Greg Kennedy doing 9 balls in cone
rhalf
doubtful anyone who saw this video didn't subscribed to Greg's channel
imediately. Anyway I think it has to be posted here. No doubt it does!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkQ17K2ARzI
--
----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==----
Aymeric
> But you know... there's stil Kennedy's video that needs some attention.
Were you talking about this one? ;)
A.
rhalf
>
> rhalf wrote:
> > But you know... there's stil Kennedy's video that needs some attention.
>
> Were you talking about this one? ;)
>
> A.
>
Yes. You brought me relief. I owe you.
andanother
people in the world who can juggle a 9 ball cascade for a minute?
To me that's amazing.
---
In an inverted cone it's gravity assisted, but it's not like it's
mechanically assisted. As far as I know no one else can even get close
even with a "gravity assisted" technique.
Brian Campbell
(andanother) wrote:
> Am I right that regardless of type of juggling Greg is one of only 2
> people in the world who can juggle a 9 ball cascade for a minute?
>
> To me that's amazing.
>
> ---
> In an inverted cone it's gravity assisted, but it's not like it's
> mechanically assisted. As far as I know no one else can even get close
> even with a "gravity assisted" technique.
It is pretty amazing. I would have guessed that there would be some
people who could do a 9-ball lift bounce for a while, but according to
http://www.bouncepage.com/records.htm the record for 9 ball lift
bounce is 32 seconds.
-- Brian
Dave Cheetham
>
> In an inverted cone it's gravity assisted, but it's not like it's
> mechanically assisted.
>
That depends on how you define 'mechanically assisted'. Personally, I
feel that as the balls roll on the cone's internal surface this "removes a
dimension" from the pattern, and would thus be classified as a substantial
assistance.
I'm not trying to take anything away from Greg here. It's a brilliant
effort. I wouldn't, however, put it in the same technical skill category
as nine ball toss or bounce.
Cheers,
Dave
Scott Seltzer
>
> Am I right that regardless of type of juggling Greg is one of only 2
> people in the world who can juggle a 9 ball cascade for a minute?
>
> To me that's amazing.
>
> ---
> In an inverted cone it's gravity assisted, but it's not like it's
> mechanically assisted. As far as I know no one else can even get close
> even with a "gravity assisted" technique.
The bounce record for 9 is 32 seconds. That's gravity assisted. I don't
know what Antonio Bucci's record is with 9, but I thought that in his
prime he could do 9 for longer (and if you extrapolate his 7 and 8 minute
records it seems entirely possible).
The only other gravity assisted juggling I could think of is also Greg's:
Hemisphere.
Both examples have a few main advantages that I think make them not
comparable to numbers toss juggling at all:
1. Gravity assisted as you said.
2. The balls are doing multiple circles so it's more the equivalent of a
double (or was he doing triple?) bounce.
3. Multiple bounce is limited by space and very collision prone, but conic
circumvents that (no pun intended) by being non-planar.
I'm not discounting the feats at all. It's not only beautiful but
certainly required a lot of skill to learn. I just don't think it can
compare to toss juggling in the least.
Both bounce juggling and this gravity (and surface) assisted stuff are
more robotic than toss juggling. They mostly seem to require excellent
rhythm and precision drops or soft releases which I think are probably
easier to control, particularly for long periods since there is less
fatigue, than numbers juggling which requires more strength and endurance.
-Scott
Peter Bone
Agreed. Also, I was thinking that as the balls travel around the narrow
bottom part of the cone, their positional error is reduced. You can see
error in the initial throws but not in the position just before the catch.
I could be wrong and haven't thought much about the physics.
Still, it did look amazing and must require a lot of very specific skill
that can't be acquired from other forms of juggling.
Pete
Ewano
>
> The only other gravity assisted juggling I could think of is also Greg's:
> Hemisphere.
>
> Both examples have a few main advantages that I think make them not
> comparable to numbers toss juggling at all:
> 1. Gravity assisted as you said.
