Platinum Billiards' deflection chart
Gregory
Chart reflects squirt for an average 9 mm offset
over 50". Not sure, but probably the offsets were
measured to cue center line, which would correspond
to actual average offset (contact point) of 6.8 mm.
The lowest squirt measured was a Predator Z at
34.3 mm.
6.8 / 34.3 * 50 = 9.9" spp.
Seems like something is screwy.
Newsposts1
> Seems like something is screwy.
Yeah .... something is definitely awry .... but not for the reasons
you think.
Like all other tests for deflection, this one is fatally flawed
because it does not discuss impact velocity and changes in deflection
versus impact velocity.
The key to a decent cue is that its deflection characteristics stay
the same throughout a typical range of playing velocities.
IOW, with a tip offset of 6mm, the amount of deflection (whether large
or small) should be very consistent as the impact velocity varies from
some value "x" to "1.25x", "1.5x" and so on up to about "2x" or "3x".
The minimum value of "x" would have to be some minimum velocity where
the effects of swerve are more or less insignificant in the
measurement.
I have no doubt whatsoever that many of these cues would have
deflection varying quite a bit with velocity. It is inherent in their
designs.
Until people look at and compare the relationship between deflection
and velocity, the test results are nothing more than a farce and a
marketing ploy (for Predator in this case because it is at the top of
the list).
This one is just another in a long and growing list. The data are
meaningless.
Carter Adams
I don't follow your math. What is spp ???
It looks to me that the Predator Z had about 1.35" of squirt at 50" - not bad...
~Carter
Ron Shepard
"Gregory" <greye...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> http://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php
> Chart reflects squirt for an average 9 mm offset
> over 50".
They say that they use offsets of -12mm, -6mm, +6mm, and +12mm.
However, they don't say which offset was used to produce the table,
and as you point out, it is not clear if the offset is for the tip
contact point, the shaft axis, or the inside of the shaft edge.
This is why they should report the results in terms of pivot points
rather than distances, it would eliminate all of this ambiguity.
> Not sure, but probably the offsets were
> measured to cue center line, which would correspond
> to actual average offset (contact point) of 6.8 mm.
> The lowest squirt measured was a Predator Z at
> 34.3 mm.
>
> 6.8 / 34.3 * 50 = 9.9" spp.
>
> Seems like something is screwy.
Even if you assume the maximum of 12mm offset for the results in
their table, the pivot point would be 17.6 inches for their
low-squirt shafts, which is at least a factor of two too small
compared to human pivot point measurements. It would be nice to
know the details.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Stephen
> They say that they use offsets of -12mm, -6mm, +6mm, and +12mm.
> However, they don't say which offset was used to produce the table,
In paragraph 2 they said they used the average of the four shots. I
would have preferred to see all of the data rather than an average. It
would be interesting to see whether the deflection was consistently
proportional for 6 and 12mm offsets for the various shafts.
Some questions I would want to answer would be:
1. Would one shaft have higher deflection at all offsets than another
shaft?
2. Is deflection linearly proportional to offset?
3. If shaft A has x times more deflection at 12mm than at 6mm, does
shaft B also have x times more deflection at 12mm than 6mm?
In short, what is the relationship of deflection vs offset for one shaft
and is the relationship the same for all shafts? Show me that test data!
Steve (Newsposts1) has a valid set of questions on speed vs deflection
for any particular shaft. It would be more useful to know the
relationships of speed and offset vs deflection for a particular shaft
than average deflection for a survey of shafts at one speed. This would
cut down on the experimentation and help me predict how much deflection
I am going to get before I shoot. Isn't that the reason we really want
to know any of this?
That the difference between the best and the average shaft was only 25%
was interesting. Even if we all ran out and bought an armload of brand
Predator shafts, we still do not know how they will behave. I have
heard the argument that since Predator shafts have so much less
deflection it is easier to learn how to compensate. In fact, the same
questions apply to learning deflection of any shaft.
Stephen
Dan White
"Stephen" <steely...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:ohcjc.17475$i61.17403@clgrps13...
> That the difference between the best and the average shaft was only 25%
> was interesting. Even if we all ran out and bought an armload of brand
> Predator shafts, we still do not know how they will behave. I have
> heard the argument that since Predator shafts have so much less
> deflection it is easier to learn how to compensate. In fact, the same
> questions apply to learning deflection of any shaft.
>
I know a very good player who just went back to his regular shaft after
giving the Predator shaft a good, long try. He said there were just some
shots that didn't feel "right." He couldn't really elaborate more than
that, but he didn't like the way they played.
dwhite
JoePisko
Dan White wrote:
> I know a very good player who just went back to his regular shaft after
> giving the Predator shaft a good, long try. He said there were just some
> shots that didn't feel "right." He couldn't really elaborate more than
> that, but he didn't like the way they played.
>
> dwhite
Do you know if he was saying that he could not put enough spin on the ball
for certain shots or that he did not like the feel of the predators hit. They
do have a somewhat nebulous hit....
Joe
Platinum Billiards
> > They say that they use offsets of -12mm, -6mm, +6mm, and +12mm.
> > However, they don't say which offset was used to produce the table,
>
shaft. We feel that the average of the four shots gives a very good
number for each shaft. We could post, and we may, the separate
averages for the 12mm shots and for the 6's, but I can say that for
all the shafts we have tested thus far, the number we give is very
close to what they would produce at 9mm of offset, as the relationship
between offset and squirt is very close to linear. Sorry for the
confusion and we will try to improve the explanation of our methods on
the site.
--Steve Titus
Frank Glenn
steely...@coldmail.com says...
:|:In paragraph 2 they said they used the average of the four shots. I
I see their ad in BD has CW breaking with a Predator shirt on (page
43). Draw your own conclusions from this, but I think they are hyping
the P shaft. YMMV
Frank
Patrick Johnson
> Indeed, the lowest deflecting cue we have tested has eliminated only about ź
> of the deflection caused by the average cue.
I think the magnitude of difference in squirt among most cues is at
least 5:1 (say, 8 inches to 40 inches pivot length), which means that
the lowest squirt cues eliminate 80 percent (4/5) of the squirt caused
by the highest squirt cues and probably at least half of the squirt
caused by an average cue.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Dan White
news:408DAFF1...@comcast.net...
to elaborate on what he meant. He just kept coming back to saying that
certain shots just didn't feel right, and I think that the cue ball didn't
do what it "should." He had trouble with shotmaking on longer shots when he
got back to his regular shaft, but he adjusted to it pretty quickly, and was
hammering shots with no problem.
dwhite
Ron Shepard
Patrick Johnson <patrick...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I think the magnitude of difference in squirt among most cues is at
> least 5:1 (say, 8 inches to 40 inches pivot length), which means that
> the lowest squirt cues eliminate 80 percent (4/5) of the squirt caused
> by the highest squirt cues and probably at least half of the squirt
> caused by an average cue.
I would think these numbers are about right for the range, although
I'd guess that the "average" pivot point is in the 12-16 inch range
though.
However, these values do not agree with the data at the Platinum
site.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Gregory
Ron Shepard wrote
> However, these values do not agree with
> the data at the Platinum site.
Something in their method is yielding very
high squirt numbers across the board.
Newsposts1
> Sorry for the
> confusion and we will try to improve the explanation of our methods on
> the site.
And what about the problems associated with not establishing a
relationship between deflection and impact velocity?
First of all, the cue ball must be sliding during the measurements to
prevent any false measurements due to swerve.
If the impact velocity is too low, then the cue ball is rolling and
swerve affects the measurement (towards a lower amount of deflection
that is actually there; the cue ball always wants to swerve back
towards the original target line).
The velocity must be at least above a certain threshold, which in turn
is dependent upon the condition of the cloth and balls (i.e.,
deflection is friction dependent to a certain degree).
Second, although some of the RSB die-hards scoff at the notion, impact
velocity also affects how the cue joint responds during impact, which
in turn affects how the shaft and tip move during impact.
If a suitable range of impact velocities (above the minimum threshold
for sliding vs rolling) aren't measured, then the results of any of
these kinds of deflection tests remain meaningless.
It's either that or continue with the blind belief that the all joints
are the same and/or the joint has no impact on deflection.
Both of these would be ridiculous conclusions based upon the
applicable mechanics and range of impact velocities possible in the
normal course of play.
Gregory
> Gregory wrote
> > 6.8 / 34.3 * 50 = 9.9" spp.
>
6.8 mm = amount of contact point offset from CB center.
34.3 mm = amount of CB squirt.
50" = distance across which the squirt is measured.
spp = squirt pivot point.
http://www.sfbilliards.com/faq.html
see #7
http://www.sfbilliards.com/Shepard_squirt.pdf
> It looks to me that the Predator Z had about
> 1.35" of squirt at 50" - not bad...
That's not good at all for a supposed low squirter.
Some Preds will squirt as little as .25" in 50" with a
6.8 mm contact point offset.
Newsposts1
> http://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php
> Seems like something is screwy.
This table is a marketing advertisement, in the guise of hard
scientific data, nothing more.
The platinumbilliardsDOTcom domain name is owned by Shane Sinnott, a
former sales/marketing associate for Clawson/Predator who has
apparently moved out on his own (not that there is anything wrong with
that).
The earlier post from platinumbilliardsDOTcom was from Steve Titus,
who originally patented the predator shaft tip design, and is the
former lead engineer for Clawson/Predator. He also has apparently
moved out on his own with Shane Sinnott (not that there is anything
wrong with that).
So take it that data for what it is worth, marketing hype and not hard
data. It is just like similar data on the Meucci site.
These kinds of tests are set up to provide numbers to indicate their
products are superior, and to sell more of that product. IOW, these
"answers" are to the benefit of the manufacturer and not necessarily
to the player.
The tests are not set up to provide comprehensive data sets from which
independent, accurate conclusions can be reached about the root cause
of deflection and how to prevent or minimize it. IOW, these answers
would be of benefit to the player and not necessarily to the
manufacturer.
John Barton
If the Platinum billiards people are testing a LOT of different products
using the same set of conditions and just reporting on the results then
doesn't that show some form of impartiality?
In my opinion, it is a lot different than Meucci or Predator or even (gasp)
Instroke putting up their own data which shows their product to be superior
according to their tests. This is NOT to say that Meucci, Predator and
certainly not Instroke have skewed the tests to favor their products, but to
say that testing across the board by a company that otherwise just sells the
products is less likely to be marketing hype than whatever a company puts
out for their own products.
Okay, two questions, if the cues are all tested under the same conditions
would it not be fairly safe to assume that the performance numbers would
continue to show similar differences between cues when the variables are
changed. IOW, A high deflection shaft wouldn't become a low deflection one
through more velocity would it?
Goodness and good night.
"Newsposts1" <stev...@3cushion.com> wrote in message
news:52c1c1b1.04042...@posting.google.com...
JoePisko
>
> He didn't talk about spin or feel. It's funny because it was hard to get him
> to elaborate on what he meant. He just kept coming back to saying that
> certain shots just didn't feel right, and I think that the cue ball didn't
> do what it "should." He had trouble with shotmaking on longer shots when he
> got back to his regular shaft, but he adjusted to it pretty quickly, and was
> hammering shots with no problem.
