Will someone w/break speed app do a test???

[hunger strike]

acceleration

Would top spin not count as a power source?
As I posted my test the slowest speed was with draw, which could be from the added friction of the reverse spin.
If the draw slows the ball could top add acceleration?
Just asking, not saying that is the case.

The cue tip has momentum (P). P=MV (momentum=mass times velocity.)
This momentum can be transferred to the cueball as either translational (sliding) or rotational (spinning, i.e. the topspin that you suggest might at some point become acceleration.) If you gain rotation, you lose translational energy. All other things being equal (assuming that using topspin would not necessarily somehow allow more momentum to be transferred due to difference in stroke technique), having some of your P go into topspin could lessen friction from cueball sliding. But the tip momentum would be delivered at tangents because you are hitting a round object; some of the force would be delivered into the table and lost as heat and vibration. Jewett is shaking his head right now because he knows how many variables we are talking about and Occam's razor has to come into play at some point, right Bob? Besides, there would not be time at break speed for the ball's topspin to convert into acceleration enough to make any difference. Add to this that, experimentally, topspin can only accelerate a cueball at 1.2 times the normal rate of rotation across the cloth. Complex enough for you? 1.2 times more roll over a fraction of a second of travel time could never compensate for wasting some of your force into the slate from hitting a round ball above center. The original question dealt with shooting off a rail causing less meat friction with the hand and apparently the break app has borne out experimentally that at least it's not wrong to break off the rail. Nor all that right. Yes, I am typing from a gov't job. It's the only one left.

 

[peter_gunn]

i,m for controlled, not to powerfull break:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVuafupnt9Y
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

 

[okinawa77]

The Breakspeed app uses sound to figure out the speed of a break. It listens to the sound of the tip hitting the cue ball and the sound of the cue ball hitting the rack and times how long the interval is in between those two events. If your friend clocked a 40mph break, he either is the hardest breaker in the world or you phone just mistook background noise for one of the sounds it is listening to. Also, it helps to have the settings for the cue ball and table size accurately entered in.

As for breaking from the short rail and breaking from the headstring, there are advantages for both.

Breaking from the rail offers a more comfortable bridge for most people and thus they can often get more power and maybe a more accurate stroke.

Breaking from the headstring offers the advantage in that it is closer and, consequently, less travel time. This may not seem like much, but being closer helps with accuracy (would you rather shoot a 5 foot shot or a 7 foot shot?) and there is a slight loss of speed to friction which, given a shorter distance, is smaller when you are closer to the rack.

Considering the pros all have extremely accurate strokes, their stroke is most likely the same no matter where they break from, thus bridging from the short rail offers only a disadvantage in being at a longer distance. I believe that is why you never see the pros breaking from the short rail.

Breaking from the rail on the headstring is a whole different story, however. Breaking from the rail on the headstring makes it easier to make the wing ball in 9 ball due to the mechanics of the diamond shaped rack.

I experienced similiar readings. So, when I looked at the data screen of the sound chart, one of the start or end indicators was off target. I manually moved the indicator, and it was pretty close to my normal readings. This very rarely occurred. For the most part, the app is very reliable....but it is critical that you match your actual cue ball placement to the screen. And make sure you have the correct table size set up.

 

[pnettle]

Sorry I'm late to the party. Work has been keeping me exceptionally busy lately.

A few notes from the thread:

I clocked Evgeny Stalev's speed from Bob's post and his break was an amazing 32.47 from that video.

Breaking from the rail/slate - the folks that are saying that your comfort level effects your break speed are correct. Here are some other factors:

When you break from the rail, your cue stick is elevated a bit more, shooting the cue ball at a slightly sharper downward angle. This can cause the cue to bounce. Do you louse more speed by the high friction with the table which causes the ball to bounce (and the extra friction of when it eventually lands)? Or do you get more speed from having no friction while in the air? I don't know because I haven't measured it, but I'd be willing to bet you lose more energy hitting the ball into the table than with a level stroke.

Pro tip: If your practice environment is quiet, you can view the audio waveform and usually see if you are bouncing the cue ball - there will be a small spike in the audio where the ball lands between the tip/rack sounds. You can even get a sense of how far the bounce is from the rack. I use this trick to minimize bounces in my break.

The app measures the average speed, not trying to account for friction or determine the speed at point of impact. I've not measured this, but I've tested a lot of breaks - I would be surprised if, on the average break, if the ball loses more than a 10th of a MPH. My guess is that it's a few hundredths.