> 2. The balls are doing multiple circles so it's more the equivalent of a
> double (or was he doing triple?) bounce.
> 3. Multiple bounce is limited by space and very collision prone, but conic
> circumvents that (no pun intended) by being non-planar.
I have played with juggling on non flat planer conic surfaces before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxy4ucu5xAY
I have to disagree with point 3 as although you may think is a non planer
system it actually is. The plane my be distorted, but is is still a plane
- bounce and toss juggling are in fact closer to a non planer system than
surface rolling because you can move the position of your throw in three
dimensions.
As to if this makes it easier or not...
The biggest problem I had with rolled eliptical patterns was timing. The
length of one throw is based on it's roll time which remains a constant -
you have to alter the throw rate to achieve higher numbers of rolled
objects. There is no correcting throw you can make to bring the timing
back in line.
My *suspicion* is that it is easier to judge the timing for a linear cone
because the the slope remains contant from throw to catch - in a non
linear cone (like a gravity well) the timing is harder to judge because
the rate of assisted gravitational acceleraton changes as the ball moves
along the surface.
> I'm not discounting the feats at all. It's not only beautiful but
> certainly required a lot of skill to learn. I just don't think it can
> compare to toss juggling in the least.
I tried 3,5,7,ans 9 ball patterns - and also some passing patterns with
Luke Burrage.
Of all the patterns I could only get enough feedback with 5 and 7 balls to
run the patterns for a reasonable length. 9 was simply too fast, 3 was too
slow to judge the timing. I would have liked to spend more time
investigating passing, but time was ticking..
Collisions with even numbers were too complex to work on and achieve
results in the time available.
> Both bounce juggling and this gravity (and surface) assisted stuff are
> more robotic than toss juggling. They mostly seem to require excellent
> rhythm and precision drops or soft releases which I think are probably
> easier to control, particularly for long periods since there is less
> fatigue, than numbers juggling which requires more strength and endurance.
I would agree - although I would say the consistency and accuracy required
is greater than that of toss juggling in these cases as it is impossible
to make adjustments to an individual balls roll time by throwing a
slightly higher throw to correct some element of the pattern. Of course
that could be due to my lack of practice time with rolled patterns
compared to thrown.
Another lovely video of rolled patterns is Ken Nishimura's marbles on a
chair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt32QNtH98c
Ewano - who wishes he had a chair like Ken's...
Scott Seltzer
> The biggest problem I had with rolled eliptical patterns was timing. The
> length of one throw is based on it's roll time which remains a constant -
> you have to alter the throw rate to achieve higher numbers of rolled
> objects. There is no correcting throw you can make to bring the timing
> back in line.
I had to think about that a lot and maybe now understand what you're
talking about. Do you mean that if you were to roll the ball faster or
slower it would not just alter the speed through the pattern, but the
shape of the pattern itself? So, a speed correction might cause a major
shape change requiring a catch in a totally different place? The required
precision would certainly explain my observation that it was so robotic
looking. Fascinating.
-Scott
Boppo
wrote:
A cycloid has the property that no matter where you release a puck on
it, the puck arrives at the bottom center in the same interval of
time. (It's also the minimum-time surface.) So if you rolled two
balls up towards a cycloidal ramp but at different velocities, they
would nevertheless return to your hands after the same length of
time. (Siteswaps would be hard on such a surface!)
So, there are throw-strength-error-correcting surfaces. There are
also throw-angle-error-correcting surfaces: for example, the channel.
There might be a way to combine them to make a surface that corrects
both errors - which would make a great surface on which to roll high
numbers. I hereby posit the existence of such a surface. You could
come out and juggle 1 or 13, and people would think you'd practiced
such tricks for a looooong time. But actually, the juggling would be
easy; what would have consumed your time would have been figuring out
the desired surface, and then making it accurately enough to exhibit
the desired properties.