>
> dwhite
That's funny, as a predator player I do not subscribe to the more spin argument
of their shafts. I have sat down with quite a few and find that the tip matters
more than the amount of squirt. If I get you right you are saying that he had
que ball position problems with it. That would seem to suggest that he was
getting the wrong amount of spin from it. That could also be from the crappy
lepro tips that come on predator shafts. I have been interested in why people do
not like these shafts, but far too often rather than giving a reason and any
sort of feed back they simply resort to creative sarcasm. I myself have never
been really enamored with the hit of them, but they seem to send the ball more
where I want it to go.
Joe
JoePisko
Newsposts1 wrote:
> st...@platinumbilliards.com (Platinum Billiards) wrote in message news:<80ba6fc.04042...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
> And what about the problems associated with not establishing a
> relationship between deflection and impact velocity?
>
> First of all, the cue ball must be sliding during the measurements to
> prevent any false measurements due to swerve.
>
> Second, although some of the RSB die-hards scoff at the notion, impact
> velocity also affects how the cue joint responds during impact, which
> in turn affects how the shaft and tip move during impact.
>
This seems odd. I agree with the notion that swerve will come into play. A very polished slippery ball will swerve less,
sure.I would imagine that could account for the rather 'high' squirt of shafts across the board (to quote Ron Shepard.) I
would think that would come into play much more than joint type. But that feeling stems from personal experience hitting
balls.
Joe
Dan White
I'll see if I can get a better explanation next time I see him.
dwhite
Patrick Johnson
>>... these values do not agree with
>>the data at the Platinum site.
Not by a mile.
Gregory:
> Something in their method is yielding very
> high squirt numbers across the board.
No shit. Considering that they're supposed to reflect the results for
9mm of "axis offset", and assuming that means something like 6mm of
actual "contact point offset", then the range of pivot lengths for all
the listed sticks would be 5.8 inches to 8.7 inches -- obviously not
correct. Even at 12mm of contact point offset the range of pivot
lengths is only 11.7 inches to 17.5 inches -- still too low to make sense.
I don't think we can take these numbers seriously, even for showing the
relative squirt of different shafts.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Newsposts1
> If the Platinum billiards people are testing a LOT of different products
> using the same set of conditions and just reporting on the results then
> doesn't that show some form of impartiality?
How can the tests be considered impartial when the results are
meaningless?
> Okay, two questions, if the cues are all tested under the same conditions
> would it not be fairly safe to assume that the performance numbers would
> continue to show similar differences between cues when the variables are
> changed.
This might be a safe assumption in your opinion, but in mine it is
not. This is the whole point behind my responses.
Without showing a relationship between impact velocity and deflection,
and without demonstrating that impact velocity was above some minimum
threshold to prevent swerve, these and other similar kinds of "test
results" are garbage, crapola, meaningless, useless, misleading, etc.,
etc., etc.
> IOW, A high deflection shaft wouldn't become a low deflection one
> through more velocity would it?
Again you are missing the whole point. The question is whether or not
the shaft delivers the same amount of deflection over all impact
velocities.
Here is a proposal to consider:
What would you rather have:
a) a shaft that has very low deflection at low impact velocity, but
has medium deflection at medium impact velocity and high deflection at
high impact velocity
or
b) a shaft that has medium deflection at low and medium impact
velocities and high deflection at high impact velocity
or
c) a shaft that has high deflection at low, medium and high impact
velocities
John Barton
news:<EaKdnQ_YHsq...@centurytel.net>...
>
> > If the Platinum billiards people are testing a LOT of different products
> > using the same set of conditions and just reporting on the results then
> > doesn't that show some form of impartiality?
>
> How can the tests be considered impartial when the results are
> meaningless?
What does the meaning of the results have to do with the impartiality? I
could just as easily strap cues into a sling just to see which one goes
farthest and I would be completely impartial to the brands (unless I owned
the cues being slung) and the results would be meaningless to anyone. My
point is that the raw data collected isn't neccesarily marketing hype or
showing of partiality to any particular brand. People perform experiments
all the time without knowing whether the results will be "meaningful" or
useful now or in the future. They just want to see what happens.
>
> > Okay, two questions, if the cues are all tested under the same
conditions
> > would it not be fairly safe to assume that the performance numbers would
> > continue to show similar differences between cues when the variables are
> > changed.
>
> This might be a safe assumption in your opinion, but in mine it is
> not. This is the whole point behind my responses.
>
> Without showing a relationship between impact velocity and deflection,
> and without demonstrating that impact velocity was above some minimum
> threshold to prevent swerve, these and other similar kinds of "test
> results" are garbage, crapola, meaningless, useless, misleading, etc.,
> etc., etc.
>
> > IOW, A high deflection shaft wouldn't become a low deflection one
> > through more velocity would it?
>
> Again you are missing the whole point. The question is whether or not
> the shaft delivers the same amount of deflection over all impact
> velocities.
Why is this important? I don't disagree that it isn't but somewhere along
the line some kind of average will have to be determined to publish any kind
of results which can be used for the general public. All I see is that you
want to add more variables to the tests. Of course, the cues can be tested
infinitely with every possible combination of construction, mates, impact
velocity, offset, pivot point and so on but what is the point? You calimed
that the data presented is nothing more than marketing hype, i.e. it is
either false or somehow manipulated to favor Platinum Billiards. I
disagree. I think that they are providing data gleaned from whatever tests
they did and letting the consumer infer what he will from that data.
>
> Here is a proposal to consider:
>
> What would you rather have:
>
> a) a shaft that has very low deflection at low impact velocity, but
> has medium deflection at medium impact velocity and high deflection at
> high impact velocity
>
> or
>
> b) a shaft that has medium deflection at low and medium impact
> velocities and high deflection at high impact velocity
>
> or
>
> c) a shaft that has high deflection at low, medium and high impact
> velocities
I would rather have a shaft that "feels" good and so far no one can test for
that. What I would like to see is some tests to show the effects of various
taper/ferrule/tip/joint combinations along with "feel" opinions from a test
group of good players. Then I would be able to order a shaft by the numbers
and every shaft on every cue could get a number based on it's particular
construction. This way if I called up Mark Smith Cues and said I would like
to have a #R453 Shaft then he would know that it's a flat faced Radial pin
with a 12 inch taper, an Aegis ferrule and an Instroke 11 Layered Medium tip
:-) I would know I am getting a shaft with x-delfection at x-velocity that
I am already comfortable with.
Dial-a-Shaft(tm) There, now I said it first. Anybody does it just give me 5%
and keep me supplied with shafts. :-))
Newsposts1
> This seems odd. I agree with the notion that swerve will come into play. A
> very polished slippery ball will swerve less,
> sure.I would imagine that could account for the rather 'high' squirt of
> shafts across the board
You are missing the point. It is not a question of more or less
swerve. It is a question of impact velocity.
Swerve comes into play when the ball is rolling, not sliding. In order
to measure deflection accurately over certain distance, the ball must
be struck with a certain minimum impact velocity such that the ball
will slide over that distance and not begin to roll.
New ball or old ball, new cloth or old cloth, it doesn't matter. All
balls struck with side spin will change from slide to roll at some
point. With respect to deflection, the key to an accurate measurement
is to provide enough impact velocity so that the ball does not change
from slide to roll over the measurement distance. To do so, keeps
swerve out of the measurement result.
IOW, when trying to accurately measure and compare a cue's deflection
characteristics on a carom table with new balls and new cloth, versus
a pool table with old balls and old cloth, different ranges of impact
velocities must be used during the measurement to prevent having the
results skewed by effects of swerve.
> I would think that would come into play much more than joint type.
IMHO, this is incorrect. The style of joint has everything to do with
how the shaft can respond during impact, which in turn affects the
motion of the tip during impact, which in turn affects the amount of
deflection.
Ron Shepard
"John Barton" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
> > Again you are missing the whole point. The question is whether or not
> > the shaft delivers the same amount of deflection over all impact
> > velocities.
>
> Why is this important? I don't disagree that it isn't but somewhere along
> the line some kind of average will have to be determined to publish any kind
> of results which can be used for the general public.
Steve hasn't said this explicitly, but for several years now the
rumors have been that the Meucci ferrule design has low squirt for
soft shots and higher squirt for faster shots. This is because the
end of the ferrule wiggles, it is not firmly attached to the tenon
at the end of the tip. I have never seen data published that would
prove or disprove this rumor, so it could be negative marketing hype
from competitors. All these guys have egos, which isn't a bad
thing, but you have to be skeptical of everything you hear from
them. However, for a regular solid ferrule design, this mechanism
would not affect squirt, and it would be reasonable to expect the
same squirt at all shot speeds (at least all shot speeds short of
shattering the ferrule).
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Newsposts1
> > Again you are missing the whole point. The question is whether or not
> > the shaft delivers the same amount of deflection over all impact
> > velocities.
>
> Why is this important?
Aren't the reasons obvious?
Let's say you have Cue A and Cue B.
Let's assume further that we have determined beyond a shadow of a
doubt that Cue A has low deflection at low velocity, the exact same
amount of deflection at medium velocity and the exact same amount of
deflection at high velocity.
Similarly, we have determined that Cue B also has this exact same
amount of low deflection at low velocity, but 2 to 4 times that amount
at medium velocity and 8 to 10 times that amount at high velocity.
Some obvious conclusions would have to be:
1. Cue A has a superior design, relative to Cue B.
2. Cue A is predictable and controllable across a large range of
shots, contrary to Cue B.
3. Cue A and Cue B could both easily be advertised as a "low
deflection" cues. However with Cue A, the advertiser could be
completely truthful. However with Cue B, the results and premise of
the advertisement would have to be purposely vague in order to not
have the advertiser posting a blatant lie.
Having the same deflection characteristics over the full range of
impact velocities, means that an accurate and reliable method of
compensation could be applied.
More importantly, it means that the average amateur player is probably
going to be more accurate in making shots with english with Cue A,
than he or she would be with Cue B. IOW, cue design and cue
performance alone can make a player better (all other things being
equal).
IMHO, having the same deflection characteristics over the full range
of impact velocities, is also consistent with a cue design that has
low to no deflection. IOW, I don't think you will ever see a cue with
consistent, but high, amounts of deflection.
> I think that they are providing data gleaned from whatever tests
> they did and letting the consumer infer what he will from that data.
Yeah .... sure .... but are they telling the consumer the whole story?
IMHO, no they are not. They are telling the consumer what they think
will make the consumer buy one or more of their products.
> I would rather have a shaft that "feels" good and so far no one can test for
> that. What I would like to see is some tests to show the effects of various
> taper/ferrule/tip/joint combinations along with "feel" opinions from a test
> group of good players.
This may be all well and good, but honestly what would you hope to get
from this other than a verbal advertisement? How many good players got
to be good players because they worked hard to become experts with the
equipment of the sport, as opposed to practicing and competing? IMHO,
very few if any. They became good players because they did repetitive
activities over and over until they became proficient at it, not
because they studied and became experts with the equipment.
