tips shaped by chalk poll

Do you agree with this "99.9% of your tip shaping is done with chalk."

  • Yes

    Votes: 18 14.1%
  • No

    Votes: 110 85.9%

  • Total voters
    128

Jude Rosenstock

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
supergreenman said:
Jude, you said it yourself.... very fine and good sandpaper. This is true, it is also true the Colorado river many thousands of years to carve out the Grand Canyon, the point I was trying to make was the compaction of the CB hitting your tip and the use of commercial scuffers and tip tappers have more to do with the shape of a tip than chalk.

Respectfully yours,

SGM


Oh and I gotta say, I haven't used a single tip tool on my current tip since I got it and it's been months now. It's pretty much a dime radius.

Of course those tools will take leather off very quickly but when you go back to playing and chalking your cue, it's eventually going to conform to the chalk.

I mean, if chalk didn't do this and everybody could design their own curvatures, don't you think it would be commonplace for people to miss spots while chalking, then? They typicall don't because chalk & tip quickly take on a similar radius. Yes, the chalk DEFINITELY gives here but the tip gives, too.
 

Jude Rosenstock

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Blackjack said:
No problem, Jude. I just went 10 rounds with some guy badgering me with PM's about "Blackjack Tips". He's still not convinced that the only "Blackjack Tips" that I sell are instructional.

I have some crappy slip on tips from K-Mart that I might send to him, along with a Blue Rosenstock Shaper.

My take is that you've taken a lot of heat from all of this, instead of trying to douse the flames with gasoline, just have fun with it.

rosenstockshaper.jpg


:thumbup:


You bet your ass that's a Rosenstock tip shaper! I'm actually PROUD of that!


:) :) :)
 

Black-Balled

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Noww that is something useful in this thread.:yeah:

That makes me only one percent.
:happy-birthday:
BVal said:
As I said it took just under a minute to READ AND RESPOND to this. If my computer was a little faster it might not have taken so long. Now almost another minute is gone. Thanks :D:D:D:D:D

BVal
 

PetToilet

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
those of you guys using chalk like a cue tip shaper and answered yes, good for you.

I like my chalk so I will apply it lightly and gently and very rarely use the "curve" of the chalk. i think its funny when i see people rotate the cue tip inside the chalk radius thing and change their cue shape.

as for the grand canyon thing, that has to be the stupidest analogy i have ever read. shit in a million years my whole cue will be sanded down just from the wind.

i do agree with chalk being ABLE to shape it, but that is far from ideal as the chalk is designed to wear away unlike sandpaper. the percentage ultimate depends on how much time and force you put into chalking VERSUS shaping through other methods. second per second and force per force, i doubt chalk would win against rough sandpaper, maybe it will come close to very fine and crappy sandpaper.

unfortunately at my university's game room where lots of uninformed people do this, the cue tips remain very flat, the chalk keeps having to be restocked, and the ferrules look as if someone with blue lipstick got a little drunk.
 
Last edited:

supergreenman

truly addicted
Silver Member
Jude Rosenstock said:
Oh and I gotta say, I haven't used a single tip tool on my current tip since I got it and it's been months now. It's pretty much a dime radius.

Of course those tools will take leather off very quickly but when you go back to playing and chalking your cue, it's eventually going to conform to the chalk.

I mean, if chalk didn't do this and everybody could design their own curvatures, don't you think it would be commonplace for people to miss spots while chalking, then? They typicall don't because chalk & tip quickly take on a similar radius. Yes, the chalk DEFINITELY gives here but the tip gives, too.

I believe the tip is shaped more by contact with the cue ball. It would be interesting to do an experiment along these lines. It's my theory that given no other variables other than chalk, that the vertical radius of a tip(the tip shape, dime, nickle or what ever) has a direct relationship to the average amount of spin a person uses when shooting.

For example a person that uses more centre ball hits would have a flatter tip than someone that uses more extreme amounts of to, bottom or side spin.

I think the opposite of what you are saying is true, tip shape, and method of application influence the shape of chalk.
 

Jude Rosenstock

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
supergreenman said:
I believe the tip is shaped more by contact with the cue ball. It would be interesting to do an experiment along these lines. It's my theory that given no other variables other than chalk, that the vertical radius of a tip(the tip shape, dime, nickle or what ever) has a direct relationship to the average amount of spin a person uses when shooting.

For example a person that uses more centre ball hits would have a flatter tip than someone that uses more extreme amounts of to, bottom or side spin.

I think the opposite of what you are saying is true, tip shape, and method of application influence the shape of chalk.


Okay, this is where I think it gets interesting - When it comes to tip shape, I think the reason why better players typically have more rounded tips has more to do with HOW they apply chalk as opposed to using more english. You're right, it would be an interesting experiment but the fundamental problem is, it would take a very long time to prove anything and in the end, it's trivial information.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
Chalk

Jude Rosenstock said:
Okay, this is where I think it gets interesting - When it comes to tip shape, I think the reason why better players typically have more rounded tips has more to do with HOW they apply chalk as opposed to using more english. You're right, it would be an interesting experiment but the fundamental problem is, it would take a very long time to prove anything and in the end, it's trivial information.


Jude,

Since I posted a silly message in this thread and the thread later turned a bit ugly I have to point out that I just found it funny that someone needed to start another thread about "99.9%" after you had already made it plain that this wasn't a real or exact percentage, just illustrative. I did not intend the post to poke fun at you.

Moving on to the chalk theories I think a few things are being overlooked. Mainly the composition of sandpaper and chalk. The grit of sandpaper is turned sharpest side up and then strongly bound to a backer. The grit in chalk apparently has no orientation and more importantly is loosely bound by design. As a result, even a similar grit sandpaper would have far more abrasive action than chalk.

I don't have scientific backing for what I say but I have pretty good empirical data. Back in the day I used a milk dud for two to three thousand hours, chalking regularly. It was still in good shape at the end of that time. I never wear out tips now, but I never shape them after they settle down. I use a brad tool rolled over the tip to press indentions into it to hold chalk, I don't scuff or dig on my tip either. If everyone treated their tips the same way cue makers would probably be replacing a quarter as many tips or less.

I respectfully suggest the primary abrasive action of chalk on a tip is caused by whatever movement it has under pressure against the tip when the tip is in contact with the cue ball and in my experience that effect is minor. Note how little a cue ball abrades even though it is far softer than the chalk particles. Although the cue balls do get smaller over time it is generally accepted that this is mostly because of tiny bits flaking off each time the surface of the ball flexes and springs back on impact with other balls.

Hu
 

Jude Rosenstock

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
ShootingArts said:
Jude,

Since I posted a silly message in this thread and the thread later turned a bit ugly I have to point out that I just found it funny that someone needed to start another thread about "99.9%" after you had already made it plain that this wasn't a real or exact percentage, just illustrative. I did not intend the post to poke fun at you.

Moving on to the chalk theories I think a few things are being overlooked. Mainly the composition of sandpaper and chalk. The grit of sandpaper is turned sharpest side up and then strongly bound to a backer. The grit in chalk apparently has no orientation and more importantly is loosely bound by design. As a result, even a similar grit sandpaper would have far more abrasive action than chalk.

I don't have scientific backing for what I say but I have pretty good empirical data. Back in the day I used a milk dud for two to three thousand hours, chalking regularly. It was still in good shape at the end of that time. I never wear out tips now, but I never shape them after they settle down. I use a brad tool rolled over the tip to press indentions into it to hold chalk, I don't scuff or dig on my tip either. If everyone treated their tips the same way cue makers would probably be replacing a quarter as many tips or less.

I respectfully suggest the primary abrasive action of chalk on a tip is caused by whatever movement it has under pressure against the tip when the tip is in contact with the cue ball and in my experience that effect is minor. Note how little a cue ball abrades even though it is far softer than the chalk particles. Although the cue balls do get smaller over time it is generally accepted that this is mostly because of tiny bits flaking off each time the surface of the ball flexes and springs back on impact with other balls.

Hu

I still think there is a common misunderstanding that billiard chalk and talc chalk are the same which may be the only thing this poll proves and the reason it's overlooked. The point I was making initially (which has forever been lost) is that shaping your tip to a specific radius will not hold IMO because of the routine chalking you will do but you can also "chalk it up" to general play (assuming you think the abrasion & impact of the cueball shapes your tip).
 

BrooklynJay

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
okay, i've thought about this and i have to say that the the abrasiveness of chalk is minimal in terms of shaping a tip and that impact of the tip against the cue ball will ultimately determine it's shape.

i think the abrasiveness of chalk may be what wears a tip down but that's slow and over a matter of months. i think the point was made about the colorado river shaping the grand canyon and i agree - it's a slow erosion over a long long period of time much like chalk on a tip. impact of the tip against the cueball will have a more instantous effect.

take it to extremes: can i give you a piece of chalk and say shape my tip to a dime radius? how long would it take?

take a newly shaped dime radius tip and start breaking with it. how soon will it become flat?

interesting discussion none the less and some things to think about.
 

Jude Rosenstock

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
BrooklynJay said:
take it to extremes: can i give you a piece of chalk and say shape my tip to a dime radius? how long would it take?

take a newly shaped dime radius tip and start breaking with it. how soon will it become flat?

interesting discussion none the less and some things to think about.

I'm a little curious - How long have you owned your break cue? How many times have you had to replace the tip?

I got my break cue about 6 years ago. I've replaced the tip once. I break about 24 mph and there's still a lot of tip left. My shooting cue is used about 10 times as much as my break cue however, most of my shots are well under 5mph. However, I probably have had to replace the tip on my shooting cue about 12 times in that span.


I mean, if what you're saying is true, wouldn't one have to replace their break tip pretty often? - at least in relation to how often it's used.


EDIT:

I mean, if shape were all about impact, don't you think most break tips would be flat since a centerball hit is always ideal when breaking? What shape is your break tip?
 
Last edited:

BrooklynJay

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Jude Rosenstock said:
I'm a little curious - How long have you owned your break cue? How many times have you had to replace the tip?

I got my break cue about 6 years ago. I've replaced the tip once. I break about 24 mph and there's still a lot of tip left. My shooting cue is used about 10 times as much as my break cue however, most of my shots are well under 5mph. However, I probably have had to replace the tip on my shooting cue about 12 times in that span.


I mean, if what you're saying is true, wouldn't one have to replace their break tip pretty often? - at least in relation to how often it's used.


EDIT:

I mean, if shape were all about impact, don't you think most break tips would be flat since a centerball hit is always ideal when breaking? What shape is your break tip?

i usually break with my playing cue (if it's good enough for shane, it's good enough for me :smile2:) and/or break with friends break cues with phenolic tips. my tip on my playing cue has flattened out and some mushrooming has occurred even when i'm not hitting'em that hard. (moori m. i guess i should get moori h.)

btw, if you notice the tip on a bk2 it's pretty flat and i do think most are. (had a jj break cue and the tip was pretty flat too)

i think you use your break cue less often so that the erosion, the wearing down, of the tip from chalking it is why that tip has lasted longer. you chalk a break cue once per rack - you might chalk your playing cue 10+ times per rack. also during that time you would have strike the tip against a harder surface, the cue ball, 10+ times as well.

assuming your break cue is leather tipped and that you like it rounder - has it flatten any? have you had to shape it?

i'm not saying chalk isn't abrasive - it just that impact will have more to do with the shape than the chalking.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
shaping my tip does hold

Jude Rosenstock said:
I still think there is a common misunderstanding that billiard chalk and talc chalk are the same which may be the only thing this poll proves and the reason it's overlooked. The point I was making initially (which has forever been lost) is that shaping your tip to a specific radius will not hold IMO because of the routine chalking you will do but you can also "chalk it up" to general play (assuming you think the abrasion & impact of the cueball shapes your tip).