-boppo
Jay Linn
news:09d068ed-3131-4bf4...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
I would guess that long runs of 9 have been achieved on inclined planes
such as billiard tables, and possibly also on those curved funnel-shaped
devices that I've forgotten the name of (Ewan would know - he played with
one at the Scottish a few years ago). I also know of someone who ran an
eight ball lift bounce for a minute straight *every day* as part of their
practice regime, and I don't suppose long runs of 9 would seem too difficult
from that baseline.
--
Jay Linn
Semper eadem.
Ewano
>
> I would guess that long runs of 9 have been achieved on inclined planes
> such as billiard tables, and possibly also on those curved funnel-shaped
> devices that I've forgotten the name of (Ewan would know - he played with
> one at the Scottish a few years ago).
Gravity Well or Hyperbolic Funnel or Coin Catcher..
Ewano - who looked into buying one and nearly had a heart attack over it...
Guidob
>
> Ewano - who looked into buying one and nearly had a heart attack over it...
>
Why did you? How much is a come like Greg Kennedy's one?
andanother
>
>
> >
> > Ewano - who looked into buying one and nearly had a heart attack over it...
> >
>
> Why did you? How much is a come like Greg Kennedy's one?
>
I'm sure someone with some free time could make a nice "Greg Kennedy" cone
from parts available at a DIY store.
IMO most jugglers feel that Greg's creation is too damn BIG for their
house...
---
Of course Ewano meant this cone(from his other post on this topic)
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxy4ucu5xAY
Aymeric
I think you guys should go and hav a look at this one:
http://juggling.tv/video/3185/helsinki-2
Enjoy :)
Aymeric.
andanother
Brain ceased to function correctly.
I seriously didn't expect people to actually compare rolled and toss
juggling. The way I see it is with 9 objects there are limits on a humans
abilities for visual and "metronomic" perception that combined with
intersecting trajectories make such a pattern absurdly difficult to
continue the pattern for 60 seconds.
For me that is the only observation I can make. Physically there is no
comparison.
Thank you all for the excellent and informative responses.
andanother
> from parts available at a DIY store.
>
> IMO most jugglers feel that Greg's creation is too damn BIG for their
> house...
Downplaying how clever I think Greg's work is has done nothing for my
popularity on here.
Only Greg knows how much his creation cost & how much it is worth. I
personally would pay to see it, if his show was on in the UK.
Boppo
wrote:
Sorry about causing malfunctions in your brain.
I completely agree that toss juggling and roll juggling aren't
comparable in terms of difficulty.
I wonder if Greg mentally keeps track of all 9 objects when he rolls
them, or if instead he sorts of forgets about them when they go behind
him, but it merely expecting them to come around when they do.
Although toss jugglers don't usually see their hands when doing 9, you
certainly know where your hands are, and you feel those balls that are
in your hands - so you certainly have the presence of all 9 within
your direct awareness. But in the rolling cone case, you certainly
could neglect the ones behind you, in which case you would only have
to keep five or so objects within your awareness at any time, instead
of all 9. So it could be simpler on that level too, besides the less
effort aspect, but not necessarily.
-boppo
andanother
What got me was whether you were actually describing Greg's cone or not...
> But in the rolling cone case, you certainly
> could neglect the ones behind you
When juggling 5 or 7 does any juggler with a clean pattern care about
anything but the balls that have just peaked?
> five or so objects within your awareness at any time
only 5, all well within his peripheral vision... bonus
>So it could be simpler on that level too
Thanks to the altered places in which they cross on his "non-planar"
mapped cone. He gets to check the crossing points as the balls are slowing
down but there is no re-acceleration unlike with toss or bounce. With a
much wider gap for his cascade to pass.
It's almost like he took a graph of the bell curve trajectory of a ball
and made a surface that would effectively make that graph (closer to)
linear... Genius.
Thanks Boppo
Boppo
wrote:
Fixing two typos in the first sentence of the long paragraph in my
previous post:
"I wonder if Greg mentally keeps track of all 9 objects when he rolls
them, or if instead he sort of forgets about them when they go behind
him, but merely expecting them to come around when they do."