Your other point about ordering a cue with precise known
specifications is a good one. But how realistic do you think it is?
How many cues today are sold because of name recognition and perceived
"reputation" alone? Probably somewhere between 75%-100%. How many cues
are sold today because they can be built to a precise set of
performance characteristics. Probably zero.
So again, your point is a good one, but not very likely because it is
not something that most manufacturers want to see. Their money is in
sales because of name recognition and perceived reputation.
Newsposts1
> ..... for several years now the
> rumors have been that the Meucci ferrule design has low squirt for
> soft shots and higher squirt for faster shots. This is because the
> end of the ferrule wiggles, it is not firmly attached to the tenon
> at the end of the tip.
Once again Ron, you manage to dance around the real issue without
really stepping into it.
Your mention of this thing with the Meucci ferrule is in all honesty
the first that I have ever heard about it.
If what you say is true, then it makes all the sense in the world. If
there is not a strong mechanical connection, then the motion at the
tip would very likely be inconsistent and unpredictable especially as
imact velocity gets larger and larger.
Yet you won't go one step further and apply the same principle to the
joint.
If a cue's joint is strong enough and stiff enough to hold the joint
together in the same way over the full range of expected impact
velocities, then wouldn't it be logical to assume that the deflection
should be consistent (and probably quite low as well)?
On the other hand, if a joint isn't strong enough to hold the joint
together the same way during all ranges of impacts, then wouldn't this
be just like the case that you mention. IOW, as impact velocity get's
higher and higher the stability of the joint gets lower and lower,
meaning the tip has a greater likelihood of moving in a uncontrolled
manner (i.e., greater and/or unpredictable deflection).
Confucious say "he who walk fence end up with chopped nuts." Either
all joints are the same or all joints are not the same, relative to
their effect upon cue performance. There really isn't any middle
ground on the issue.
I don't think there is anyone out there who would agree that all
joints are the same. Yet no one beside me and a handful of others
wants to look why all joints aren't the same. In light of this and
other discussions, doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that their is
a relationship between joint design, impact velocity and deflection?
(For purposes of this thread, I omitted shaft design and some other
things, but these are important as well.)
{We could even take this concept of mechanical connections one steps
further. Everyone says they prefer glued-on tips versus threaded
screw-on tips, but no one looks at the why. The why is the glued-on
tips provide a more secure, consistent and stable mechanical
connection than the screw-on tips. IOW, the more secure mechanical
connection provides better performance.
So now, this thread has talked about a logical basis for relationship
between stable mechanical connections and deflection for both the tip
connection to the shaft and the ferrule connection to the shaft. Isn't
it time now to accept the reality that butt connection to the shaft is
also important, and start looking at exactly how important?}
JoePisko
Newsposts1 wrote:
>
> I don't think there is anyone out there who would agree that all
> joints are the same. Yet no one beside me and a handful of others
> wants to look why all joints aren't the same. In light of this and
> other discussions, doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that their is
> a relationship between joint design, impact velocity and deflection?
>
Hmmm, all joins the same? No. Join design not affecting the cue balls path regardless of where you hit the ball and how hard, IMHO
yes. Why do I believe this? Personal experimentation. After radically altering the stiffness of the cue's joint (by placing a rubber
washer between the shaft and butt) there seemed to be absolutely no difference in deflection (squirt, but deflections sounds so much
more scientific like) or spin. This was not just the case for my own cue, but all the other cues I tried (I am lucky enough to have a
whole wall full at my disposal.) I was quite surprised. I was so certain that it would make some sort of difference that I tried this
for a whole afternoon. But really the cues did not change at all. Give it a try sometime.
Joe
Platinum Billiards
> "John Barton" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote:
>
> > > Again you are missing the whole point. The question is whether or not
> > > the shaft delivers the same amount of deflection over all impact
> > > velocities.
> >
> > Why is this important? I don't disagree that it isn't but somewhere along
> > the line some kind of average will have to be determined to publish any kind
> > of results which can be used for the general public.
>
> would not affect squirt, and it would be reasonable to expect the
> same squirt at all shot speeds (at least all shot speeds short of
> shattering the ferrule).
>
> $.02 -Ron Shepard
this is a very important question, thus far we have only seen slight
variation from the "flat line" that Ron has predicted. But these
slight variations deserve more scrutiny, as do the curves of squirt vs
offset. The test surface is very low friction to eliminate the swerve
factor, though we have shot off of "pads" of various types of cloth,
clean and dirty, none of which has produced significant change in
squirt or cb speed.
Patrick Johnson
> ... It is not a question of more or less
> swerve. It is a question of impact velocity.
> ... different ranges of impact
> velocities must be used during the measurement to prevent having the
> results skewed by effects of swerve.
Sounds like a question of more or less swerve to me...
> Swerve comes into play when the ball is rolling, not sliding.
Swerve happens ONLY while the ball is sliding - most of it happens at
the end of the slide, but none of it happens after the ball is rolling.
Hitting harder doesn't eliminate swerve entirely, it just reduces it
to an insignificant amount.
> ... provide enough impact velocity so that the ball does not change
> from slide to roll over the measurement distance. To do so, keeps
> swerve out of the measurement result.
Not quite. You have to hit hard enough to only get the minimal very
first part of the swerve.
> ... The style of joint has everything to do with
> how the shaft can respond during impact, which in turn affects the
> motion of the tip during impact, which in turn affects the amount of
> deflection.
Bullshit. Prove it. You've been saying the same nonsense for years and
have never offered anything but noise about it. Do something useful for
a change.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Gregory
> So now, this thread has talked about a logical basis for relationship
> between stable mechanical connections and deflection for both the tip
> connection to the shaft and the ferrule connection to the shaft. Isn't
> it time now to accept the reality that butt connection to the shaft is
> also important, and start looking at exactly how important?}
Do you believe that the joints at the ends of the handle affect squirt?
How about the bumper?
Newsposts1
> > Swerve comes into play when the ball is rolling, not sliding.
>
> Swerve happens ONLY while the ball is sliding - most of it happens at
> the end of the slide, but none of it happens after the ball is rolling.
This is completely incorrect. Swerve is caused by rolling friction,
not sliding friction.
> > ... The style of joint has everything to do with
> > how the shaft can respond during impact, which in turn affects the
> > motion of the tip during impact, which in turn affects the amount of
> > deflection.
>
> Bullshit. Prove it. You've been saying the same nonsense for years and
> have never offered anything but noise about it.
Everytime I try to start with an explanation, you and others either
close your minds or incorrectly interpret what I'm saying.
Either all joints are the same or they are all not the same. There is
no in between. I think everyone agrees all joints are not the same. So
now the question is why aren't they all the same? I've offered on
explanation that you refuse to consider. That is your problem, not
mine.
Newsposts1
> Do you believe that the joints at the ends of the handle affect squirt?
The cue's stiffness is directly related to the quality and type of
handle joint. So it would seem possible that there is some impact to
deflection. It depends on the design of the rest of the cue, including
the butt/shaft joint.
> How about the bumper?
Is this a serious question?
Newsposts1
> We have done a fair amount of this speed vs squirt testing and while
> this is a very important question, thus far we have only seen slight
> variation from the "flat line" that Ron has predicted. But these
> slight variations deserve more scrutiny, as do the curves of squirt vs
> offset.
Any data that you might care to share?
Slight variation could mean a lot of different things. While the
numbers are important, the more important question is whether or not
"slight variation" is large enough to cause a missed shot or missed
position.
Newsposts1
> Hmmm, all joins the same? No.
Why are they all not the same?
> Join design not affecting the cue balls path regardless of where you hit the
> ball and how hard, IMHO yes. Why do I believe this? Personal experimentation.
How did you test? What were your results? Do you have numbers to share?
Newsposts1
> > Swerve comes into play when the ball is rolling, not sliding.
>
> Swerve happens ONLY while the ball is sliding - most of it happens at
> the end of the slide, but none of it happens after the ball is rolling.
One other thing .... since you blew it on the swerve thing .....
What exactly happens when the cue ball changes from a sliding state to
a rolling state?
Patrick Johnson
> What exactly happens when the cue ball changes from a sliding state to
> a rolling state?
If you mean when it no longer has any sliding friction, then the answer
is it rolls, without changing direction, until it hits something or stops.
What do you think a rolling ball with no sliding friction does?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Ron Shepard
stev...@3cushion.com (Newsposts1) wrote:
> > Swerve happens ONLY while the ball is sliding - most of it happens at
> > the end of the slide, but none of it happens after the ball is rolling.
>
> One other thing .... since you blew it on the swerve thing .....
I think Pat is right on this on. Swerve, semi-masse, masse, or the
ball rebounding from a collision with a cushion or another ball --
all these involve the cue ball sliding in a parabolic path on the
cloth. Once the cue ball stops sliding and starts rolling, it rolls
in a straight line (assuming a level table and a uniform round ball).
Of course, a parabola can be a straight line too, but those aren't
the ones that result in swerve.
> What exactly happens when the cue ball changes from a sliding state to
> a rolling state?
It changes from a curved path to a straight path.
The acceleration changes from sliding friction to rolling resistance.
The path is continuous, and the first derivative is continuous, but
the second derivative is discontinuous at the point of change.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
> Your mention of this thing with the Meucci ferrule is in all honesty
> the first that I have ever heard about it.
I first read about this here in RSB. Since then, I have heard
several other people talk about it.
> If what you say is true, then it makes all the sense in the world. If
> there is not a strong mechanical connection, then the motion at the
> tip would very likely be inconsistent and unpredictable especially as
> imact velocity gets larger and larger.
>
> Yet you won't go one step further and apply the same principle to the
> joint.
As you know by now, the joint is too far away. We went through this
a couple of months ago, remember? The sideways vibrational motion
only affects the last few inches of the shaft, so that is the only
part of the cue that contributes to the inertia (the resistance to
sideways motion) that determines squirt.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Mike Page
Neither were serious questions. lol
Mike Page
> Patrick Johnson <patrick...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<108vct3...@news.supernews.com>...
>
> > > Swerve comes into play when the ball is rolling, not sliding.
> >
> > Swerve happens ONLY while the ball is sliding - most of it happens at
> > the end of the slide, but none of it happens after the ball is rolling.
>
> This is completely incorrect. Swerve is caused by rolling friction,
> not sliding friction.
nonsense.
Patrick Johnson
> This is completely incorrect. Swerve is caused by rolling friction,
> not sliding friction.
Is this the kind of statement you want everybody to take more seriously?
> Either all joints are the same or they are all not the same. There is
> no in between. I think everyone agrees all joints are not the same. So
> now the question is why aren't they all the same?
The question is how can this affect squirt. Ron has given a simple and
straightforward answer to that (it can't, because transverse waves are
too slow to get to the joint and back while the tip's on the ball).
