Science Schmience - Sidespin and Throw/Spin Transfer

[Skin]

Well, that's what you get for thinking without a helmet.

The definition of science or scientist doesn't include publishing in peer reviewed journals, although I'll bet all of these guys have done that - maybe even on the subject of pool.

Nonetheless, their pool research and articles are scholarly and, assuming you ever want to complain about something other than semantics, available for you to review and critique. I for one am all ears.

pj
chgo

See my post directly above, Patrick.

Skin

 

[Patrick Johnson]

If he is doing science in pool, why no pubs? If no pubs, then how is what he publishes in pool, science?

Is this really what you think the definition of science is? I think maybe you should look it up. Also ad hominem.

He may be right about what he says about pool, but it's irrelevant to whether it constitutes science.

I think you've got that shoe on the wrong foot. It's irrelevant whether (in your opinion) it's labeled correctly.

pj
chgo

 

[Skin]

Is this really what you think the definition of science is? I think maybe you should look it up. Also ad hominem.


I think you've got that shoe on the wrong foot. It's irrelevant whether (in your opinion) it's labeled correctly.

pj
chgo

Patrick, you simply do not understand science and how it is done well enough to be able to discriminate between science and non-science. This is a sad that fact you have demonstrated repeatedly in what you have written here. I don't think your ignorance is willful but it does seem to be invincible. And against that "even the gods themselves contend in vain".

Skin

 

[onepocket926]

I think "50% of maximum side spin" is the same spot on the CB for everybody. I think so because all those scientists I named say so, and they've done the experiments and written the papers that show it. If you'd really like to see what determines these facts then I recommend setting aside some time, making a pot of coffee and clicking some of the links on Dr. Dave's webpages.

pj
chgo

...that won't be necessary.....I now know...that, your use of the phrase..."maximum side spin".....refers to the contact point on the Cue ball....and has nothing to do with how much spin You actually obtain....as that is partially controlled by the amount force behind the hit......

...thanks for the clarification....

 

[Patrick Johnson]

...that won't be necessary.....I now know...that, your use of the phrase..."maximum side spin".....refers to the contact point on the Cue ball....and has nothing to do with how much spin You actually obtain....as that is partially controlled by the amount force behind the hit......

...thanks for the clarification....

Yes, you get more RPMs with more speed, and RPMs may be the important thing for throw.

The reason I say "may be" is that it's not the RPMs that determine other effects of spin (like changing angles of rebound) - that's determined by spin-to-forwardspeed ratio, which is the same at any speed for the same CB contact point (you can easily demonstrate this to yourself).

My intuition tells me that spin-to-speed ratio is also the important thing for throw, but I'm not certain of that.

pj
chgo

 

[Patrick Johnson]

Patrick, you simply do not understand science and how it is done well enough to be able to discriminate between science and non-science.

That seems to be true for one of us alright. I'm happy for others to make up their own minds about who's who.

pj
chgo

 

[tylerdurden]

What is science?

It's like asking what is pool.

Is it pool when two drunk bangers are playing on a barbox. I guess so, not very good pool, but it's pool.

Same thing with science, right. Without mentioning names, I will agree that much like good pool being between players like efren and Svb, good science will most likely be found being discussed and reviewed within the scientific community.

 

[onepocket926]

Yes, you get more RPMs with more speed, and RPMs may be the important thing for throw.

The reason I say "may be" is that it's not the RPMs that determine other effects of spin (like changing angles of rebound) - that's determined by spin-to-forwardspeed ratio, which is the same at any speed for the same CB contact point (you can easily demonstrate this to yourself).

My intuition tells me that spin-to-speed ratio is also the important thing for throw, but I'm not certain of that.

pj
chgo

....here's one to try......that might support or quell your intuition....for a few years I ran Tournaments......and every Saturday morning...I'd get to the Pool Hall....before the Chickens got up.....

....I'd promptly wash down all the tables (vacuum...then wipe down the cloth with a slightly dampened cloth)...cleaning all the rails, polish the chrome....You know the drill.......then just for shits and giggles....I started Armor All-ing all the balls.......the Players loved it.......they could slip-and-slide......to their hearts content......

...the throw was less....but the slide, drag, pull or stun...seemed to be exaggerated......

......my institution tells me.....that at the faster speeds......the throw will be less....and the slower the more throw because the ball to ball contact will actually be of a longer duration allowing friction to transfer the spin ....(I tried timing it...but, every time I went to push the stop the shot was already over).......

 

[androd]

To the uneducated (me) this thread is much worse than all the flame wars. :frus
Rod.

 

[straightback]

Skin, attack the actual argument and not the category in which it has been casually situated. Patrick, carry on.

 

[Skin]

Skin, attack the actual argument and not the category in which it has been casually situated. Patrick, carry on.

I don't have any attack on the arguments, just an objection to the category. I see them as something on the order of a science fair project, like making a vinegar and baking soda volcano. They're fun and instructive. Nothing wrong with them. They just are what they are.