I may be atypical, but when I juggle 5 or 7, I keep all of them in my
awareness. I get the most accurate information at the peaks, but for
example I sometimes expect a collision long before it happens. (I
know where I want the balls to go, but as is the case with my messy
handwriting, my hands don't always^H^H^H^H^H^H usually move the way I
intend them to.) Another example comes with my experience juggling
partially-filled street-hockey balls, a long time ago. These were
about 1/3 full of sand, and this sand considerably outweighed the
empty balls. If you spun them, the balls would wobble because the
sand all went to one side so the center of gravity was far from the
center of the ball. So I could make an entire 5 or 7 cascade wobble
in flight, perhaps a neat effect. (I never saw it on film or others
do it, so I don't know how it actually came across.) But I would have
been unable to appreciate the pattern wobble unless I could apprehend
the whole pattern while juggling it - just paying attention to each
ball as it peaked wouldn't have been enough.
Whether, when toss juggling, you attend to all the balls in your
pattern or not, the fact remains that when rolling in a cone, about
half the objects are invisible, behind you, so the visual complexity
of the task is surely less. I remain curious whether he forms a
mental image (sort of like pattern-proprioception) of those balls that
are behind him, mentally keeping track of all 9, or if he just forgets
about them completely. Part of the reason I *like* numbers juggling
is to create, sustain and experience this complexity right in front of
me. Siteswaps add another level of complexity, the balls get mixed up
but it works out anyway. If I were to roll in a cone, I think I would
feel a bit cheated that I could see everything I was doing, but there
would probably be a counteracting appreciation of the balls returning
to my sight in positions where I expected them. But, I've never done
it and am only guessing.
Incidentally, I admire Greg for his creativity and accomplishment, no
disrespect whatever is intended. However, that said, I don't think
rolling 9 is anything like the difficulty of tossing 9.
-boppo
Aymeric
As you so rightly point out, for toss juggling, the most accurate
information is gathered at the peak.
Greg misses all that information in the cone. He only sees the launching
of the balls and, supposedly,
this is the only information available to him on the ball's trajectory
before it reaches back in his field
of vision at the bottom.
That might make a big difference on the overall difficulty, don't you
think?
Aymeric.
Boppo
I think you have it backwards.
The maximum information point is indeed at the peak, but that's
because the vertical velocity is zero, so the overall velocity is
minimum. (You only have the remaining and small horizontal velocity -
which is all you see when you film a cascade from underneath: a
gradual drift of balls back and forth, which is neat to watch.) Since
the velocity is minimum, you get the best positional information - you
can really see where the balls are.
In the toss-juggling cascade, that also happens to be at the midpoint
of the airtime, halfway between throw and catch.
In Greg's case, the midpoint is invisible, behind him, but this is
where the balls are lowest, and therefore moving the fastest of all.
That would be the worst place to obtain accurate positional
information - imagine trying to bounce juggle when you could only see
the ground and what was a few inches above it - terrible! In bounce
juggling, the summits, where the vertical velocity is zero, is right
next to your hands, and conveniently right in front of you. For his
Greg's case too, once again, the best place to watch is where the
vertical velocity is zero = where the balls are highest. Looking
again at the video, this is rather a bit off the sides of straight
ahead of him, but probably well within his peripheral vision. He
doesn't appear to be watching there, however. It looks to me like
he's watching the incoming rolls, before he catches them. Since these
catches are well above the lowest point of the pattern (unlike in the
toss case) their velocity is well below their peak. The poor toss
juggler has to catch the balls at their fastest, while getting
information from the place that is farthest away from him, a double
whammy. Plus, he has to support the entire weight of the pattern,
instead of merely making up losses in rolling or bouncing, as the case
may be. Since the overall height of a bounce juggler is equal or less
than of a toss juggling (numbers) pattern, the bouncer's throw rate is
perhaps fastest of all, although the throws are very low. The roll
time corresponds to a really high air toss, which slows the pattern a
lot more than in the toss case, in addition to the rolls requiring
much more gentle motions compared to tosses. Finally, of course the
throws have to be accurately placed in three dimensions spatially,
plus given the right (high) speed, while the rolls only have to be
placed accurately on a two dimensional surface, plus given the right
(much lower) speed.