Answer this simple, on-point statement with a simple, on-point rebuttal
and you'll get the fair hearing you say you want. Answer with your
usual question-dodging tapdance and you'll get laughed off the stage as
usual.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Gregory
> Gregory wrote
> > Do you believe that the joints at the ends of the handle affect
squirt?
>
> The cue's stiffness is directly related to the quality and type of
> handle joint. So it would seem possible that there is some impact to
> deflection. It depends on the design of the rest of the cue, including
> the butt/shaft joint.
>
> > How about the bumper?
>
> Is this a serious question?
Yes. I'm trying to find out how far back in a cue you believe a
joint/change in material will affect squirt. The butt/bumper interface
is a joint/ change in material.
Newsposts1
> Yes. I'm trying to find out how far back in a cue you believe a
> joint/change in material will affect squirt. The butt/bumper interface
> is a joint/ change in material.
The only concern is for parts of the cue that are under load during
impact. The bumper is not loaded, so it is not worth consideration.
Newsposts1
> Answer this simple, on-point statement with a simple, on-point rebuttal
> and you'll get the fair hearing you say you want.
I couldn't give a flying f**k about getting a "fair hearing" from nits
like you Pat. I have absolutely zero urgency that I have to prove
something to you in order for it to be valid.
You have your own set of beliefs firmly ingrained in your head and
there is nothing anyone can do about it. Frankly, your opinions about
the mechanics of billiards are meaningless to me, because you don't
have the ability or willingness to try and comprehend anything outside
of this narrow set of beliefs.
> The question is how can this affect squirt. Ron has given a simple and
> straightforward answer to that (it can't, because transverse waves are
> too slow to get to the joint and back while the tip's on the ball).
I've already answered this question about a million times, but you
never seem to want to listen to the answer.
The types of vibrations that can propagate in a cue during impact are
determined by a cue's stiffness under load. A cue's stiffness under
load is determined almost exclusively by taper, construction materials
and joint design. Ergo, the types of vibrations that can propagate in
a cue during impact are determined by taper, construction materials
and joint design. These are undisputable facts.
Is that a small enough bit of information to be accommodated by your
limited cranial capacity?????
Platinum Billiards
> numbers are important, the more important question is whether or not
> "slight variation" is large enough to cause a missed shot or missed
> position.
Really accurate testing of speed vs squirt is a tricky business - it
takes a great many shots and the tip takes a beating, and squirt is
very sensitive to the shape of the tip. What I have seen so far is
that, for a pretty good variety of shafts, squirt tends to increase
with speed at the rate of .2% to .3% per mph, over the range of 9mph
to 21mph.
--Steve
Newsposts1
As you know by now, the joint is too far away.
So all joints are the same ? The joint has no effect on cue
performance ?
> We went through this
> a couple of months ago, remember? The sideways vibrational motion
> only affects the last few inches of the shaft, so that is the only
> part of the cue that contributes to the inertia (the resistance to
> sideways motion) that determines squirt.
What we went through was conjecture on the above paragraph on the part
of you and Bob. I don't happen to subscribe to the notion.
What neither of you and Pat and others don't realize is that the joint
is a factor is determining how, when and where this vibration occurs?
The cue is an integrated structure, of which several components
contribute to vibration, deflection, etc.
For some reason, you continue to believe that all the secrets of the
cue are in the first couple of inches. This is ludicrous.
Newsposts1
> I think Pat is right on this on.
I find it scary when an intelligent person like yourself is in
agreement with Pat about anything.
> Swerve, semi-masse, masse, or the
> ball rebounding from a collision with a cushion or another ball --
> all these involve the cue ball sliding in a parabolic path on the
> cloth.
However, we are not talking about collisions with cushions and balls
when discussing deflection. We are talking about movement off the tip
of the cue.
In order to create a parabolic curve off the tip of the cue, the cue
must be jacked up way above the horizontal.
In order to measure deflection accurately, the cue should be parallel
with the bed of the table and contacting the cue ball somewhere on the
equator.
> Once the cue ball stops sliding and starts rolling, it rolls
> in a straight line (assuming a level table and a uniform round ball).
This is not correct. When a ball is rolling with a sidespin component,
there is a frictional force which acts in such a manner as to cause
the ball to curve slightly in the direction of the spin.
Byrne and many other writers talk about it, and your paper discusses
it a bit as well. This is what I am referring to when I mentioned
swerve, in the context of altering a deflection measurement,
especially one that is done over most of a table length in distance.
> > What exactly happens when the cue ball changes from a sliding state to
> > a rolling state?
>
> It changes from a curved path to a straight path.
>
> The acceleration changes from sliding friction to rolling resistance.
The point I was trying to get to was the fact that the instant the
ball changes from a sliding condition to a rolling condition, there is
a significant change in the position of the axis of rotation.
IOW, the contact point between tip and ball does not solely determine
the position of the axis of rotation. It is the combination of the tip
force on the ball initially, followed by the frictional force between
ball and table, that determines the position of the axis of rotation.
Mike Page
> Ron Shepard <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<ron-shepard-56CD...@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
>
[...]
> > Once the cue ball stops sliding and starts rolling, it rolls
> > in a straight line (assuming a level table and a uniform round ball).
>
> This is not correct. When a ball is rolling with a sidespin component,
> there is a frictional force which acts in such a manner as to cause
> the ball to curve slightly in the direction of the spin.
>
> Byrne and many other writers talk about it, and your paper discusses
> it a bit as well. [...]
This is interesting Steve. Do you have a more specific reference to
where you think Byrne or Shepard support this?
Patrick Johnson
> ... squirt is
> very sensitive to the shape of the tip. What I have seen so far is
> that, for a pretty good variety of shafts, squirt tends to increase
> with speed at the rate of .2% to .3% per mph, over the range of 9mph
> to 21mph.
Which is a total range of 2%-3%. I don't think this is significant.
But I don't know whether to take your numbers seriously, given the
strange squirt numbers you show. Can you explain them? Do you really
believe the range of squirt among the shafts you measured only differs
by 50% despite other measurements that say it differs several times as much?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Ron Shepard
> Ron Shepard <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<ron-shepard-088F...@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
>
> As you know by now, the joint is too far away.
>
> So all joints are the same ? The joint has no effect on cue
> performance ?
That is not what I said, it is not what I intended to say, and it is
not what I believe. I think the joint has no significant effect on
squirt. You keep trying to change the word "squirt" into
"performance" for some reason. You should know how I feel by know
about the importance of joint types, I've posted it dozens of times
here in RSB.
> > We went through this
> > a couple of months ago, remember? The sideways vibrational motion
> > only affects the last few inches of the shaft, so that is the only
> > part of the cue that contributes to the inertia (the resistance to
> > sideways motion) that determines squirt.
>
> What we went through was conjecture on the above paragraph on the part
> of you and Bob. I don't happen to subscribe to the notion.
You failed to support your notion with any kind of argument. I
think Bob's argument was basically correct (relating the distance
between the nodes and the vibrational frequency to the wave speed).
> What neither of you and Pat and others don't realize is that the joint
> is a factor is determining how, when and where this vibration occurs?
I realize that and I agree with it. I expect everyone else does too.
> The cue is an integrated structure, of which several components
> contribute to vibration, deflection, etc.
Yes, but you seem to think that all components affect all features
equally. They don't. In particular, I think that joint type has no
significant affect on squirt. I think that joint type is
significant for other features, but not for squirt.
> For some reason, you continue to believe that all the secrets of the
> cue are in the first couple of inches. This is ludicrous.
I don't know if "ludicrous" would be correct for such a claim, but
it is irrelevant in any case because I don't think that *all*
secrets of the cue are in the first couple of inches. I do think
that the first few inches of the shaft are the most important
characteristic that determines squirt.
You are trying to set up a straw man argument so you can knock it
down and celebrate victory. No one here is claiming any of the
things you say. You can certainly disagree with what other's here
say, but it would be more productive if you would argue against what
we actually say, not argue against these fictional straw man
arguments.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
> > Swerve, semi-masse, masse, or the
> > ball rebounding from a collision with a cushion or another ball --
> > all these involve the cue ball sliding in a parabolic path on the
> > cloth.
>
> However, we are not talking about collisions with cushions and balls
> when discussing deflection. We are talking about movement off the tip
> of the cue.
My point is that all of these curved paths are caused by the same
thing.
> In order to create a parabolic curve off the tip of the cue, the cue
> must be jacked up way above the horizontal.
No, any cue elevation at all results in a curved parabolic path. A
level cue, even with sidespin, does not result in a curved path.
That is why I made the comment before that a straight line is a
special case of a parabola. A sliding ball always moves along a
parabolic path, and usually that path is curved, but it is possible
also for a ball to slide in a straight line which is a special case
of the parabolic slide.
> In order to measure deflection accurately, the cue should be parallel
> with the bed of the table and contacting the cue ball somewhere on the
> equator.
It is possible to shoot with enough speed so that the curve of the
parabola is very small, less than a fraction of a millimeter for
example, while the squirt is in the 10 to 100 millimeters range.
With such a setup, the swerve error in the squirt measurement would
be relatively small, say 1% or less.
> > Once the cue ball stops sliding and starts rolling, it rolls
> > in a straight line (assuming a level table and a uniform round ball).
>
> This is not correct. When a ball is rolling with a sidespin component,
> there is a frictional force which acts in such a manner as to cause
> the ball to curve slightly in the direction of the spin.
>
> Byrne and many other writers talk about it, and your paper discusses
> it a bit as well.
Yes we do, but you must be thinking of something else. Byrne gives
a simple experiment to disprove your hypothesis. Spin a ball with
your fingers so that it is spinning in place on the table. Take
another ball and bump it from the side. Observe the path that the
spinning ball takes. If the spin causes the ball to curve, which is
your hypothesis, then the ball would roll along a curved path,
perhaps even tracing out a circle on the table cloth. If the
sidespin does not cause a curve, then the ball will roll in a
straight line. This is a simple experiment that anyone can do to
find the correct answer to this question.
> This is what I am referring to when I mentioned
> swerve, in the context of altering a deflection measurement,
> especially one that is done over most of a table length in distance.
I understand this, but I think you are getting the sliding and the
rolling parts of the path confused. The swerve occurs during the
sliding part of the ball path, not during the rolling part of the
path. Once the ball starts rolling it rolls in a straight line.
That straight line is not along the original stick direction, it is
usually at some angle relative to the stick. Therefore, the rolling
distance (i.e. the shot distance) does affect how much aiming
compensation is required on swerve shots.
> > > What exactly happens when the cue ball changes from a sliding state to
> > > a rolling state?
> >
> > It changes from a curved path to a straight path.
> >
> > The acceleration changes from sliding friction to rolling resistance.
>
> The point I was trying to get to was the fact that the instant the
> ball changes from a sliding condition to a rolling condition, there is
> a significant change in the position of the axis of rotation.