Regarding the radar/app comparisons: I would expect the radar gun to be a bit slower, because you can never measure at a zero-degree angle. Radar guns are also woefully inaccurate in most cases (how are you holding it?) I've seen as much as a 7MPH swing from a high quality radar gun because it was being used incorrectly and/or it was tuned incorrectly.

In fact, I'm pretty sure the records I've heard about (37MPH) for fastest break are because the radar gun gave an incorrect reading. I might consider offering a bounty on a 37MPH break if they can prove it using the app with me taking the readings and verifying the audio. I've seen enough that I just don't trust radar guns and with Break Speed you can at manually inspect the results to verify/disprove them.

About the 40MPH break report: The original version of the app was not as picky about what it considered a break shot as the current version is. Even still, an occasional echo or some other odd sound can trip it up (how often does your phone voice-dial the wrong number? Probably a lot more often than break speed mis-reads a break!) But with the app, don't forget to push the Edit Results button to verify and/or adjust that detection. You can actually fix a bad reading.

 

[pool101]

Thanks for the explanation, I just know I have seen the cue ball stall, and then accelerate after contact, which would tell me it had a source of power after it left the cue stick.
I agree that at break speed with the ball off the table a much as it is that spin has little effect, but the ball can actually accelerate after leaving the tip.

The cue tip has momentum (P). P=MV (momentum=mass times velocity.)
This momentum can be transferred to the cueball as either translational (sliding) or rotational (spinning, i.e. the topspin that you suggest might at some point become acceleration.) If you gain rotation, you lose translational energy. All other things being equal (assuming that using topspin would not necessarily somehow allow more momentum to be transferred due to difference in stroke technique), having some of your P go into topspin could lessen friction from cueball sliding. But the tip momentum would be delivered at tangents because you are hitting a round object; some of the force would be delivered into the table and lost as heat and vibration. Jewett is shaking his head right now because he knows how many variables we are talking about and Occam's razor has to come into play at some point, right Bob? Besides, there would not be time at break speed for the ball's topspin to convert into acceleration enough to make any difference. Add to this that, experimentally, topspin can only accelerate a cueball at 1.2 times the normal rate of rotation across the cloth. Complex enough for you? 1.2 times more roll over a fraction of a second of travel time could never compensate for wasting some of your force into the slate from hitting a round ball above center. The original question dealt with shooting off a rail causing less meat friction with the hand and apparently the break app has borne out experimentally that at least it's not wrong to break off the rail. Nor all that right. Yes, I am typing from a gov't job. It's the only one left.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

The greater the distance from the cue ball to the rack the greater potential for a faster break speed. Look at it this way. Can you reach a higher top speed in your car in 10 feet or 100 feet? Pros may not always place the cue ball as far away because they have such great control and precision. It's not always about break speed but how the balls spread more so.

This is fundamentally wrong. The cue ball achieves its maximum speed the instant it leaves the cue tip. There is no "acceleration" as it heads towards the rack. The greater the distance between the cueball and the rack, the greater potential there is for the cueball to *lose* speed, due to friction of the cloth. The car analogy is completely off, since the car has its own means of propulsion whereas the cue ball does not. A better analogy would be a bullet coming out of a gun. The bullet itself has no ability to speed up. It is simply launched by the explosion of gases in the barrel of the gun. The bullet will always have its highest velocity right as it leaves the barrel of the gun, not 10 feet or 100 feet down range.

The purpose for breaking from the headstring is all about control and accuracy. You are closer to the rack, which makes hitting the head ball slightly easier. But more importantly, you have room to make a stable bridge, and can exercise far better form for power breaking.

My observation of many many breakers tells me that it is a very rare individual that breaks from the end rail and has a good break. For whatever that's worth.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Would top spin not count as a power source?
As I posted my test the slowest speed was with draw, which could be from the added friction of the reverse spin.
If the draw slows the ball could top add acceleration?
Just asking, not saying that is the case.

I doubt the spin on the ball due to draw has an appreciable effect on the cueball speed. More likely the lower speeds with draw were due to the cueball being hit off center (low) which results in energy being wasted spinning the ball which could have been used to move it.

KMRUNOUT

 

[pool101]

You could very well be right about off center hit slowing the ball.
I do however believe that the cue ball with top spin will act as a power source and that the ball can gain speed.
Haven't you ever seen the cue ball hit the rack, bounce back, stall, and then accelerate through the rack.
I would think centrifugal force is at work to provide the power to propel it forward.