So, no. I think rolling 9 is very, very much easier than tossing 9.
-boppo
Aymeric
Aha. Indeed. Thanks for the clarifications :)
Little Paul
>
>> Gravity Well or Hyperbolic Funnel or Coin Catcher..
>>
>
> Why did you?
Because hyperbolic funnels of any size are pretty tricky beasts to
manufacture (the DIY approaches Ewan and I brainstormed a while back
would themselves have cost a *lot* in materials, and we'd have ended
up with something heavy, fragile, not particularly easy to move or
store.
There are people making them for science museums etc, but because
they're tricky to make and the market is so small - they're very
expensive indeed. See http://www.gumballs.com/vortex.html for one
example - it's not exactly "toy money"
They get cheaper as they get smaller, but as they get smaller they
become less interesting from a juggling point of view.
> How much is a come like Greg Kennedy's one?
Gregs cone is a lot easier to manufacture as it is a straight sided
cone (you could effectively make it out of a flat sheet), but you're
still looking at a couple of hundred to knock one together yourself,
and them you have to find somewhere to keep it...
-Paul
--
http://paulseward.com
Jack Kalvan
with one of he great minds in juggling (Boppo's)
It has been a long held belief that we get most of our information by
looking at the peaks of the balls. However I now believe this has been
overstated. When it really comes to catching a ball, I think we get
most of the information from seeing the ball's descent toward the
hand.
We really don't plan very far ahead when we catch. When juggling 3
balls, you see a ball reach its peak and that is the next ball you
have to catch. With 5 balls, if you look at each peaks, you still see
the next ball you have to catch with each hand. When you're juggling 7
balls, you start to get the situation of catching balls that were not
the last ball you saw peak. At 9 balls I think it makes sense to focus
lower in the pattern. (I gave up 9 balls a while ago. Maybe some 9
ball jugglers can give their opinion on this.)
I think as numbers increase, the juggler depends more and more on
seeing the balls on the way down, after the peak. Imagine juggling 25
balls. I doubt you would look at the peaks at all. I think you would
focus on the next few balls that need to be caught, approaching your
hands.
Jack.
Boppo
Why is it dangerous to disagree with me? I don't bite.
Usually, anyway.
However, I do disagree, at least in part.
First, as a matter of credentials: Although I have (barely) qualified
9 years ago, I have not done so within the last decade or so. That
said, I have recently qualified 8 quite a few times, and I am
presently attempting to requalify 9, this time on film. (You can
expect my battle with 9 on Youtube in the future.) So I have both
memories of the past and some recent experience on which to draw. I
can still get well past a flash with 9, and a very few recent tries
exceeded 18 throws but I didn't get them all.
I look at or near the peaks, which is incidentally near the crossing
point, where you see the near misses there and you also throw heights,
which give good timing information about when the catch of those balls
is going to need to be. That said, I certainly do attend to my
peripheral vision's input regarding the positions of the incoming
throws, but only peripherally, and as far as I can tell, only for my
own entertainment of attending to all the balls in the pattern, which
fills my mind with gratifying complexity. But I don't need to do this
to juggle: I have enough memory to know where the catches are going to
be, a few balls in the future. The analogy I like to draw about the
situation is of carrying a large box, while walking on cobblestones.