I don't think this is true. At the moment before the ball stops
sliding, the axis of rotation is somewhere in the plane
perpendicular to the ball velocity with an infinitesimal component
along that velocity direction. At the next instant, it is only that
infinitesimal component that changes, becoming zero. BTW, the
horizontal component of the spin axis is fixed according to the ball
velocity, V=rw, and the vertical component is free to take on any
value, positive or negative. This means that, viewing the ball from
behind, the spin axis is somewhere in the 6:00 to 12:00 range on a
clock face. the 9:00 direction would correspond to no sidespin, the
10:00 direction would correspond to right sidespin, and the 8:00
direction would correspond to left sidespin.
> IOW, the contact point between tip and ball does not solely determine
> the position of the axis of rotation. It is the combination of the tip
> force on the ball initially, followed by the frictional force between
> ball and table, that determines the position of the axis of rotation.
This is correct.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
Patrick Johnson <Patrick.Jo...@THIScomcast.net> wrote:
> Do you really
> believe the range of squirt among the shafts you measured only differs
> by 50% despite other measurements that say it differs several times as much?
I think when Steve Titus does the aim-and-pivot measurement, he gets
the same value as the rest of us. I think there is some
experimental detail that is causing the confusion, and when we
finally figure it out, it will be obvious.
Sort of like how your lost keys are always in the last place you
look.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Patrick Johnson
> ... your lost keys are always in the last place you look.
If you know that, why not just tell me where they are?
(Some friend...)
Pat Johnson
Chicago
-jeff
> Ron Shepard wrote...
>
> As you know by now, the joint is too far away.
>
> So all joints are the same ? The joint has no effect on cue
> performance ?
>
> > We went through this
> > a couple of months ago, remember? The sideways vibrational motion
> > only affects the last few inches of the shaft, so that is the only
> > part of the cue that contributes to the inertia (the resistance to
> > sideways motion) that determines squirt.
>
> What we went through was conjecture on the above paragraph on the part
> of you and Bob. I don't happen to subscribe to the notion.
Well, I'm pretty sure that it was proven that the sideways vibrational
motion can only make it part way down the shaft before the ball leaves
the tip. Whether this motion is the only thing that contributes to
squirt may be conjecture.
> What neither of you and Pat and others don't realize is that the joint
> is a factor is determining how, when and where this vibration occurs?
If the overall performance of a cue is dependent on the axial
vibration of the shaft, then it seems pretty obvious that the joint
would have an effect. There is enough time for the vibrations to
travel from the tip to the joint about 3 times if the numbers I looked
up for maple are correct.
> The cue is an integrated structure, of which several components
> contribute to vibration, deflection, etc.
>
> For some reason, you continue to believe that all the secrets of the
> cue are in the first couple of inches. This is ludicrous.
It may not be all the secrets, just the secret of squirt. If it was
all about the shaft then a 314 shaft on a Lambros would play identical
to a 314 on Layani which would be identical to a 314 on a Predator
which....
I don't think anybody would say that is the case given the occasional
posts about how much better a 314 shaft feels on a different butt
(could be taper, I don't know). Somebody with way more cue
experience than I have would have to comment on this tho.
Can somebody with far more vibration analysis experience explain how
vibrations propogate in a material like wood when the initial impulse
is not purely with or across the grain? Can it just be seperated into
components like vectors?
-jeff
John Barton
about the same. The glaring difference is balance and weight.
I think that the "hit" and "feel" of a cue is a product of all it's
components but that most of it is in the shaft. I have put my JossWest
shaft on a pretty crappy Taiwan butt and the hit was almost identical. The
difference was in how the two cues felt. The JossWest felt like a fine
instrument in heft and swing, The Taiwan/Joss West Shaft felt a little weird
in the swing but the cueball control was the same, the deflection was the
same.
I further believe, aside from glaring differences in performance as in a
rubber hose vs. and iron pipe, that in cues the auditory feedback is a major
factor in perception of how "good" a cue hits and feels. Thus a high
deflection cue can be "good" if the sound is acceptable to the shooter and
make him feel comfortable using it.
I believe that if one were to be able to create a half inch rod with a grip
size that is comfortable to the hand and balanced comfortably that this rod
could be mated to any number of shafts to produce a "hit" that might be
similar to any name brand cue you could mention. In a blind test this would
possibly produce the results I hypothesize.
Until Dial-a-Shaft(tm) comes along the hit, feel and performance will
continue to be a holistic marriage between personal taste, skill level and
cue construction.
John
"-jeff" <mun...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:67ea4f69.04043...@posting.google.com...
John W. Pierce
>
> But I don't know whether to take your numbers seriously, given the
> strange squirt numbers you show. Can you explain them?
What they say on the web page is:
"The amount of deflection is measured on a recording device 50" away,
which is exactly the distance
between the foot string and the spot on a 4 ˝ x 9 pool table."
And in a post here (I think) one of the Platinum people (I think) said that
they used a very low friction surface for the test to avoid to the degree
possible contaminating the squirt values with the swerve effect. Sort of
like when I taped visqueen (the plastic sheeting, not the rock group) to my
table to try the same sort of tests.
Platinum's web page gives the (raw, I think) results in "millimetres per 50
inches of cueball travel". I take this to mean that they aim the cue
parallel to a 50 inch line drawn down the middle of the table, using N
millimeters of english, and that when the cue ball reaches the far end of
the line, it is M millimetres to the left/right of the line. If that is the
case, then their numbers give (very roughly) squirt angles between about 1.5
degrees and 2.7 degrees (I just interpolated from table values in my head,
so it's possible I blew it). Translated to the 75 inch shot length I used,
these give "cue ball end-of-travel offset distances" of about 2 inches to
about 3 1/2 inches. This is somewhat less than what I'd have expected, but
not really unreasonable (i.e., this corresponds fairly well to what I think
I got in my own testing). I used maximum english, whereas they use 6mm and
12mm and then combine the results, and I think that could easily account for
the differences.
-- John W. Pierce, Chem & Biochem, UC San Diego
j...@ucsd.edu
Stephen
> I have put my JossWest
> shaft on a pretty crappy Taiwan butt and the hit was almost identical. The
> difference was in how the two cues felt. The JossWest felt like a fine
> instrument in heft and swing, The Taiwan/Joss West Shaft felt a little weird
> in the swing but the cueball control was the same, the deflection was the
> same.
Were the points equally sharp? :)
Patrick Johnson
>>But I don't know whether to take your numbers seriously, given the
>>strange squirt numbers you show. Can you explain them?
John to me:
> [how Platinum measured squirt]
Yeah, I got all this from the description. My question is how do they
explain the unreasonable numbers?
> ... This is somewhat less than what I'd have expected, but
> not really unreasonable (i.e., this corresponds fairly well to what I think
> I got in my own testing).
I don't know how to translate your "cue ball end-of-travel offset
distances", but I do know that the measurements listed on the Platinum
website for Predator shafts indicate a pivot length of about 9 inches,
and that's ridiculous. On top of that, the pivot length for the highest
squirt cue is only 3 inches shorter, which may be accurate for that cue,
but is way too short a range.
I don't see how those numbers can make sense.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
lfigueroa
> I further believe, aside from glaring differences in performance as in a
> rubber hose vs. and iron pipe, that in cues the auditory feedback is a
major
> factor in perception of how "good" a cue hits and feels.
I wonder if anyone has done any tests with earplugs? How the lack of an
audible "cue" changes the perception of hit.... what about the guys that
play with earphones on... what about when the juke box is turned up loud...
ok, just wondering...
Lou Figueroa
"John Barton" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:JMOdnawbbKq...@centurytel.net...
JoePisko
John Barton wrote:
>
> I further believe, aside from glaring differences in performance as in a
> rubber hose vs. and iron pipe, that in cues the auditory feedback is a major
> factor in perception of how "good" a cue hits and feels. Thus a high
> deflection cue can be "good" if the sound is acceptable to the shooter and
> make him feel comfortable using it.
>
Funny, I have been thinking this is the explanation for 'hit' quality for a
while now as well.
Joe
Newsposts1
> squirt is
> very sensitive to the shape of the tip.
How so ?
> What I have seen so far is
> that, for a pretty good variety of shafts, squirt tends to increase
> with speed at the rate of .2% to .3% per mph, over the range of 9mph
> to 21mph.
Is this only Predator cues, or does this include other cues as well ?
Newsposts1
> > > We went through this
> > > a couple of months ago, remember? The sideways vibrational motion
> > > only affects the last few inches of the shaft, so that is the only
> > > part of the cue that contributes to the inertia (the resistance to
> > > sideways motion) that determines squirt.
> >
> > What we went through was conjecture on the above paragraph on the part
> > of you and Bob. I don't happen to subscribe to the notion.
>
> You failed to support your notion with any kind of argument. I
> think Bob's argument was basically correct (relating the distance
> between the nodes and the vibrational frequency to the wave speed).
Failed to support ????
How can I fail to support something that is discussed in basic
concepts, in every mechanical engineering handbook book ever published
???
All of the parameters you state above are determined by taper,
materials and main joint.
Yet why you choose to not accept this statement remains a complete
mystery.
Newsposts1
> > So all joints are the same ? The joint has no effect on cue
> > performance ?
> That is not what I said, it is not what I intended to say, and it is
> not what I believe.
> You should know how I feel by know about the importance of joint types
I don't recall ever reading anything like this ....
Newsposts1
> > The point I was trying to get to was the fact that the instant the
> > ball changes from a sliding condition to a rolling condition, there is
> > a significant change in the position of the axis of rotation.
> I don't think this is true.
How so? If you hit a cue ball on the equator with maximum english, the
axis of rotation is not perpendicular to the table, is it? This can be
shown using a striped ball. Setting the stripe parallel to the table
bed and then hitting the ball on the equator with max english, the
stripe remains parallel to the table bed for a short distance. IOW,
the axis of rotation is perpdendicular or nearly so, to the table bed.
Then the after the table friction acts on the ball, the axis of
rotation shifts to a new position between perpendicular and parallel.
This can be observed by seeing the stripe of the ball move.
Dan White
"Newsposts1" <stev...@3cushion.com> wrote in message
news:52c1c1b1.0404...@posting.google.com...
> Ron Shepard <ron-s...@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:<ron-shepard-EF29...@comcast.ash.giganews.com>...
> > You failed to support your notion with any kind of argument. I
> > think Bob's argument was basically correct (relating the distance
> > between the nodes and the vibrational frequency to the wave speed).
>
> Failed to support ????
>
> How can I fail to support something that is discussed in basic
> concepts, in every mechanical engineering handbook book ever published
> ???
>
> All of the parameters you state above are determined by taper,
> materials and main joint.
>
> Yet why you choose to not accept this statement remains a complete
> mystery.
There's an even bigger mystery:
I've been watching this back and forth quietly for months now. You seem
capable of speaking at length on vibrational waves, feedback, all kinds of
stuff, but at the same time you appear not to understand the concept of
providing evidence or proof to support your point. It is not enough to say
that deflection depends on stiffness and stiffness depends on main joint
type, and therefore deflection necessarily depends on main joint type. This
is shaky logic because it oversimplifies what is actually happening, yet
seems to be your main line of defense. What if deflection only depends on
stiffness in the first 6 inches of the cue, and not after that? The only
way you will convince anybody is to have 2 cues made to the same specs,
except you have 2 very different types of joints. If you can show that
these 2 cues have different deflection, then you have actual data.