But, this approach is not unique to pool. Take a look.

http://www.oxfordcroquet.com/tech/calladine/index.asp

Be sure to check out the Technical link on the right-hand menu for a gas tank full of fun. Like this article, which analyzed a swing-bot's performance related to the problem in mr3c's combination throw thread. It's actually pretty good.

http://www.oxfordcroquet.com/tech/holdclaw1/index.asp

Skin

 

[onepocket926]

I don't have any attack on the arguments, just an objection to the category. I see them as something on the order of a science fair project, like making a vinegar and baking soda volcano. They're fun and instructive. Nothing wrong with them. They just are what they are.

But, this approach is not unique to pool. Take a look.

http://www.oxfordcroquet.com/tech/calladine/index.asp

Be sure to check out the Technical link on the right-hand menu for a gas tank full of fun. Like this article, which analyzed a swing-bot's performance related to the problem in mr3c's combination throw thread. It's actually pretty good.

http://www.oxfordcroquet.com/tech/holdclaw1/index.asp

Skin

...can I get a high 5....for starting a thread on knitting ?......

 

[SloMoHolic]

......my institution tells me.....that at the faster speeds......the throw will be less....and the slower the more throw because the ball to ball contact will actually be of a longer duration allowing friction to transfer the spin ....(I tried timing it...but, every time I went to push the stop the shot was already over).......

May I suggest that both Patrick and 926 are correct?

Perhaps the equipment and atmospheric conditions can skew the amount of resultant throw vs rotation-to-translational CB speed ratio.

For example, with unpolished, dirty balls in a humid location, could the maximum amount of throw occur at a slower speed, as compared to an identical layout with a new, polished set in a dry environment?

Looking forward to more of this discussion. Good Stuff!

Thanks,

-Blake

 

[LSJohn]

I don't have any attack on the arguments, just an objection to the category. I see them as something on the order of a science fair project, like making a vinegar and baking soda volcano. They're fun and instructive. Nothing wrong with them. They just are what they are.

But, this approach is not unique to pool. Take a look.

http://www.oxfordcroquet.com/tech/calladine/index.asp

Be sure to check out the Technical link on the right-hand menu for a gas tank full of fun. Like this article, which analyzed a swing-bot's performance related to the problem in mr3c's combination throw thread. It's actually pretty good.

http://www.oxfordcroquet.com/tech/holdclaw1/index.asp

Skin

Let me trot out my own $.02 on the issue of "science."

I think "science" describes the way one follows a path of inquiry and can't be judged by the outcome.

You have a point (implied) in the fact that even though one may be attempting to apply scientific principles in seeking answers, if there are flaws in the way they are applied, or the wrong ones are applied, we can hardly call it "science."

So, I would say, whether an inquiry can be called "science" depends upon how well scientific principles are applied in the search. That implies that if one disputes that an exercise qualifies as science, he should be able to point out where intuition, or "educated guesses" have been used in place of scientific principles, or that scientific principles one attempted to apply were incorrect or incorrectly applied, OR -- the failure I think I see more often than these -- using scientific principles in the search, but drawing conclusions not scientifically (objectively) supported by the data.

Whaddaya say?

 

[onepocket926]

Let me trot out my own $.02 on the issue of "science."

I think "science" describes the way one follows a path of inquiry and can't be judged by the outcome.

You have a point (implied) in the fact that even though one may be attempting to apply scientific principles in seeking answers, if there are flaws in the way they are applied, or the wrong ones are applied, we can hardly call it "science."

So, I would say, whether an inquiry can be called "science" depends upon how well scientific principles are applied in the search. That implies that if one disputes that an exercise qualifies as science, he should be able to point out where intuition, or "educated guesses" have been used in place of scientific principles, or that scientific principles one attempted to apply were incorrect or incorrectly applied, OR -- the failure I think I see more often than these -- using scientific principles in the search, but drawing conclusions not scientifically (objectively) supported by the data.

Whaddaya say?

.....let Me give You...your $.03 change from Your nickel...........

....very well said !!!!!!........

.....I believe most decisions that People make are based on...a compiling of evidences (pieces of a puzzle).......that they have either experienced......or believe to be true........

......the problem is when You start to put together the 1,000 piece puzzle based upon the picture on the box......a landscape lets say....

......then You finish assembling it......and there are 47 pieces left over.....leaving You with a Portrait of Abe Lincoln......do You claim Victory....and kick the left-overs under the couch ?.....

......or do You.....start again....and this time You don't clip and re-paint the pieces to fit ?......

.......Science and Fact....should never Compete...they should....always Compliment....

...if You say........"I can shoot a ball straight in and using side spin.....force the CB to bend to my command"..........and I see You do it....it has to be...Fact........

.....because my 5 senses are the USB ports to my Brain......."I've got to see, hear, feel, smell or taste it"......in order to believe it......

......I was playing a guy in a Tourney once........during his Case Game......He told Me that I fouled....I argued that I never saw the ball move....He argued that He heard the bad hit.......(tie goes to the runner).....I ran-out.........now it's...hill...hill.........

.......I was looking away from the table (a no! no!)...and I heard the hit on the balls.......I turned back around to see them...moving just as I had predicted..........so, I broke down my stick...shook his hand....and Congratulated him on the Win......He gave Me a....look of question......all I said was......"I believe You heard the Foul"......."good Match".....