The box is so big, you can't see your feet nor even where your next
step or two is going to be, you can only see three or four, and more,
steps in the future. Yet under the circumstances you can still walk
on top of the stones (where it's easy and you won't twist your ankle)
because you form a mental image of where the next steps are as they
vanish from view going under the box, and you have enough mental
capacity to store a few steps into the future, so you know where you
are stepping even though you haven't seen that particular place in
several steps. Have you ever done this? I have. (A test for mental
capacity, proprioception, and coordination generally would be to see
how big the box can be - how far the nearest place you can see is, and
still be able to step on the places you choose. I haven't measured
this for myself but I think it's at least 4 steps, two on each side,
but it might be more or less. It's certainly at least two, one step on
each side.)
I just tried an experiment, juggling five balls while looking straight
up, so my hands and a decent amount of space above my hands aren't
even visible. I could still do it. I suspect that someone could put
a partition between my cascade and me, blocking all my view except the
top, and I could still do it, probably even with seven balls. That
would make an interesting experiment but it will have to wait for
another day.
Even when trying 11 back in the 90s, I would still look at the top and
not anywhere near my hands. I have recently tried some 11-rich
siteswaps as part of my effort to do 9, and in those patterns too I'd
look at the top. I don't know where I'd look if I could juggle 25,
but my sincere guess is still at the top. The mind has some capacity
to sort and store information on a short-term basis, and in the
vicinity of the top is where the information is simplest to extract.
But, maybe you'd need to be able to plan your walking 13 steps in the
future (~25/2) in order to be able to do this, apart from the rather
daunting accuracy and strength requirements needed to juggle 25, which
might well be yet another reason it would be humanly impossible. But
there the peripheral vision would still be present, even if you were
looking right at the top.
-boppo
Boppo
By the way, front crosses and ass catches are examples of tricks in
which most of the arc can't be seen after the peaks. There are even a
few videos of people doing 3 entirely behind the back, but peeking at
the tops of the arcs either by looking straight up or looking side to
side like one does with crotch throws. (I can't do them, however.)
Admittedly these are 3-object cascades (and not 7 or 9) so you might
say you expected this.
Another bit of evidence that does pertain to your number requirement
is when people juggle that many, while bouncing a ball on their head,
or balancing a pole. True, this limits the field to Gatto, Evsukevich
and just a few others, but wouldn't their experience count?
I gotta try the juggling-behind-a-curtain trick. I will need to see
more than just the tippy top, first because I will need to see each
ball for a little while to judge the horizontal velocity, and second
because my patterns aren't so clean that I will necessarily be able to
see all the balls with a given curtain height. So the curtain will
have to top out a bit lower than you might like, but still high enough
that you will agree that I certainly can't see the balls "right
before" I catch them.
You should try this too.
-boppo
Mats1
What happens when balls collide? Can we still watch the top of the
pattern, or do we move our eyes to the site of the collision? If we do
move our eyes, how do we compensate for the balls we haven't seen at the
optimum time? Also, what about when throws go too far to the left and
right, we have to shift our gaze then? A single collision doesn't seem to
be enough to end a pattern (unless it's 8+ or a really bad collision).
Dave Cheetham
>
> I gotta try the juggling-behind-a-curtain trick. I will need to see
> more than just the tippy top, first because I will need to see each
> ball for a little while to judge the horizontal velocity, and second
> because my patterns aren't so clean that I will necessarily be able to
> see all the balls with a given curtain height. So the curtain will
> have to top out a bit lower than you might like, but still high enough
> that you will agree that I certainly can't see the balls "right
> before" I catch them.
>
I was thinking of how to do this in an easy fashion. I think, rather than
a curtain, how about wearing glasses with something covering the bottom
half? It'd be relatively easy to control how much of the pattern you can
and can't see, and it'll disrupt your hands less than a curtain would.
Cheers,
Dave
Boppo
wrote:
That's not a bad idea, although I was thinking of a bath towel wrapped
around a curtain rod and held by a volunteer to drape over my
forearms. I don't think it would be much interference, and anyway you
can control how much towel there is by winding it up or unwinding it
from the rod.
-boppo
Boppo
It would probably help to be able to look lower in a pattern during
collisions, but I will be the first to admit that when a pattern
crashes, I usually drop. Nice saves are the exception rather than the
rule, and sometimes they're just a matter of dumb luck making a wild
catch way out there, that happens to work. My comments above were
about normal patterns.
By the way, thank you.
-boppo
Sam Malcolm
If you attend a certain juggling club in your area Bruce, more than a few
people will be willing to help :)
Boppo
samuel_malcolm_fire_danc...@rocketmail.com.nospam.com (Sam Malcolm)
wrote:
Unfortunately it's right at my kids's bedtime. (Note to grammar
police: I have two kids.)
-boppo
Dave Cheetham
>
> Unfortunately it's right at my kids's bedtime. (Note to grammar
> police: I have two kids.)
>
As a grammar PI, wouldn't that be "my kids' bedtime"?
Dave
Boppo
wrote:
Not according to Strunk & White, but then again, English was one of my
worst subjects. So my statement wasn't meant to preempt the grammar
police but rather inform them.
There might be some possibility of a weekday afternoon some day that I
could sneak away and go meet up with a special session of a local
juggling club, however.
-boppo
Jay Linn
news:slrnhglp7j...@newsteel.resnet.bris.ac.uk...
> On 2009-11-19, Guidob <guidoj...@alice.it.nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gravity Well or Hyperbolic Funnel or Coin Catcher..
>>>
>>> Ewano - who looked into buying one and nearly had a heart attack over
>>> it...
>>
>> Why did you?
>
> Because hyperbolic funnels of any size are pretty tricky beasts to
> manufacture (the DIY approaches Ewan and I brainstormed a while back
> would themselves have cost a *lot* in materials, and we'd have ended
> up with something heavy, fragile, not particularly easy to move or
> store.
LP, do you have a good way of generating a suitable profile? Or a link
describing the mathematics of profiling the curve?
Boppo
wrote:
> "Little Paul" <use...@lpbk.net> wrote in message
>
> news:slrnhglp7j...@newsteel.resnet.bris.ac.uk...
>
>
> >>> Gravity Well or Hyperbolic Funnel or Coin Catcher..
>
> >>> Ewano - who looked into buying one and nearly had a heart attack over
> >>> it...
>
> >> Why did you?
>
> > Because hyperbolic funnels of any size are pretty tricky beasts to
> > manufacture (the DIY approaches Ewan and I brainstormed a while back
> > would themselves have cost a *lot* in materials, and we'd have ended
> > up with something heavy, fragile, not particularly easy to move or
> > store.
>
> LP, do you have a good way of generating a suitable profile? Or a link
> describing the mathematics of profiling the curve?
>
> --
> Jay Linn
>
> Semper eadem.
Gravity goes like 1/r^2, so the coin-rolling black holes in museums
and shopping centers are the figure of revolution of this function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
-boppo
Sam Malcolm
Alright, well maybe I will have to convince some jugglers in the area to
have an earlier club sometime. I can open the place up if we get a few
people to throw in a couple dollars. Whenever is a good time for you we
could probably figure something out.
~Sam
Michael Falkov
I just tried juggling 5 while looking up. Not much harder. The balls were
peaking ~40% of the distance from the bottom of my field of vision to the
top. I noticed that part of the flight path was visible alongside a blind
area created by my cheekbones.
I did some more trials, this time narrowing the pattern to hide a good
deal more of the flightpath behind my zygomatic "curtains." Its a bit more
awkward, but I don't normally juggle a very narrow cascade - still plenty
doable.
Next, I rolled my eyes backward so that the balls peaked about 10% from my
lower FOV, maintaining the narrow pattern. This was a good deal more
difficult, my runs were consistently short. It still felt like something I
could get used to quickly.
Finally, I juggled a normal, comfortable cascade and lowered my eyes until
the peaks just disappeared. All of a sudden, it felt like I was juggling
blind. I think it might be a bit easier if I were juggling somewhere with
better lighting and with balls that weren't the same color as the walls,
but the difference was DRASTIC.