Otherwise, you have nothing. You aren't even providing a theory to counter
the prevailing (and tested) theory that deflection is a function of the last
several inches of the cue only.
Why can't you see this?
dwhite
John Barton
"lfigueroa" <lfig...@att.net> wrote in message
news:aFzkc.5264$Ut1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> JB says
>
> > I further believe, aside from glaring differences in performance as in a
> > rubber hose vs. and iron pipe, that in cues the auditory feedback is a
> major
> > factor in perception of how "good" a cue hits and feels.
>
> I wonder if anyone has done any tests with earplugs? How the lack of an
> audible "cue" changes the perception of hit.... what about the guys that
> play with earphones on... what about when the juke box is turned up
loud...
> ok, just wondering...
>
> Lou Figueroa
I don't think anyone has done it but I could never play with earphones on.
I just didn't feel right.
I think such tests would yield interesting results. I think that when the
jukebox is loud you still "hear" your shots. I am also not discounting the
real feeling that a person experiences when a ball is struck. I just
believe that the "hit" is composed of the auditory feedback combined with
the actual vibratory feedback and that the auditory portion is rarely
discussed.
John
Platinum Billiards
>
> > Do you really
> > believe the range of squirt among the shafts you measured only differs
> > by 50% despite other measurements that say it differs several times as much?
> I think when Steve Titus does the aim-and-pivot measurement, he gets
> the same value as the rest of us. I think there is some
> experimental detail that is causing the confusion, and when we
> finally figure it out, it will be obvious.
>
> Sort of like how your lost keys are always in the last place you
> look.
I have been testing cues like this for over 10 years and this is my
3rd stroking machine, and I must admit I never paid much attention to
the pivot point method...until recently. It appeared that something
was awry and so first I went and did some crude pivot point testing
and could see immediately that it was not close to agreeing with the
machine. So I checked and rechecked my machine method and could find
no flaw. So I made a rigid v-block like the machine has to take that
out of the equation and had a long session of pivot point testing
(with an object ball, Bob Jewett style). I concentrated on two shafts
- for the one that shoots a 43 on the machine and "should" have a
pivot around 10.5, I got 14.5" for close to center strikes, and 12"
for extreme offsets - the other shaft, a Z, shoots 32.6 on the machine
which predicts a 13.8" pp and with this one I got 21" for close to
center hits, and 17.5" for the extreme.
So what is going on here? - Different strokes! - I think many of us
have been (mis?)led to believe that a player's stroking technique
cannot have significant effect on squirt, but this has to be the
answer. There is nothing wrong with the machine's stroke - it is super
precise, just not very nice :-)
--steve
Ron Shepard
stev...@3cushion.com (Newsposts1) wrote:
I was referring to your description above: a *significant* change in
the axis at the *instant* the ball changes from sliding to rolling.
In fact, the change is continuous and smooth as the ball slides, and
there is only an infinitesimal change in the axis at that moment
that the ball changes from sliding to rolling.
The axis also changes after roll is attained, but it changes at a
different (slower) rate than when it is sliding.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Ron Shepard
st...@platinumbilliards.com (Platinum Billiards) wrote:
> [...]
> - for the one that shoots a 43 on the machine and "should" have a
> pivot around 10.5, I got 14.5" for close to center strikes, and 12"
> for extreme offsets [...]
Here are a couple (more) questions about your setup.
I think that the stick always strokes along the same line, and you
move the cue ball sideways to achieve the offset and sidespin.
Also, I think you use contact-sensitive cash register tape to record
the cue ball impact point.
I think this is the way you do a set of shots: You set up a clean
register tape 50 inches away from the cue ball. You start with a
centerball hit, then you move the cue ball to the side 6mm to the
right, then 6mm to the left, then 12mm to the right, and 12mm to the
left. At this time, the register tape should have five spots on it.
For the shaft above (the one that scores a 43), what exactly are the
distances from the centerball hit spot for the four displacement
shots?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Newsposts1
> What if deflection only depends on
> stiffness in the first 6 inches of the cue, and not after that? The only
> way you will convince anybody is to have 2 cues made to the same specs,
> except you have 2 very different types of joints. If you can show that
> these 2 cues have different deflection, then you have actual data.
How a cue bends under load near the first 6-12 inches from the tip, or
any where else for that matter, is a function of the entire mechanical
design of the cue (everything in the primary load path). This is not
rocket science. This is basic mechanical engineering. I don't have to
write the 1000th book in history on the subject to make a case in
point.
So when I hear people say that everything beyond 6 inches from the tip
means nothing, then yes, I say that is ludicrous opinion.
> Otherwise, you have nothing. You aren't even providing a theory to counter
> the prevailing (and tested) theory that deflection is a function of the last
> several inches of the cue only.
When I was associated with Lambros, I did hours and hours of testing
like everyone else says they have done. My results were quite
different. Lambros cues that I used had virtually zero deflection.
They were perfectly controllable and no compensation, or pivot point
crap, was required for an accurate shot. Many other cues with weaker
joints and designs proved to be substantially less controllable and
predictable. Many others in between, were more controllable, but still
had noticeable deflection to the point where it caused missed shots
and position.
I've also played around with predators and practically every other cue
design. And many of these including predator, had so much deflection
under load, that in some circumstances it was uncontrollable. For
example, there is a room near where I work, where the house cues are
2-piece sneaky petes with a very weak joint, very slim taper and very
hard tip. These cues are virtually uncontrollable due to excessive
deflection, for any shots requiring any english and medium to firm
force. This is case in point where I have always advocated that cues
(shafts and joints) should be as stiff as possible and tips should be
as soft as possible.
Furthermore, my experiences as an engineer who was professionally
involved in vibration measurements and analyses, as someone who has
studied cue materials and design for years, as someone who apprenticed
under one of the top cuemakers of our generation, as a player who has
experimented with many different cues of practically all of the basic
designs, and as a player who has played quite of bit of carom
billiards, snooker and pocket billiards under a wide range of
conditions, have all been part of the formation of what my opinions
about cues are now.
But for you and others of more limited experience and exposure, who
seem to be stuck and ingrained with your own beliefs and thoughts, if
you want to continue to believe that this is "nothing," then please be
my guest.
Newsposts1
> So what is going on here? - Different strokes! - I think many of us
> have been (mis?)led to believe that a player's stroking technique
> cannot have significant effect on squirt, but this has to be the
> answer.
Not I for one. I can recall being ridiculed for posting such a
viewpoint in the past, though at the time it was just an opinion based
upon personal experience. I have no doubts that deflection can be kept
to a controllable minimum by stroke technique alone.
Platinum Billiards
> I think this is the way you do a set of shots: You set up a clean
> register tape 50 inches away from the cue ball. You start with a
> centerball hit, then you move the cue ball to the side 6mm to the
> right, then 6mm to the left, then 12mm to the right, and 12mm to the
> left. At this time, the register tape should have five spots on it.
>
> For the shaft above (the one that scores a 43), what exactly are the
> distances from the centerball hit spot for the four displacement
> shots?
The only difference is I don't generally do a center shot - for this
shaft the distance between the marks from the two 12mm offset shots is
139mm, and from the 6mm shots, 69mm. I subtract the ofsets; 139-24=115
and then divide by 2 to get an average squirt at 12mm of 57.5mm. For
the 6's, 69-12=57, 57/2=28.5mm.
And then, (57.5+28.5)/2=43mm average of the four shots for this shaft.
--steve
st...@platinumbilliards.com
JoePisko
Dan White wrote:
> The only
> way you will convince anybody is to have 2 cues made to the same specs,
> except you have 2 very different types of joints. If you can show that
> these 2 cues have different deflection, then you have actual data.
> Otherwise, you have nothing. You aren't even providing a theory to counter
> the prevailing (and tested) theory that deflection is a function of the last
> several inches of the cue only.
>
I have played with several cues that have different joints and predator shafts
(not identical specs though) and have seen no difference in spuirt. I have no
'numbers' though. While not scientific my experience of hitting many shots with
different butt/joint combinations but very similar shafts has tempered what I
used to believe about cues. I would not claim to be an authority on the subject.
Joe
JoePisko
Platinum Billiards wrote:
>
> So what is going on here? - Different strokes! - I think many of us
> have been (mis?)led to believe that a player's stroking technique
> cannot have significant effect on squirt, but this has to be the
> answer. There is nothing wrong with the machine's stroke - it is super
> precise, just not very nice :-)
> --steve
I sure hope this does not start a high spuirt low spuirt stroke argument on rsb.
Joe
Dan White
> "Dan White" <dwhi...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<7dCkc.66250$Gd3.15...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
> > What if deflection only depends on
> > stiffness in the first 6 inches of the cue, and not after that? The
only
> > way you will convince anybody is to have 2 cues made to the same specs,
> > except you have 2 very different types of joints. If you can show that
> > these 2 cues have different deflection, then you have actual data.
>
> How a cue bends under load near the first 6-12 inches from the tip, or
> any where else for that matter, is a function of the entire mechanical
> design of the cue (everything in the primary load path). This is not
> rocket science. This is basic mechanical engineering. I don't have to
> write the 1000th book in history on the subject to make a case in
> point.
Thanks for responding. Nobody is asking you to write a book. My issue is
not whether you are right or wrong, it is that you want us to believe you
just because you are an expert on cue vibration, construction etc etc at
Lambros. This is called "an appeal to authority." In other words, you are
saying "believe me because I am an expert." Ron S. and Bob J. present
actual proofs or data to support their ideas, they don't claim to be
experts, even though they are.
You say that you've tested all kinds of cues for deflection. Are you
basically saying that you have done the control study to show that the joint
affects deflection? If you want to win over people who are open to both
sides of the debate, then this is the kind of information that will do it.
One other thing. You say above that the stiffness in the last 6 inches
under load depends on the construction of the entire cue. I'm no rocket
scientist, so maybe I'll never get it, but are you sure this is true? Let
me illustrate with an absurd example to make the point. Let's say you have
a cue stick that is 100 yards long. At one end is a cue ball, and 1 foot
away from the other end (the butt) is a joint. The type of joint affects
the overall stiffness of the cue, as you say. You shoot the ball off center
to achieve deflection, and the ball is gone within 2/1000 of a second. I
contend that the back end of the cue near the joint has no idea that it has
struck anything 2/1000 of a second later because the vibration wave hasn't
gotten there yet. I seems to me that it doesn't matter how stiff something
is if the wave hasn't reached it. Where am I going wrong here?
I don't know who is right. I just know that one side is giving physical
arguments, and the other is mostly saying "trust me."
thanks,
dwhite
Patrick Johnson
> ... Lambros cues that I used had virtually zero deflection.
Bullshit. Let's put money on it.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Gregory
> I have no 'numbers' though. While not
> scientific my experience of hitting many
> shots with different butt/joint combinations
> but very similar shafts has tempered what I
> used to believe about cues. I would not
> claim to be an authority on the subject.
>
> Joe
Yeah, but you could write a song about it.
Gregory
> I sure hope this does not start a high
> spuirt low spuirt stroke argument on rsb.
Get your filters ready!
JoePisko
Gregory wrote:
For the well-being of society at large I think it is best that I remain
an instrumentalist.
Joe
Ira Lee
from one attempt to the next (at the same velocity) than a stiffer
shaft. In other words if you measured many samples of deflection for
a shot delivered at the same high speed and maximum english, the
'whippier' shaft would be less easy to predict overall than a stiffer
shaft (tigher zone).
In my experience, the stiffer shaft deflects much more, but does so
more consistently from attempt to attempt (at the same speed)... which
is appealing to me. My case is this: Allow me to adjust for the
deflection, but give me an environment with consistent predictability.
The problem is that it might take many years to learn the deflection
characteristics of the stiff cue across the entire speed/stroke
spectrum.
In the 3-cushion game, where cue-ball control is the main focus, all
top players unanimously prefer a stiffer shaft over a flexible one.
Of course, the environment is markedly different. Still, with the
heavier cue ball and more english required we can expect to see
similiar, perhaps exaggerated, deflection characteristics. There
should still be parallels that can be drawn to pool balls on a pool
table.
Good shafts for billiards are characterized by heavy, dense-grained
wood and a conical taper. This type of design offers more consistent
power, more precise application of english, and more direct tactile
feedback to the player. Stiffer shafts minimize the 'disconnect'
between the cue ball (felt against the tip of the cue) and the
player's arm - important feedback for the billiard player. Having
mastered and associated the wide range of speeds each with their
unique deflection characteristics (at varying distances, degrees of
cue angles, stroke accelerations, etc), the player can then reliabilty
anticipate how his/her cue will react with a degree of certainty.
This learning curve could be as long as 10 years...
On the flipside, I guess the motive thus far hasn't been to decrease
the "ever-so-steep" learning curve of the carom game - as Predator has
certainly done with their pocket billiard cues. Here's one thing I
can pretty much guarantee: In your lifetime, you will never see a
3-cushion title won with a red-dot Meucci.
-Ira
stev...@3cushion.com (Newsposts1) wrote in message news:<52c1c1b1.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> "John Barton" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message news:<nOydnbAbZ8C...@centurytel.net>...
>
> > > Again you are missing the whole point. The question is whether or not
> > > the shaft delivers the same amount of deflection over all impact
> > > velocities.
> >
> > Why is this important?
>
> Aren't the reasons obvious?
>
> Let's say you have Cue A and Cue B.
>
> Let's assume further that we have determined beyond a shadow of a
> doubt that Cue A has low deflection at low velocity, the exact same
> amount of deflection at medium velocity and the exact same amount of
> deflection at high velocity.
>
> Similarly, we have determined that Cue B also has this exact same
> amount of low deflection at low velocity, but 2 to 4 times that amount
> at medium velocity and 8 to 10 times that amount at high velocity.
>
> Some obvious conclusions would have to be:
> 1. Cue A has a superior design, relative to Cue B.
> 2. Cue A is predictable and controllable across a large range of
> shots, contrary to Cue B.
> 3. Cue A and Cue B could both easily be advertised as a "low
> deflection" cues. However with Cue A, the advertiser could be
> completely truthful. However with Cue B, the results and premise of
> the advertisement would have to be purposely vague in order to not
> have the advertiser posting a blatant lie.
>
> Having the same deflection characteristics over the full range of
> impact velocities, means that an accurate and reliable method of
> compensation could be applied.
>
> More importantly, it means that the average amateur player is probably
> going to be more accurate in making shots with english with Cue A,
> than he or she would be with Cue B. IOW, cue design and cue
> performance alone can make a player better (all other things being
> equal).
>
> IMHO, having the same deflection characteristics over the full range
> of impact velocities, is also consistent with a cue design that has
> low to no deflection. IOW, I don't think you will ever see a cue with
> consistent, but high, amounts of deflection.
>
> > I think that they are providing data gleaned from whatever tests
> > they did and letting the consumer infer what he will from that data.
>
> Yeah .... sure .... but are they telling the consumer the whole story?
> IMHO, no they are not. They are telling the consumer what they think
> will make the consumer buy one or more of their products.
>
> > I would rather have a shaft that "feels" good and so far no one can test for
> > that. What I would like to see is some tests to show the effects of various
> > taper/ferrule/tip/joint combinations along with "feel" opinions from a test
> > group of good players.
>
> This may be all well and good, but honestly what would you hope to get
> from this other than a verbal advertisement? How many good players got
> to be good players because they worked hard to become experts with the
> equipment of the sport, as opposed to practicing and competing? IMHO,
> very few if any. They became good players because they did repetitive
> activities over and over until they became proficient at it, not
> because they studied and became experts with the equipment.
>
> Your other point about ordering a cue with precise known
> specifications is a good one. But how realistic do you think it is?
>
> How many cues today are sold because of name recognition and perceived
> "reputation" alone? Probably somewhere between 75%-100%. How many cues
> are sold today because they can be built to a precise set of
> performance characteristics. Probably zero.
>
> So again, your point is a good one, but not very likely because it is
> not something that most manufacturers want to see. Their money is in
> sales because of name recognition and perceived reputation.
lfigueroa
> The problem is that it might take many years to learn the deflection
> characteristics of the stiff cue across the entire speed/stroke
> spectrum.
and
Having
> mastered and associated the wide range of speeds each with their
> unique deflection characteristics (at varying distances, degrees of
> cue angles, stroke accelerations, etc), ..
you seem to be saying that squirt (you say deflection) is speed/stroke
dependent. This is something we've argued here many times before. If I'm
interpreting you correctly, what kind of evidence have you seen that makes
you feel different speeds/strokes effects the amount of squirt produced?
Lou Figueroa
"Ira Lee" <i...@caromtv.com> wrote in message
news:43c0af5f.04050...@posting.google.com...
Shawn Armstrong
never see a
> 3-cushion title won with a red-dot Meucci.
>
> -Ira
And, I can almost guarantee that you won't see anyone win the World 9-ball
championships with a carom cue. You're comparing apples to oranges when you
compare the characteristics of a good carom cue versus a good pocket
billiards cue.
I agree that a stiffer cue feels better in terms of feedback. In this new
"low deflection" craze that is sweeping the pool nation, I will say that
having been a Predator and BD Meucci user for the past 3 months (just
playing around with the low deflection cues - I'm not partial to either
one), the cue ball seems to deflect less with the black dot Meucci than the
Predator. The Predator has a better feel (not as whippy), but I find myself
actually preferring the Meucci in terms of how it moves the cueball around.
I don't have to stroke the ball nearly as hard, or use nearly as much
english to get a good reaction from the cueball.
My favourite playing cue is still my Schon, but the Meucci sure is fun to
play with.
Shawn Armstrong
Ron Shepard
i...@caromtv.com (Ira Lee) wrote:
> In my experience, the stiffer shaft deflects much more, but does so
> more consistently from attempt to attempt (at the same speed)... which
> is appealing to me.
The problem is that there are other variables than just shaft
stiffness. The carom cues you are talking about have not only stiff
tapers, they also have small tip diameters (9 to 11 mm compared for
example to 13+ mm pool cue tips). It is really the tip diameter,
which determines the endmass, that some of us think is the critical
factor for squirt.
> My case is this: Allow me to adjust for the
> deflection, but give me an environment with consistent predictability.
> The problem is that it might take many years to learn the deflection
> characteristics of the stiff cue across the entire speed/stroke
> spectrum.
I think that most of the variation in squirt from shot to shot (for
the same intended shot speed and tip contact point) is due small
variations in the tip offset, not to physical characteristics of the
stick itself (such as "spine"). To a good approximation, squirt is
proportional to the actual tip offset, and the variation in the
squirt from shot to shot is proportional to the squirt itself. This
means that in order to minimize the shot-to-shot variation in squirt
you should use a low squirt cue. In other words, I don't think
there is any such thing as a "consistent high squirt cue", it is the
high squirt itself that is causing the inconsistency.
This argument is separate from the idea that it is easier for the
player to aim accurately with small squirt adjustments than with
high squirt adjustments. I also think this is true, and it is
related to your point about taking 10 years to learn how to adjust
to the full range of required shots, but it is a separate factor.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Shawn Armstrong
biased in his evaluation of Predator vs. Meucci, since he built Iron Willy,
and also helped develop/produce the Predator shaft?
I'm not trying to nitpick, but this has the same ring to it as John Barton
talking about the validity of jump cues.
Shawn Armstrong
"Platinum Billiards" <st...@platinumbilliards.com> wrote in message
news:80ba6fc.04050...@posting.google.com...
> stev...@3cushion.com (Newsposts1) wrote in message
news:<52c1c1b1.04043...@posting.google.com>...
> > st...@platinumbilliards.com (Platinum Billiards) wrote in message
news:<80ba6fc.04042...@posting.google.com>...
> > > What I have seen so far is
> > > that, for a pretty good variety of shafts, squirt tends to increase
> > > with speed at the rate of .2% to .3% per mph, over the range of 9mph
> > > to 21mph.
> >
> > Is this only Predator cues, or does this include other cues as well ?
>
> Ron Shepard wrote:
> ...for several years now the
> rumors have been that the Meucci ferrule design has low squirt for
> soft shots and higher squirt for faster shots. This is because the
> end of the ferrule wiggles, it is not firmly attached to the tenon
> at the end of the tip. I have never seen data published that would
> prove or disprove this rumor...
> for a regular solid ferrule design, this mechanism
> would not affect squirt, and it would be reasonable to expect the
> same squirt at all shot speeds (at least all shot speeds short of
> shattering the ferrule).
>
> Ira Lee wrote:
> ...Here's one thing I
> can pretty much guarantee: In your lifetime, you will never see a
> 3-cushion title won with a red-dot Meucci.
>
> The shafts we have tested so far include the full range from lowest
> squirting to highest, and all fall within the .2% - .3% per mph
> increase, with one current exception....I tested the red dot years ago
> and saw this and was reminded by these posts and just tested it again
> and "on the machine" its squirt production increases at the rate of
> .85% per mph, or about 11% from 8mph to 21mph - Yikes.
> --Steve
Bob Jewett
>> ... Lambros cues that I used had virtually zero deflection.
Patrick Johnson <patrick...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Bullshit. Let's put money on it.
Since Steve and Pat seem to use different definitions for
deflection I hope that they either clarify any bet before
testing or charge admission to the resulting fist fight.
Bob <- I've got $10 on the big guy.
John Pizzuto
Has Iron Willie been retired?
What changes have you incorporated into your newest machine?
Can you describe how the machine holds the cue? Tight grip, loose
grip, etc?
Tell us again about the V-block. Does it guide the last part of the
shaft?
I'm just an average player, so I might not know what I'm talking
about, but it seems that I get much less squirt if I grip the cue very
lightly AT BOTH ENDS of the stick. When the tip strikes the cueball
off axis, LET THE CUE PIVOT ON ITS OWN.
