison to a lighter object, if they were traveling at the same speed. On the other hand, I'm no physicist.
Doc
Doc,
You were just talking about the five by ten tables in another thread. Remember the cues used with them? Felt like the big end of a baseball bat in your hand.
Hu
Break cues
I've often wondered about making a break cue that used some form of weight transfer. I'm sure it would be illegal of course, but that aside if you used sand or some type of liquid and sealed it in the butt end of the cue when the cue makes impact it would create forward momentom and I could only imagine the power that you could get behind a break using this type of technology. I probably shouldn't be telling you all about this and should go patten it! Later
I've often wondered about making a break cue that used some form of weight transfer. I'm sure it would be illegal of course, but that aside if you used sand or some type of liquid and sealed it in the butt end of the cue when the cue makes impact it would create forward momentom and I could only imagine the power that you could get behind a break using this type of technology. I probably shouldn't be telling you all about this and should go patten it! Later
recoil reducers
Go to the Brownells website and look at recoil reducers that go in the stock. Typically filled with mercury or something similar.
Hu
bankshot76 said:
Go to the Brownells website and look at recoil reducers that go in the stock. Typically filled with mercury or something similar.
Hu
it would accomplish what the poster wanted to do
Recoil reducers are inertia devices and would do what Bankshot76 was trying to do. I've never been curious enough to try it myself. Definitely would be counter productive without a pause at the end of the backstroke and I don't know that they would be effective when the cue ball was hit. Some of Bob Jewett's graphs of speed after cue ball hit might tell us.
The initial weight increase would slow hand and cue speed to some extent but the recoil reducer would help maintain cue momentum at and after the hit.
Hu
Fatboy said:
Recoil reducers are inertia devices and would do what Bankshot76 was trying to do. I've never been curious enough to try it myself. Definitely would be counter productive without a pause at the end of the backstroke and I don't know that they would be effective when the cue ball was hit. Some of Bob Jewett's graphs of speed after cue ball hit might tell us.
The initial weight increase would slow hand and cue speed to some extent but the recoil reducer would help maintain cue momentum at and after the hit.
Hu
> What you are describing is a 100% foolproof way to ruin a shaft. Jim Buss experimented with inserting a brass rod in the end of a shaft,which then had a ferrule and tip installed. He asked a well-known pro to help him with a particular shot,and the pro,not knowing the cue was "loaded",missed the ball completely.
I tried using a 5/16-18 bolt to fix a shaft that had a broken tenon,before I knew how to fix it right. It looked perfect,but hit like a baked potato and deflected terribly. Tommy D.
I tried using a 5/16-18 bolt to fix a shaft that had a broken tenon,before I knew how to fix it right. It looked perfect,but hit like a baked potato and deflected terribly. Tommy D.
gulfportdoc said:I agree, Hu. I've always thought of it this way: would you rather be hit by a locomotive going 20 miles per hour, or by a baby carriage traveling at the same speed? I'll take the baby carriage.
Doc
but its not the same speed. So it would be more like locamotive at 20 mph, or baby carraige at 120 mph. Personally I wouldn't want to be hit by either. :grin:
-Kyle
On the other hand Doc.
If you had to push a baby carriage or a locomotive 20 mph from a dead stop which one would be easier?
gulfportdoc said:I agree, Hu. I've always thought of it this way: would you rather be hit by a locomotive going 20 miles per hour, or by a baby carriage traveling at the same speed? I'll take the baby carriage.
In other words it seems to me that more power would transfer to a CB from a heavier object in comparison to a lighter object, if they were traveling at the same speed. On the other hand, I'm no physicist.
Doc
If you had to push a baby carriage or a locomotive 20 mph from a dead stop which one would be easier?
that is the real question
Kyle,
The real question are what are the actual numbers involved? How much speed do you lose to add four to eight ounces to your cue? It isn't a straight line conversion and it may vary from individual to individual. If you look at carpenter hammers which are similar in weight to pool cues, framing hammers that drive 12 and 16 penny nails are substantially heavier than finishing hammers that drive lighter nails. Why? According to the theory used for break cues, more speed is better even with lighter mass. Why doesn't the increased speed of the lighter hammer work as effectively as the heavier hammer? It doesn't as any carpenter can tell you.
No proof since I have done no testing but I suspect someone with a longer break stroke might be better served with a heavier cue and someone with a shorter stroke might be best served with a lighter break cue purely on the theory that it takes longer to get greater weight up to the same speed. As I hinted at earlier, it might depend on the individuals muscular make up, both size and type.
Hu
YaktyYak said:
Kyle,
The real question are what are the actual numbers involved? How much speed do you lose to add four to eight ounces to your cue? It isn't a straight line conversion and it may vary from individual to individual. If you look at carpenter hammers which are similar in weight to pool cues, framing hammers that drive 12 and 16 penny nails are substantially heavier than finishing hammers that drive lighter nails. Why? According to the theory used for break cues, more speed is better even with lighter mass. Why doesn't the increased speed of the lighter hammer work as effectively as the heavier hammer? It doesn't as any carpenter can tell you.
No proof since I have done no testing but I suspect someone with a longer break stroke might be better served with a heavier cue and someone with a shorter stroke might be best served with a lighter break cue purely on the theory that it takes longer to get greater weight up to the same speed. As I hinted at earlier, it might depend on the individuals muscular make up, both size and type.
Hu
I agree with what you are saying and it is important to remember that it is not the cue stick (light or heavy) that hits the head ball, but the cue ball who's weight never changes.Only the speed at which it is moving. So a quick arm and light cue may propel the cb faster thus causing a harder break. By the way you are starting to sound like a gunsmith with that Brownell's talk.:grin:ShootingArts said: