well,,,,,,they seem to be introducing a whole new lexicon to reason the structure of their cue. they are at once, confusing and verbose, but ultimately, it's all about performance.....no matter what they claim.
Actually, you are quite right about the "verbose" part which is why I will remove this portion of my website in the redesigned website I'm doing right now. The thing is that performance cannot be shown through a website so I tried to explain with the poor vocabular I have (my first language is french, plus I'm a philosophy professor obsessed with language) what I thought was happening with this joint. Now what you refer to as the "verbose" part is actually the complete opposite of what is usually referred to as marketing (indeed if you manage to read the whole thing this is definitely not what will make you want to buy a cue!). In fact I was simply trying to understand rationnally what was happening since something was happening and that there were necessarily reasons for it to happen. In other words, I was simply trying to put into words the complex experience of playing with the cue. I still believe it would be possible to do such a thing but it would require a better knowledge of physics and a more elaborate language relating to the pool playing experience. I have had many science professors look at the joint and what I had written about it and they didn't have much to say. This is of course all conjectures, maybe what I think is in the right direction, but maybe it isn't. The only thing I know for sure is players think it hits differently and that they seem to like it quite a lot. The joint itself was first a theoretical conjecture as the mechanical structure of it made sense (this principle is used in many other applications) but we could not predict it was going to be good for a pool cue. It seems it does make an interesting difference, I was just trying to understand why.
On another note, I'd just like to add something quite odd about this joint. It would be crazy for a cuemaker to make a joint with a diameter of .750'' or less. In fact anyone would agree that the larger the diameter the more solid the cue will hit and the less vibration it will create. On our joint, where the female cone meets the male cone the working diameter is actually .750'' which is very surprising because most player say the joint creates little vibration and that it feels very solid (some even say powerful, whatever that means). There has to be a reason for this, is it because of the total surface area, is it because of the shape of the cone, is it because of the way the forces are transmitted through the cone, etc. You'll have to agree with me that it is very tempting to try to find physical explanations to these theoretical problems. But as you said in the end, it's all about performance, not the claims, but some of us are simply more curious.
Thierry Layani
www.layanicues.com
; nonetheless, it did not stop me from ordering from him repeatedly. 