Jude,

As I said in my post, shaping my tip did hold for thousands of hours using the fairly soft elkmaster leather tips. I also shot very softly during that time period, breaking with a house cue and then using natural angles and follow much more than is typical for most players now. Juicing the cue ball was a last resort.

I understand that pool cue chalk is a very hard fine abrasive mixed with other materials, I also understand that it is not oriented or tightly bound in the chalk block. If we were to determine the size of the grit and buy a container of it and just stick the cue tip down into the surface of that grit how long would it take for it to erode the tip? I had large containers of far coarser abrasive for my blast cabinet and did not note any abrasive action handling it.

If cue chalk was as abrasive as you and several others in this thread seem to believe we would see far more dramatic damage to the cue balls. How about the training cue balls that are hit in the same place by the cue tip over and over? Can anyone recall one getting out of round or forming a dimple where it was hit over and over with the chalked tip?

I just realized I have everything on hand to conduct a test of the abrasiveness of chalk. Test results later today.

Hu
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
The Test

Items used in test:

New Cube Blue Masters Chalk(Flag)

.375x1.5x2 inch block of extruded 6061 t6 aluminum.

6061 t6 is very near the top of the scale of the best cutting metals, it cuts very easily. It should also be noted that I was rubbing on an extruded surface which has tiny ridges which should be sanded away easily changing the dimension of the metal.

Instrumentation:

0-.5 Starrett micrometer measuring to the nearest ten-thousandths. (.0001)

The official US time clock was used as the timer to measure to the second within minus zero plus three seconds.

Procedure:

I removed the paper and the glue from roughly one/half of the chalk cube to use only chalk to attempt to sand the aluminum.

I used a piece of soft leather to remove the oxidation from the aluminum.

I then measured the aluminum finding the actual thickness to be .3738

I next used the chalk to rub a roughly .375 by 2 area of the block continuously for three minutes with a back and forth motion and a pressure somewhat greater than I use to chalk my cue.

I cleaned the block, measured it, and repeated the three minute test.

I then cleaned the block, measured again, and tested in the same manner for four minutes to have a total of ten minutes sanding time on the block.

Results:

The chalk cube was substantially worn in this test losing about .100 in height. However the test block of aluminum showed no change in height measured to the nearest ten-thousandths.(0001.) As a reference, a sheet of common printer paper on my desk is eighty-five ten-thousandths.(.0085)

Discoloration was noticeable. There seemed to be the faintest difference in texture of the surface but when blind testing by closing my eyes and tumbling the block in my hands I was then unable to detect which of four areas had just been rubbed with leather and which with chalk using the tip of my finger or a fingernail.

Conclusion:

Any abrasive action of chalk on tips has little or effect on the shape of the tip.

Of course this test was conducted in my office not at a test lab and things like the exact pressure applied when rubbing the surface were not controlled. I don't put this test forward as an exact proof of the abrasiveness of chalk or lack thereof however I do think it is a strong indication that cue tip chalk is not an effective abrasive.

It also has to be considered that the chalk is largely working against other chalk already on the cue tip and not the leather itself when adding chalk to a cue tip further reducing the effectiveness of the chalk in shaping the tip.

Addendum:

On my desk I also have a "dead slick" stone. This is used to bring a metal surface to a mirror finish after progressively sanding the metal smoother. After using this stone metal reflects almost like glass. I sanded on the surface of the 6061 t6 block for three minutes using the same procedure as above. Some areas of the .5x 2" section of the block were beginning to slick off and I could measure a .0005 reduction in height. Pretty conclusive evidence in my mind that the smoothest stone I have found is more effective at removing material than chalk and I would never attempt to shape anything with the stone.
 

