Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[travisbickle]

All quite on the western front.
Maybe just maybe the non believers finally believe

[Terry Davidson]

All quite on the western front.
Maybe just maybe the non believers finally believe

Doesn't really matter, does it?

[travisbickle]

Doesn't really matter, does it?

After all you said it would be nice of you to admit you got this wrong, but hey ho

[Terry Davidson]

After all you said it would be nice of you to admit you got this wrong, but hey ho

What about all the abuse I took? I'm still not convinced. I demand freedom from spin religion as I'm a non-believer in any religion. You are like the Jehova's Witnesses who come to my door, they have tons of proof regarding their bible too.

[Ramon]

What about all the abuse I took? I'm still not convinced. I demand freedom from spin religion as I'm a non-believer in any religion. You are like the Jehova's Witnesses who come to my door, they have tons of proof regarding their bible too.

Hahahahahaa,,,, amazing post !!

Good morning Terry .

Do'nt pay attention to us, please do'nt !!
Travis and I , both are possessed by Devil.


[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]

[travisbickle]

What about all the abuse I took? I'm still not convinced. I demand freedom from spin religion as I'm a non-believer in any religion. You are like the Jehova's Witnesses who come to my door, they have tons of proof regarding their bible too.

Lol! And you wonder why. Fully deserved imo.

[travisbickle]

Hahahahahaa,,,, amazing post !!

Good morning Terry .

Do'nt pay attention to us, please do'nt !!
Travis and I , both are possessed by Devil.


[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]

They were TD's own words about this weren't they Ramon.
If IIRC he said anyone who can do this kinda stuff is possessed by the devil and won't be going to snooker heaven:snooker:
And this coming from someone who doesn't believe in God :biggrin-new::biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

[Ramon]

They were TD's own words about this weren't they Ramon.
If IIRC he said anyone who can do this kinda stuff is possessed by the devil and won't be going to snooker heaven:snooker:
And this coming from someone who doesn't believe in God :biggrin-new::biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

Looks like we both need redemption , my friend .
I'm working on it !!

[travisbickle]

Looks like we both need redemption , my friend .
I'm working on it !!

There is no hope for me I'm afraid :nightmare:

[Ramon]

There is no hope for me I'm afraid :nightmare:

lol, welcome to hell !!
although, it's Sunday, the holy spirit must be in the neighborhood. we may be able to make an appointment.
let me see what i can do my sun. be patient .

[vmax]

It wasn't me that said you can't swerve a cue ball using side because you clearly can.
But that wasn't the case with the shots I played. CB gets pushed out a bit to the left but holds its line.

what line is it holding

[itsnoteasy]

Ramon:

Someone stated they could get the OB to swerve around an intervening ball. Now was that a typo? Did he mean CB? What happened (in my mind) is I was getting unfairly criticized by some for not agreeing with CIT & SIT or at least not agreeing they had much measurable effect on a snooker table and stating they couldn't be effectively replicated on every shot. I also questioned whether the blue ball pot shown by Barry Stark wasn't really cueball swerve. For that I got crapped on from a great height, called stupid, ignorant, ignoring the laws of physics and everything else under the sun.

I did not start all the negative comments but I did respond to them. From your post: 'But I would expect that you ( as a more experienced player as well as a coach ) , to show abit more patience and pay more attention to what others have to say. ( what happened to your hard skin' ? ) . Why am I required to show restraint and people like Reggie are not required to in your mind? Is that fair or honest. I'm claiming age discrimination!

Because you are thinking a coach should somehow be super-human and ignore really negative comments and not respond in kind. First of all these people are not my students, they don't pay me for coaching and I am not the sort of person to bend over for them with or without lubricant. I have a temper sometimes, being human, I let it get out there because I thought I was asking sensible questions but I was disagreeing with their conclusions regarding their religion. I want spin transfer freedom on TSF, just like religious freedom.

Right now I have seen no video which proves or disproves this 'law of physics' you refer to. Please give me that law of physics which states two perfect spheres will cling together longer if one of them is spinning because I've never seen such a law. What I do see is videos purporting to prove the two balls cling together a bit longer than they normally would if spin were not present, otherwise known as a 'kick' (which Dr. Dave acknowledges by the way). If you think about it it's VERY difficult to hit an object ball with a cueball that ISN'T spinning as it would have to be a perfect stun shot with the cueball skidding and would have to be timed perfectly. So my question to anyone who says 'the law of physics dictates that spin is transferred' then we should be concluding every shot ever played (except for perfect stun shots) will have some amount of SIT on the OB and there will be a variance in the direction it leaves the cueball. However if you do hit the CB on it's centreline you would minimize any spin transfer but not much you can ever do about CIT except for fine cuts according to Dr. Dave. Perhaps this is why snooker coaches recommend new players not use side spin.

