Tiger "no deflection" shaft

[Sloppy Pockets]

This is too easy. You invent that shaft, tell me there is no deflection, I'll laugh and hand you an elementary school physics book.

OK. I already have the elementary school physics book (really, they DO teach physics to elementary schoolers in my parts, I swear ). I also have several college physics texts and a few engineering texts I can struggle through when I feel the need for a headache.

Now, exactly how to you use anything in these books to prove the existence of something that cannot not be experimentally measured? The Higgs boson has theoretically been thought to exist for awhile, but we needed the Large Hadron Collider and two teams of scientists working for years to find evidence that it is real.

Armchair scientists can make all the claims they want, citing books and accepted theory. Real scientists require evidence gathered by careful experimentation. Until someone shows me the hard data, I'm as skeptical as I am about hitting the CB off-center enough to cause deflection without putting any spin on it.

 

[scsuxci]

It's zero deflection if you hit dead center.
More power to Tiger but their stemmed Saber-T ferrules is one of the hardest and heaviest ferrules out there. The design and density of Saber-T equate to more squirt to me.

100% agree with this.That material is heavy and find the tiger shaft deflects more than a maple shaft
unless its turned down to a smaller diameter.Never liked how Tiger shafts play.

 

[JMW]

Of course its possible. But a zero deflection shaft (like an iron rod) would squirt the cue ball like crazy. But I doubt this is what they mean. :wink:

High deflection shaft (flexible) = low cue ball squirt
Low deflection shaft (stiff) = high cue ball squirt

 

[Rhale100]

Would unobtainium work ?

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

Would unobtainium work ?

Yes, but it's no longer available.

 

[Cornerman]

This is too easy. You invent that shaft, tell me there is no deflection, I'll laugh and hand you an elementary school physics book.

dld

To me, negative squirt and zero net squirt aren't pipe dreams. If there happens to be a friction force from the tip high enough and the squirt vector due to the "squirt force" is low enough, then the squirt can be zero or negative.

I think a rubber tip with a high friction force is enough to make negative squirt. It's engineering, not simply physics.

Freddie <~~~ thinks that the negative squirt cue was already made

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

To me, negative squirt and zero net squirt aren't pipe dreams. If there happens to be a friction force from the tip high enough and the squirt vector due to the "squirt force" is low enough, then the squirt can be zero or negative.

I think a rubber tip with a high friction force is enough to make negative squirt. It's engineering, not simply physics.

Rod Cross from Austraia did some experiments with sandpaper glued to the circumference of the CB and found no further reduction in CB squirt than regular chalk provides. Of course, he wasn't using Kamui 1.21, so his results are suspect.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... If there happens to be a friction force from the tip high enough and the squirt vector due to the "squirt force" is low enough, then the squirt can be zero or negative. ...

According to the present understanding of what causes squirt, the tip-ball coefficient of friction has no effect provided a miscue doesn't happen.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I'm apparently confused here. Are you really saying that if you hit a full right english shot with your theoretical shaft that the shaft would bend to the left? (My reading of your 'negative squirt')?

dld

No. The important part that I mentioned above is that the tip on this very special cue can move sideways on the ferrule -- on tiny rollers, maybe -- so the shaft doesn't have to move to the side.

My understanding of the Meucci ferrule is that it can shimmy to the side so that most of the shaft does not move to the side.

 

[Sloppy Pockets]

According to the present understanding of what causes squirt, the tip-ball coefficient of friction has no effect provided a miscue doesn't happen.

I like your choice of wording here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't increasing the frictional component one of those things that predicts a decrease in squirt in theory, but fails to do so in a controlled setting?

 

[Bob Jewett]

I like your choice of wording here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't increasing the frictional component one of those things that predicts a decrease in squirt in theory, but fails to do so in a controlled setting?

No. If no miscue occurs on a shot, it doesn't make any difference what the actual coefficient of friction was. That's the way static friction works. If there is sliding, it is a miscue and then we're not talking about squirt. Some people confuse the two.

 

[Cornerman]

According to the present understanding of what causes squirt, the tip-ball coefficient of friction has no effect provided a miscue doesn't happen.

Bob, if you get to say things like "spring loaded" which is in my realm of my career and I assume not yours, then I get to put a rubber ultra friction tip on. Okay?

Freddie <~~~ yeah, it's okay.

 

[Ratta]

I uinderstand their LD carom shafts are selling pretty well, but the advertising is ridiculously incorrect.

they should change it immediatley. would be sad if a great product would loose kind of reputation by just a wrong advertising.

 

[Petros Andrikop]

Very interesting points taking the discussion to another level.
I always thought that either increased "friction" or type of tip (resulting in "increased" contact with CB) play a role in squirt.
As far as deflection concerned, I think everybody agrees there is no regulation shaft without some amount of deflection characteristics.
Some LD shafts do come though to the practical point of "no deflection", provided a "perfect" stroke is applied.
Talking about it with friend Filippos Kasidokostas (World 3 cushion champion) I saw it is practically possible, for players like him which have a "frightnening" stroke.
Filippos played some shots once with a really good shaft setup to show this, applying maximum english on the CB, hitting an OB across the table, pocketing that ball and leaving CB spinning right before it for 15 seconds without deflecting to either side...
It was very impressive to watch, as usual when top professionals play "special" shots..

 

[AtLarge]

... Filippos played some shots once with a really good shaft setup to show this, applying maximum english on the CB, hitting an OB across the table, pocketing that ball and leaving CB spinning right before it for 15 seconds without deflecting to either side...
It was very impressive to watch, as usual when top professionals play "special" shots..

I imagine all he was doing was bridging at the shaft's natural pivot length, lining up the shot straight on, then pivoting to apply back-hand english. The shaft still produces CB squirt, but the BHE technique compensates for it.

 

[LAMas]

Doesn't squirt occur before the CB contacts the OB? Doesn't the shaft deflect on contacting the CB?

 

[LAMas]

Put a Kamui tip on this.

 

[AtLarge]

Doesn't squirt occur before the CB contacts the OB? Doesn't the shaft deflect on contacting the CB?

Is that in response to my post right above yours? Sorry, but I don't understand your point. I'd answer "yes" to your two questions.

 

[LAMas]

Is that in response to my post right above yours? Sorry, but I don't understand your point. I'd answer "yes" to your two questions.

No.

It was for Petros:

"...applying maximum english on the CB, hitting an OB across the table, pocketing that ball and leaving CB spinning right before it for 15 seconds without deflecting to either side..."

 

[Luther Blissett]

It's zero deflection if you hit dead center.

What, the centre of the middle atom which sits in the dead centre of the face of the ball? :grin: ...And then perhaps you'd still have to worry about quantum effects accidentally and unpredictably causing a tiny bit of deflection anyway?