Just for fun, I reran the the last "looking up" trial, while blinking
rapidly, so that I was getting even less information about the pattern.
Still about as doable, and kind of novel, I think I'll play with it more.
I tried blinking rapidly with the peaks just out of sight, no difference,
it still felt ~blind.
So, it seems that, at least for the ways I tend to perceive my patterns
and collect data from them, the peak is by far the most information rich.
Mats1
(usually at 3s) then back up. You tend to miss the peak of the higher
throw (or some of the higher throws) and it's so much harder to juggle
because of it.
Michael Falkov
>
> Perhaps the hardest siteswaps are ones which require you to look down
> (usually at 3s) then back up. You tend to miss the peak of the higher
> throw (or some of the higher throws) and it's so much harder to juggle
> because of it.
>
I've tended to do these siteswaps, such as 933, with blind 3s or with
higher tosses (so that I can just see the 3s peak). My approach depends on
my state of mind at the time and how much vertical space I have to work
with. If I feel sharp, I'll usually do the 3s blind. If I don't feel as
sharp I'll toss higher if I have room, or if I don't, I'll do some
siteswap drills to warm up my "low and blind 3 tossing" ability. I suppose
if I just took some time to get my standard blind cascade solid and fast,
I would have a foundation that precluded the need for this variation.
I have only occasionally looked down for low tosses under high ones, and
actually, I enjoyed it. It gave me a feeling of additional visual
complexity which, like Bruce, I find intrinsically satisfying. The trick
seemed to be minimizing the time taken to gather sufficient trajectory
info for the low tosses and maximizing the amount of time-attention I had
available for the rest of the pattern. I'll do some more of this. Thanks
for facilitating that. :)
I wonder how significantly an interest in escalating complexity with
evolving intelligibility is correlated with an interest (potential or
actual) in juggling. We do seem like a geeky bunch, or, rather, relatively
intelligent and knowledgeable people who are drawn to challenges and
growth in at least a few areas of our life. That's what/who I've
encountered for the most part, more or less.
edward
>
> Perhaps the hardest siteswaps are ones which require you to look down
> (usually at 3s) then back up. You tend to miss the peak of the higher
> throw (or some of the higher throws) and it's so much harder to juggle
> because of it.
>
I love these ones but I'm not good enough with the high throws to do them
yet :(
Boppo
wrote:
I have the opposite problem - I can do high throws pretty well, but I
absolutely suck at patterns with 3s. It's humbling to see people like
Matt Tiffany get 100 catches with lots of patterns like 663 and 753
when I have never been able to do them as much as four or five times
in a row, and I usually can't do them two or three times in a row.
On the other hand I am pleased to have gotten 6: 78889191888171
indoors a few times (isolated, not connected) two days ago. Since it
was the first day I've tried to do it (indoors) it rates easier for me
than 5:663 does, given that I can't do 14 throws of 663 in a row but
the above trick is 14 throws just once through.
I had always identified the problem with 3s as being the need to look
down to catch them - ergo, I miss the peaks. (I can't juggle 3 blind
at all.) Ironically, I find it easier to do patterns with 9s and 3s
than with 6s and 3s, because I can get enough information on the way
up and on the way down to get the 9, but if I miss just a short key
piece of a 6, I miss it. (This doesn't apply to 633 which is done at
a much slower throw rate, so the 6s are then high enough to get.) But
that said I still suck at patterns with 3s.
(I also have troubles with 0s and 2s. I have some autopilot
instincts, and throwing when nothing is coming to that hand, resulting
in a 0, breaks one of my autopilot rules, and not throwing a ball when
it's time to breaks another. So I have to really concentrate to not
flub those. There are a few that I have learned to do, like 5: 8552
and 5: a55550, but when I try random siteswaps with 0s and 2s I
usually stumble badly.)
-boppo
Adam Rowney
> I've tended to do these siteswaps, such as 933, with blind 3s
Same, I pretty much never look down on my patterns,
or if I do, Im learning the pattern, and I soon stop.