The problem as I see it is no one on here has taken their arguments to their logical conclusion, which is the scientific method I was taught. You can see spin transfer under certain conditions but my belief is it is not consistently repeatable and cannot be altered for a given shot by something one does to the cueball. I'm sure Dr. Dave would disagree and he's allowed to disagree and I'm not going to get all up tight and criticize him and his methods.

Here is an experiment which could be tried. Hit a shot with any amount of spin and observe whatever spin transfer you can see, try and maximize it. Now hit the shot as a perfect stun shot with the cueball not spinning in any direction and note the difference in transferred spin. It's minimal to begin with even under conditions which encourage it and with that high speed camera over such a short distance it will be very difficult to see if the CB is perfectly still. Oh, and show us the whole shot from in front of the object ball or even beside it but show more of the table please. This is the way to prove spin transfer is something that can be played with for the same type of shot and can be used to precisely send the OB on its way.

Hope this helps you Terry in your quest for what the physics behind it is.

If you think any of this is wrong please point it out. Bullet points being, it's Newton's second law of motion, and the fact that the net torque at contact is not Zero because of the friction between the two balls, so there you have your proof it exists, you can carry on arguing if it's useful or not or how much you can produce but I hope this puts an end to anyone just refusing to admit it exists.

[Terry Davidson]

I just deleted my original response as I went out and had a smoke and decided it was somewhat harsh so it's gone, I apologize profusely.

As you seem to have time to do a little research did you try and plug values into the calculus equation above and see what the results are? My calculus is a little rusty as I took it 30yrs ago and haven't used it since except for a little teaching on rotating armaments (swiveling guns, missile batteries and the like). The only unknown is the friction co-efficient of the cloth on the stationary object ball but all other values can be estimated. If you have a 180* pot with a cueball spinning at 2 revolutions per second, with the weight of both spheres at 141gms you will discover (if the equation is correct, which I assume it is) that the major force at 180* to contact point makes up 99.99% of the force exerted on the stationary OB. This means what's left over, from the spin on the cueball makes up around .0001 of the total force exerted on the OB (this is if we ignore the friction co-efficient).

Now plug in other vectors for a 3/4, 1/2, 1/4 and 90* cut and you will find there will also be another vector due to impact at an angle, otherwise called CIT in Dr. Dave's videos. The equation will show we are still left with a spin force which gets less and less of the total force exerted as the angle becomes sharper and at 90* disappears altogether, this despite the fact there was a video put up which showed a supposed 90* being potted in the corner. According to the equation a 90* cut will remove any CIT or spin induced throw so according to that a 90* cut cannot be made so we have to assume the player that apparently did that cheated somehow and I would suggest he used inside spin, in that case RH side to get a contact cut of around 87* or so.

So what are we left with? It looks like SIT will make up around 1/1,000 of the force imparted to the object ball however the friction of the cloth can make that spin force more pronounced on the OB, which is what I've said all along, however it will never amount to much spin force imparted.

But don't believe me. Dig up a calculus calculator and plug in the values for all the different cuts and see what you come up with. For myself, I cannot see how a force that's 1/1,000 of the force imparted to the OB can make any difference at all. Please let us know what figures you get once you use the calculator and then tell us how that information is of any use whatsoever to anyone's snooker game. You may find this equation refutes some of Dr. Dave's assumptions regarding what's happening on contact and makes spin induced throw a very minor part of contact.

[Ramon]

I LOVED your original response Terry,

The destruction of the present world system at Armageddon is imminent, and the establishment of God's kingdom on the earth is the only solution for all problems faced by humanity.



[IMG][/IMG]

[Terry Davidson]

I LOVED your original response Terry,

The destruction of the present world system at Armageddon is imminent, and the establishment of God's kingdom on the earth is the only solution for all problems faced by humanity.



[IMG][/IMG]

What, you believe god will solve this spin problem? Not gonna hold my breath or even go to a Kingdom Hall to get the inside dope.