Roadkill

Retired Pool Hustler
Silver Member
ShootingArts said:
I removed the paper and the glue from roughly one/half of the chalk cube to use only chalk to attempt to sand the aluminum.

I agree with your conclusion as related to the effect of chalk on aluminum tips.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
knew that was coming . . .

Roadkill said:
I agree with your conclusion as related to the effect of chalk on aluminum tips.

However, if the chalk won't cut aluminum it won't cut leather either. Actually leather wheels and leather strops are embedded with abrasive to grind and buff steel and other metals precisely because the abrasive has little effect on the leather.

Hu
 

Roadkill

Retired Pool Hustler
Silver Member
ShootingArts said:
However, if the chalk won't cut aluminum it won't cut leather either. Actually leather wheels and leather strops are embedded with abrasive to grind and buff steel and other metals precisely because the abrasive has little effect on the leather.

Hu

It is widely accepted that billiard chalk is an abrasive. It contributes to wear in the table cloth and leather tips.

If you want to run a valid experiment, take a tip mounted on a short wooden shaft. Place the shaft into a hand drill and then proceed to drill the tip completely though a piece of chalk. Measure the tip thickness before and after and report.
 

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
I'm satisfied, time for you to do your own tests

Roadkill said:
It is widely accepted that billiard chalk is an abrasive. It contributes to wear in the table cloth and leather tips.

If you want to run a valid experiment, take a tip mounted on a short wooden shaft. Please the shaft into a hand drill and then proceed to drill the tip completely though a piece of chalk. Measure the tip thickness before and after and report.



There is a very hard substance in pool chalk apparently. Far harder than leather or aluminum. If there were a significant cutting action my test would have demonstrated it. As I stated, I "sanded" vigorously for a total of ten minutes and did not cut enough off to equal one/eighty-fifth of a sheet of paper.

I felt considerable friction that felt like cutting when I was rubbing the chalk across the aluminum. This seemed to compare to a comparatively course sandpaper in the 200 grit range maybe. However it seems likely that a very little chalk grit embedded in the aluminum and then that grit ground against the grit in the chalk. The chalk wore away rapidly while not reducing the surface of the aluminum.

I tested something that is very easy to cut and that is also easily precisely measured. The measurements surprised me because ten minutes of rubbing almost anything against 6061 t6 would reduce the thickness. I think that what actually happened although it wasn't visible was that a thin layer of chalk formed on the aluminum and actually formed a protective barrier.

All indications are that if I were to do the test you suggest the tip would be as thick or thicker than when I started. A layer of chalk would embed in the tip and then that layer would cut the chalk. I have performed basically the same test you suggest using better controls. If you think your procedure will make a difference try it yourself and report back. My curiosity is satisfied.

Hu
 

Roadkill

Retired Pool Hustler
Silver Member
ShootingArts said:
There is a very hard substance in pool chalk apparently. Far harder than leather or aluminum.

The main component in pool chalk is silica (basically a very fine sand). A compound also used in many sandpapers. Your conclusion that it's non-abrasive to leather and cloth is erroneous. IMO.

I just tried to shape an aluminum rod using my Ultimate Tip Tool and was unsuccessful as expected.
 
Last edited:

ShootingArts

Smorg is giving St Peter the 7!
Gold Member
Silver Member
obviously an inferior product!

Roadkill said:
The main component in pool chalk is silica (basically a very fine sand). A compound also used in many sandpapers. Your conclusion that it's non-abrasive to leather and cloth is erroneous. IMO.

I just tried to shape an aluminum rod using my Ultimate Tip Tool and was unsuccessful as expected.


I just tested my brad tip shaper on the aluminum and shaped it easily. Apparently your ultimate tip tool ain't as good as my four dollar brad tool! :shrug:

Hu
 
Top