I doubt the spin on the ball due to draw has an appreciable effect on the cueball speed. More likely the lower speeds with draw were due to the cueball being hit off center (low) which results in energy being wasted spinning the ball which could have been used to move it.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

But....I've already been shown two examples here already showing that the rail break generates more speed. Hmmmmm.......I guess it's all in whoever does the breaking.

Maniac

Sorry, I don't mean to be critical, but the logic here is flawed. Nothing anyone has said so far does anything to suggest that a rail bridge is faster or slower than a closed bridge. You are comparing apples to oranges. Take any individual player. They surely have a preference on how to break. If they are into their break, I'm sure their preference and comfort will have far more effect on the speeds they can achieve. For example, I like to break from the headstring. I sometimes break very hard in 8 ball. I use a closed bridge. I would not be able to come close to my normal break speed with a rail bridge. This has nothing to do with the bridge. It has everything to do with my personal technique. I simply cannot control the cue stick the way I can with a closed bridge.

The point is that you can't compare the results of an individual player, since that player will have a technique built around one method or the other. It's even more meaningless to compare results from different players, for obvious reasons. I believe you might be asking the wrong question about this situation. You seem to be assuming that the reason the pros break from the headstring is related to speed. I disagree. I think it has everything to do with control and accuracy. Any effects of cloth, distance, "meaty fingers" producing friction, etc. are all likely to add up to a very small difference in cueball speed. I believe this difference is insignificant in evaluating the *quality* of the break. The differences in break speed from the folks who have posted so far are well withing normal statistical variance...by this I mean that the differences are small enough to be due to random chance. (The guy might have simply hit 10 less than perfect breaks yielding essentially meaningless data).

I'm not trying to knock your question. I'm just suggesting you look at it differently...I think it may help you understand the situation.

Hope it helps,

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

You could very well be right about off center hit slowing the ball.
I do however believe that the cue ball with top spin will act as a power source and that the ball can gain speed.
Haven't you ever seen the cue ball hit the rack, bounce back, stall, and then accelerate through the rack.
I would think centrifugal force is at work to provide the power to propel it forward.

I totally understand your line of reasoning here. I definitely agree with you that in a manner of speaking, any spin on the cueball is a "power" source, as it is able to move the ball and hence do work. However, the situation of the cueball hitting something that stops its forward motion (a ball, the whole rack) and then accelerating forward with topspin is totally different than the situation of the ball just being shot along the cloth (with topspin or whatever). There have been studies done showing that it is impossible to generate "overspin". By "overspin" I mean topspin that is any greater than the spin the ball would have as it rolls down the cloth. This may sound crazy--it did to me the first time I heard it. I immediately brought up your example of the ball stopping, spinning in place, and then accelerating. But this is something different. Apparently no matter how high you cue the ball, or how good you stroke, the ball will only have forward spin equal to rolling...in other words it will not "burn rubber" so to speak. Imagine a shot where the object ball is a foot away from the cue ball. You hit the cueball high, hard, and get monster follow action. All that is happening is that you are hitting the ball with a high speed. A ball rolling at high speed has a lot of forward spin. This forward spin is more than enough to really accelerate the ball briskly from a standstill.

I would say, though, that a sliding cue ball would certainly have much more friction with the cloth than a rolling ball. I think the sliding ball would lose more speed than the rolling or "topspinning" ball. However, the ball only touches the cloth a little bit on the way to the rack. I think this speed difference is irrelevant.

KMRUNOUT

 

[Maniac]

Sorry, I don't mean to be critical, but the logic here is flawed. Nothing anyone has said so far does anything to suggest that a rail bridge is faster or slower than a closed bridge. You are comparing apples to oranges. KMRUNOUT

Yes, that is what I wanted to do when I wrote my original post, compare apples to oranges. (headstring/closed bridge versus breaking from the head rail). I have heard the argument that breaking from the headstring generates more break speed because the cueball has to travel a shorter distance before it contacts the rack. I have a notion that the closed bridge curtails the cue from moving/sliding as freely thus causing friction from the meat of the fingers and therefore slowing down the cue and generating less cueball speed. Not to mention that we are talking mere INCHES difference from the cueball to the rack using either break location. I asked for persons with the break speed app to do an experiment for me. Some of those that did found the rail bridge to generate more break speed while some found that it made little difference.

Cueball control had NOTHING to do with the experiment I wanted done. I know why most people break from the headstring. I just wanted some data on break SPEEDS.

So no, the logic here isn't flawed. It's just DATA. Simple as that.