Set up this nearly straight in shot, and stroke it well with high
inside. Try it first with a closed bridge and a firm grip, then shoot
it with an open bridge and a very light grip.
http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/pooltable2.html
START(
%AE0L6%Iq2K0%PF9W6%WE1L8%XF6V4%]D2D5%^E0K9%eC3`6
)END
My stick is pretty light at 17.5 oz, with a whippy shaft and an 11.4
mm ferrule, so YMMV, but I'd like to hear some test results from out
there in RSB land.
Newsposts1
I have no intentions of engaging in physical or mental debate with
someone who has: nothing more to offer than a one word vocabulary, no
academic or practical background in the factors involved, such a
closed mind with ingrained opinions that change is impossible, and
with no stroke for anything other than bunting balls around the table.
Newsposts1
> (9 to 11 mm compared for
> example to 13+ mm pool cue tips). It is really the tip diameter,
> which determines the endmass, that some of us think is the critical
> factor for squirt.
You seem to be implying that a cue with a 5mm tip would have very
little deflection. Hard to believe.
Your dimensions on the tips aren't really correct either. They are
typically:
- straight rail: 9-12mm
- balkline & 3C: 11-12.5mm
- artistic masse': 13-14.5mm
- pool: 11.5-13.25mm
It would seem there is a bit more overlap than what you believe.
John Barton
can play pool fairly easily with a carom cue but the reverse is not true in
that one can play billiards easily with a pool cue.
John
"Shawn Armstrong" <shawn.a...@no.cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:vS7lc.3625$_o1.4...@read2.cgocable.net...
John Barton
> Is is just me, or does anyone think that Steve Titus might be a little
> biased in his evaluation of Predator vs. Meucci, since he built Iron
Willy,
> and also helped develop/produce the Predator shaft?
>
> I'm not trying to nitpick, but this has the same ring to it as John Barton
> talking about the validity of jump cues.
>
> Shawn Armstrong
Even if he is biased, the machine was built BEFORE the shaft. It was built
to TEST the shafts and the resulting data is what is to be interpreted.
Even if the variables are not all accounted for the testing apparatus is
still the same and UNBIASED.
Yes, you are trying to nitpick. Steve Titus is one of a handful of people
in the billiard industry who has taken the time to do real testing to come
to some sort of understanding of the dynamics of pool playing. That he
ultimately ended up with a product out it does not suddenly invalidate the
data gleaned from the experiments.
Look around you Shawn. You will find that most research leads to products
and the researchers end up as the experts on those products, with the most
understanding of the dynamics of why those products work.
As for the quip about me. There is not one person on this forum who has
more experience with more types of jump cues for a longer period than me,
except perhaps Joe Piccone and I believe that with my experiences in Germany
I might have more than him. So when I argue that jump cues are a valid part
of the game it is from a superior position of lengthy and worldwide
experience with them. The problem is that some people cannot seperate the
salesman from the expert. The best salesmen however are also those who are
expert enough in their products and those of the competition that they can
confidently let people go and compare because they know that it is likely
their superior product and honest evaluation will bring the customer's back.
John
Patrick Johnson
>>> ... Lambros cues that I used had virtually zero deflection.
Me:
>> Bullshit. Let's put money on it.
Steve:
> I have no intentions of engaging in physical or mental debate with
> someone who has blah blah blah ...
I haven't invited you to "engage in" anything except a money bet that
you can't find a squirtless cue - made by anybody.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Dan White
news:109bab7...@news.supernews.com...
...another degenerated thread. I guess my answer from Newsposts will have
to be "I know joints affect deflection because my experience tells me so."
dwhite
Newsposts1
> a money bet that you can't find a squirtless cue - made by anybody.
Here's an example of one of many tests that Lambros and & I did on the
pool table in his shop (GC-II, Simonis 860, centennial balls).
START(
%Ag7N2%BB9\0%CB8\2%DB5\1%Eg6Q0%FB8\0%GB5\1%HB8\2%IB8[9%JB7\0
%KC0\0%LC1\0%MC1\0%N\0Q1%O\0N0%Pk1O6%WD3O7%Xj1O6%YY2[2%ZC6P0
%eA6a4
)END
The spaces between the balls are just slightly larger than the space
required for the cue ball to pass through.
We shot dozens and dozens of shots with
- full english
- varying speeds
- parallel line aiming (e.g., straight level cue, no BHE or pivot
point nonsense)
Certainly, this is a test that requires more than a moderate degree of
skill by the player, in order to align and stroke properly.
But also this test requires a good cue, one with very little or no
deflection. Any deflection whatsoever, and the cue ball will go
crashing into one of the object balls.
We were able to successfully repeat this test with ultra-jointed cues
made in the shop, and were unable to reproduce the same results with
any other type of cue, including his flat-faced cues (which are also
quite good, but not in the same league as the ultra-jointed cues).
We also repeated similar tests with single pairs of balls with the
same close spacing, but at different distances from the cue ball,
including almost right next to the cue ball and one and two feet away.
This would remove any doubt or chance the the cue ball could be
hopping slight off the table to "assist" in clearing the object balls
at their largest diameter.
If this is not a good example of a zero or low deflection cue, then
you will have to tell me what is.
On the other hand, maybe a lot of people like you are hesitant to
classify this as a good test for deflection, because your stroke isn't
grooved well enough to provide an accurate stroke in the first place.
Newsposts1
> You say that you've tested all kinds of cues for deflection. Are you
> basically saying that you have done the control study to show that the joint
> affects deflection?
No one has ever done a truly scientific study where certain parameters
are fixed, while others are varied, including things like joint type,
shaft profile (taper), tip, etc. Everything to date has been more or
less ad hoc studies with little variance in conditions.
Also, no one has ever done tests to look at the vibrations and bending
in a cue during the impact period. Over the years, I've laid out
several scenarios where these kinds of tests could be performed using
acclerometry and/or laser interferometry.
IMHO, the complete picture will never be understood until controlled
tests are done, and vibration wave analysis is done. Everything else
up to that point is little more than opinion and conjecture.
> I contend that the back end of the cue near the joint has no idea that it has
> struck anything 2/1000 of a second later because the vibration wave hasn't
> gotten there yet. I seems to me that it doesn't matter how stiff something
> is if the wave hasn't reached it. Where am I going wrong here?
Your error is in assuming that the ball is gone before the impact
vibration reaches the joint interface.
There is more than enough time during impact for the impact wave to
reach the joint, and be reflected back to the tip, possibly resulting
in unwanted or unexpected movement of the tip during impact.
The static and dynamic stiffness of the shaft is absolutely dependent
upon the taper and the type of joint.
If the joint unloads partially or completely over the entire expected
range of impact forces, then cue stiffness and performance is more or
less dependent upon impact force.
Despite alternative conjecture from so many other RSB "experts", this
remains a physical fact. It's discussed in every mechanical
engineering handbook that I've ever seen.
On a slightly different but intimately related topic, most of the RSB
"experts" have the belief that the input forcing function (e.g.,
impact wave) most closely resembles a sinusoid and so cue performance
can be analyzed in that manner. This results in some very convenient
results for them.
On the other hand, I've read articles written by PhD scientists which
state that the form of the impact wave changes with force. For low
velocity impacts, the input wave does closely resemble a low amplitude
sinusiodal function. So in this possibly narrow range of cases, these
kinds of conclusions may in fact be correct.
However, as the stroke velocity increases (the force input to the tip
increases), the forcing function not only not sinusoidal, it becomes
more and more like a high amplitude step function containing multiple
frequency content.
No one has ever studied cues and deflection by looking at these kinds
of changes and parameters. Yet many people seem to believe that
everything published to date is conclusive and unquestionably correct.
I happen to disagree.
Jimbo Ct
Jim <---This place is going down hill
JoePisko
>
> There is more than enough time during impact for the impact wave to
> reach the joint, and be reflected back to the tip, possibly resulting
> in unwanted or unexpected movement of the tip during impact.
>
Ok, in your opinion, how long is the tip in contact with the ball? Lets use a medium speed shot for this discussion.
Joe
Patrick Johnson
> ... Any deflection whatsoever, and the cue ball will go
> crashing into one of the object balls.
Unless, of course, you've adjusted your aim to compensate for the
deflection. Player contamination of the stroke is the biggest, most
significant possible variable, and it doesn't appear that you even
understand this, much less do anything to control it.
Why do you suppose everybody else uses machines to stroke these test shots?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Platinum Billiards
> In article <108rkb6...@news.supernews.com>,
> Patrick Johnson <patrick...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I think the magnitude of difference in squirt among most cues is at
> > least 5:1 (say, 8 inches to 40 inches pivot length), which means that
> > the lowest squirt cues eliminate 80 percent (4/5) of the squirt caused
> > by the highest squirt cues and probably at least half of the squirt
> > caused by an average cue.
>
> I would think these numbers are about right for the range, although
> I'd guess that the "average" pivot point is in the 12-16 inch range
> though.
>
> However, these values do not agree with the data at the Platinum
> site.
>
> $.02 -Ron Shepard
Something has been puzzling me and I have a question:
I think we all agree that tip mass is the primary cause of squirt -
and that squirt should vary pretty much directly with any change in
the tip mass...
This talk of a 4-5 times variation in squirt - wouldn't that indicate
a 4-5 times variation in tip mass?
I can tell you that the hole in the first 4" of the Predator shaft
removes 3g of wood, or 30% of the 10g mass of the first 4" of a
"normal" solid shaft, which would seem to fit very nicely with the
range of squirt results we get from our machine testing.
http://www.platinumbilliards.com/rating_deflect.php
--Steve Titus st...@platinumbilliards.com
Shawn Armstrong
My point is that although the two of you may have the most knowledge in
regards to testing for deflection, or the construction of jump cues in your
case, you have a financial motive that will always make people like me a
little suspect in terms of your results. I was a stats major in university,
and I can tell you that without a doubt data can be manipulated to discern
whatever result you want it to have. If the data is unanimously against
your findings, just set the confidence intervals to such a point that the
data becomes "inconclusive".
Steve Titus has done some wonderful testing. So has Bob Meucci. Isn't it
strange that Bob's tests show that the Meucci is superior, and Predator's
testing shows that they are superior? Annie O has done testing, and her 35
layer shaft (which apparently is a BD blank from Meucci) is better than a
Predator, but not as good as a Meucci. Steve has now done testing (is he
still involved with Predator?) to show that the Predator is superior. Whose
tests are correct?
Also, when it comes to jump cues, I have always found your motives suspect
in the past, as your quality of life is decided, in part, by the sales
dollars generated from jump cues. Therefore, you could be the world's
foremost authority on the jump cue (although I'd put Pat Fleming and Bob
Doss up there with you - BTW whatever happened to the Doss Jump/Play cue?),
but the fact that you are tied in with the Bunjee will always raise my
eyebrow a little when it comes to you talking about the banning of jump cues
or the validity of how they tie into the game of pool in general.
Shawn Armstrong
"John Barton" <inst...@instroke.com> wrote in message
news:JJednZXXRNh...@centurytel.net...