Which ball was hit first?

[Cornerman]

But if the cue ball had hit the 3 a millisecond before the 5 it would definitely have been going up (and to the left). I think that argues for 3 first and then the 5 also.

Seems like if the 5-ball were hit last, the cueball would be drifting more northwest per the tangent off the 5-ball

I would think that if the 3-ball was hit last, the drift of the cueball would be about 2 oclock. 5-ball last, the drift would be 11 o’clock.

 

[Cuebuddy]

To add to what I wrote in post #28.
Filming the YouTube video at .25 speed with my phones slow motion setting I was able to use the slider feature and go over and over the moment of contact. The 3 seems to move first.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Seems like if the 5-ball were hit last, the cueball would be drifting more north per the tangent off the 5-ball

There is some northward movement. I think the amount north/south movement is going to be a monotonic function of the height of the incoming cue ball for +- a millimeter of simultaneous.

 

[straightline]

To add to what I wrote in post #28.
Filming the YouTube video at .25 speed with my phones slow motion setting I was able to use the slider feature and go over and over the moment of contact. The 3 seems to move first.

It also moves faster and further. Unfortunately the media itself didn't capture the critical action; the contact.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Seems like the drift upwards suggests the 3-ball was hit last.

"Drift" is the right word - it's not like a carom off a single ball. In fact, the CB rebounds a little after contact before continuing forward with follow spin - I've added white lines to the pic below to show that the CB is slightly to the left and higher than at contact.

pj
chgo

 

[straightline]

Yes, and "drift" is the right word - it's not like a carom off a single ball. In fact, the CB rebounds a little after contact before continuing forward with follow spin - I've added white lines to the pic below to show that the CB is slightly to the left and higher than at contact.

pj
chgo

View attachment 746743

In pic one the rock is clearly about to contact the 5 yet in pic two, the 3 is clearly recoiling from a heavier hit.
What am the science?

 

[DeeDeeCues]

It also moves faster and further. Unfortunately the media itself didn't capture the critical action; the contact.

Moving faster and further is due to it being a fuller hit. The glancing hit on the five doesn't take much of the cb energy, but puts the cb onto a thicker contact with the three.

 

[DeeDeeCues]

In pic one the rock is clearly about to contact the 5 yet in pic two, the 3 is clearly recoiling from a heavier hit.
What am the science?

Fizzics, yo. Read my previous post.

 

[Patrick Johnson]

In pic one the rock is clearly about to contact the 5 yet in pic two, the 3 is clearly recoiling from a heavier hit.
What am the science?

Pic 1 is just after contact, not just before - both the 5 and 3 are already moving. I don't know what that means, if anything, about which was hit first (I've edited my first post about it).

pj
chgo

 

[straightline]

Moving faster and further is due to it being a fuller hit. The glancing hit on the five doesn't take much of the cb energy, but puts the cb onto a thicker contact with the three.

Therefore the rock follows the three not the 5. I gotta say in the freeze PJ posted the rock is clearly about to contact the 5 so you got that. But for education's sake picture the split hit as a single object to the nth measurable degree. There will still be a left/right bias and the rock will decay along the path of the squarest hit. By your words that is the three.
There's also some uncertainty principle which as I recall isn't finitely predictable I have to refresh on.

 

[straightline]

Pic 1 is just after contact, not just before - both the 5 and 3 are already moving. I don't know what that means, if anything, about which was hit first (I've edited my first post about it).

pj
chgo

Ok even better. I'm on so much verbage I've forgotten the shot!

 

[DeeDeeCues]

Therefore the rock follows the three not the 5. I gotta say in the freeze PJ posted the rock is clearly about to contact the 5 so you got that. But for education's sake picture the split hit as a single object to the nth measurable degree. There will still be a left/right bias and the rock will decay along the path of the squarest hit. By your words that is the three.
There's also some uncertainty principle which as I recall isn't finitely predictable I have to refresh on.

No, in my words, the cueball follows the talent of the LAST hit. I've said that clearly multiple times.

 

[straightline]

No, in my words, the cueball follows the talent of the LAST hit. I've said that clearly multiple times.

Your words were the 3 ball was hit fuller. Your assertion is something else. Regardless, the tangent angle is a very diminished variable in full hits.
Anyway, the path of least resistance following a 3/5 split would be in the direction of the 5 which is what happened.

 

[jay helfert]

If the setup had been symmetrical it would have clearly been the 3 ball first, since the cue ball drifted up a little. Unfortunately, the setup was not symmetrical, with the 3 slightly closer (or that's how it looks to me). I think that is going to make the cue ball go up for a simultaneous hit and maybe even for one where the 5 is struck very slightly before the 3 ball.

I believe the action indicates the cue ball was touching both balls simultaneously, which is rare since the ball-ball contact time is only about 0.1 milliseconds. (That's roughly a tenth of the tip-ball contact time.)

Bottom line: too close to call.

Agree, too close to call, so it goes to the shooter. All the different opinions on here only solidifies that conclusion.

 

[sammylane12]

The shot was played with a bit of right hand spin in an attempt to ever so slightly massé the cueball around the 10.

I don`t believe you can masse` the cue ball at that distance with that speed/stroke.

 

[Double-Dave]

I don`t believe you can masse` the cue ball at that distance with that speed/stroke.

I do believe you can.

 

[fjk]

I do believe you can.

My shot: good by a mile. Opponent's shot: bad hit clear as day.

 

[SBC]

I come from another time where.....

Call goes to the shooter...
Or just rerack and double the bet.

 

[Double-Dave]

My shot: good by a mile. Opponent's shot: bad hit clear as day.

 

[DeeDeeCues]

Your words were the 3 ball was hit fuller. Your assertion is something else. Regardless, the tangent angle is a very diminished variable in full hits.
Anyway, the path of least resistance following a 3/5 split would be in the direction of the 5 which is what happened.

Let me see if I can slow this down for you. The cueball skimmed the five, then after some finite amount of time the cb hit the three at an angle that caused it to have more speed than the five. The guy on the three wasn't a full ball hit, and it wasn't even that close to a full ball hit, leaving the cb with enough energy to follow the taken line from the hit on the three.

There is no path of least resistance in this shit, there is only the path that physics dictates. The balls don't choose to go somewhere because it is easier.