Maniac

 

[justadub]

If i ever get my son's iPhone away from him long enough to try it, I'll certainly see what I can find.

Of course the odds of that aren't great. Better odds of me eventually getting one, but not great odds there either.

I liked your question, and am curious about it as well. As a result of reading the thread I decided to try breaking off the back rail for a while to see if I felt any difference in power. Quite un-scientific, of course. Eight-ball, also. I eventually felt that I could generate a bit more power, but I wasn't as comfortable with the accuracy. Which isn't surprising. I just don't have the data to support it, only a feeling.

Oh those silly smart-phones.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Yes, that is what I wanted to do when I wrote my original post, compare apples to oranges. (headstring/closed bridge versus breaking from the head rail).

OK, with you so far...

I have heard the argument that breaking from the headstring generates more break speed because the cueball has to travel a shorter distance before it contacts the rack.

OK...so this makes sense to me if you are talking about the concept that the ball is in contact with the cloth for a shorter distance, thus reducing the overall friction that works to slow the cueball. However, I think most everyone would agree that the difference of 1 foot of cloth travel on the ball is *very* small, probably negligible.

and I have a notion that the closed bridge curtails the cue from moving/sliding as freely thus causing friction from the meat of the fingers and therefore slowing down the cue and generating less cueball speed.

This may be the case for you. However, I strongly doubt it is the case for everyone. My break shaft is very smooth. My bridge hand is always clean and dry. My fingers are somewhat slender and the shape of my bridge causes only a tiny amount of skin on my knuckle to contact the shaft. I would say that there is *very* little friction in my closed bridge. Thus I think your notion is more applicable to particular people (apples) rather than a particular break style (oranges).

Not to mention that we are talking mere INCHES difference from the cueball to the rack using either break location. I asked for persons with the break speed app to do an experiment for me. Some of those that did found the rail bridge to generate more break speed while some found that it made little difference.

And you are prepared to believe that those differences are attributable to the break style rather than to differences in the people? Based on the data offered, that would not be particularly scientific.

Cueball control had NOTHING to do with the experiment I wanted done. I know why most people break from the headstring. I just wanted some data on break SPEEDS.

OK. I guess what threw me was when you specifically asked in your original post "why wouldn't more pros use this method whenever the situation calls for more power?" That question sounded like you did *not* know why, and were looking for some explanations. Numerous people mentioned that the accuracy and control is better from the headstring, and suggested that was why the pros do it that way.

So no, the logic here isn't flawed. It's just DATA. Simple as that.

My mistake again. I thought you were attempting to draw a conclusion from your data. As long as it all stays "just data", then I agree there is no flawed logic. If you attempted to use this "data" to support the statement that breaking from the end rail produces more speed than from the headstring (or the opposite), that is where the flawed logic creeps in.

I thought you were interested in determining the answer to this question. If you believe that question can be answered by having people try each with their break speed app and report the results, then you either do or do not recognize the flaw in that sort of experiment. There are too many uncontrolled variables. Differences in people (anatomically, what styles they are comfortable with, etc.) completely destroy the usefulness of this data. I don't doubt that there might be some experiment that could be designed to show if breaking from the headstring offers more or less power, but this one isn't it.

If you simply want data, hopefully more people will sound off and give you some. I have the break speed app on my blackberry, but it is really crappy compared to the iPhone version. I would be interested to see my results. My guess is that I would average about 23-25 breaking from the headstring, and probably about 19-20 breaking from the rail (since I'm not at all comfortable with that style and can't move the cue with the same confidence). If I get the iPhone I will definitely post you my results.

Good luck figuring this out, its definitely an interesting concept.

KMRUNOUT

 

[hunger strike]

I don't like to be critical on here, BUT.....

Thanks for the explanation, I just know I have seen the cue ball stall, and then accelerate after contact, which would tell me it had a source of power after it left the cue stick.
I agree that at break speed with the ball off the table a much as it is that spin has little effect, but the ball can actually accelerate after leaving the tip.

Ok, if you want to get me on a technicality, a topspinning cueball of course accelerates after it hits the RACK, but you admit yourself that this is after it STALLS subsequent to hitting the stack. If you read my post again you will hopefully come to understand that some of that topspin that made the cueball accelerate after hitting the rack would have gone into TRANSLATIONAL ENERGY to smash the rack if the cueball was hit center and level. Some topspin can happen from the friction across the cloth, but this thread is about high break speeds where that would be negligible. Soooooo many variables.