Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Terry Davidson]

Serious question: how long have you known about CIT?

I have known about impact throw forever but I saw plain proof of it with Nic's video using his contraption. When he played the shot a little harder he got more throw and it had to be CIT since there was no spin involved. This is why I have to think the SIT everyone says is there is actually a mistaken assumption based on video data that doesn't explain anything clearly. Why does your SIT disappear with higher power? And what's the speed limit so everyone knows when to not try it. I did note on some of those video clips they did use power but in one of them with the 4-ball and the 9-ball together and the 4 blocking a direct pot the claim was SIT potted the ball but the problem for me was based on the angle of the pot the 4 shouldn't have moved but in fact it moved first. That particular video was based on straight bull.

[Terry Davidson]

I'm still left with the question of why SIT disappears when increased power and maximum spin is used. BS said the higher speed prevents the small spin transfer that has to occur to change the direction of the OB on contact and at slower speeds and lower spin the transfer does happen. My problem is if you max the speed and spin the SIT logically has to be more severe but instead it just disappears. On a 3/4 cut of any type around (estimate) 90% of the energy in the CB is transferred to the OB, so where does the SIT go. I would say it has to be transferred to the OB if SIT really exists.

If you think about it, a dead-in pot with stun has all the energy from the CB transferred to the OB and the cueball stops any movement. At a 90* cut 99% of the energy remains with the CB so it has to be a proportional energy transfer from full-ball at 100% down to 90* at 1% or 2%. The 'experts' say there is no SIT on a straight-in pot with tons of spin but what's the reason for that? The OB should change direction from the effects of the spin but it doesn't EVER. On a 3/4 pot with high spin on the CB there should be a large amount of SIT and that would be that 'up to 5*' mentioned by Dr. Dave and increasing the speed should not effect any momentary spin transfer and 'cling' which is the theory supporting SIT.

I think what we're actually seeing here is CIT or 'Impact Throw' as I call it and the spin does not effect impact throw at all plus the more power in the shot dictates there should be more impact throw. I have observed impact throw many times and seen it on those hi-speed camera shots both on TV and with Dr. Dave's video shots. I am not convinced there is any SIT happening at all or if there is then it is insignificant to the shot and can be ignored anyway.

There is absolutely no way if SIT exists that it will disappear when using more power and spin because you are saying the energy is either disappearing or is converted to another form of energy because in physics energy never disappears, it can only be converted. I keep saying the most simple theory is usually the correct one and the most simple theory here is that SIT just doesn't exist and is a figment of peoples imagination based on making incorrect assumptions on what they are seeing. Now if we had stickier balls maybe it would and it would be more observable.

Last question...at what power does the SIT disappear? Is there a speed limit? If it's there for a slow drag shot does it disappear if you up the power just a bit? Is that the theory because it sounds like the 'devil's work' as Ramon has stated and the devil is sucking up all this spare energy so he can use it to take over the world or maybe that's BS's job.

In the end I think this cling theory is the same as those Klingons around Uranus.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Are you absolutely certain it isn't CIT you see?

Serious question: how long have you known about CIT?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I'll wait for your video pottr before I say anything. Ignoring BS since I consider the source to be tainted. Ignoring Ramon too. Like I said I've seen nothing to date which convinces me SIT exists and what BS said is pure heresy regarding power and more spin. How the hell does SIT disappear when you have power and lots of side? I guess the balls bounce against each other quicker so there's no chance of SIT which just makes all the sense in the world.

As I've told you countless times before, the physics are explained in graphic detail in the links I've provided to you. That you choose not to click on them is up to you.

As hard as it may be for you to accept, finer minds than yours have spent lifetime's studying this.

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

Apologies... No video tonight.

ipad is not playing ball...

will be sorted in the morning x

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

This video is taking the ****!

Fourth attempt of uploading.

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

Feed the pooch... still some time yet and the video is waffle

[Terry Davidson]

Terry
What my video shows is that the effect is there...

BUT

It is so negligable that it might as well not be there at all in my opinion.

Are you absolutely certain it isn't CIT you see?

[Terry Davidson]

Terry
What my video shows is that the effect is there...

BUT

It is so negligable that it might as well not be there at all in my opinion.

Where did you hide the video as I've been waiting and my dog is starving to be fed

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

Terry
What my video shows is that the effect is there...

BUT

It is so negligable that it might as well not be there at all in my opinion.

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

Whatever Ramon, whoever you are, for all I care you can go and fornicate with yourself.

You're a keyboard warrior.
You contribute nothing more to this forum than regurgitating the points of others.

Noone knows your name, your standard, where you're from or what you look like.

Your posts carry zero accountability which means you have no credibility.

I can't take a coward who hides behind a pseudonym seriously.

I will not reply to you again.

[Ramon]

Well my video should be uploaded tonight, Raymondo...

can't wait for yours... should enlighten us all.

I didn't back down from any debate. I have been consistent and have provided footage which proves all I thought to be correct.

If I was clever enough to learn it all by myself, more power to me.

Like I always say, it's only because I'm better at cuesports than you

You do'nt have to be a pilot to know that a boing 747 needs to speed up to 800 M/H in order to take off.

Your 10.000 statements regarding your standard as well as your imagination, is not relevant to this topic.

So, please give it a thought.

Mr. big shot, please translate.


And goodluck with your shot . I'm happy you can play it .

[Terry Davidson]

I'll wait for your video pottr before I say anything. Ignoring BS since I consider the source to be tainted. Ignoring Ramon too. Like I said I've seen nothing to date which convinces me SIT exists and what BS said is pure heresy regarding power and more spin. How the hell does SIT disappear when you have power and lots of side? I guess the balls bounce against each other quicker so there's no chance of SIT which just makes all the sense in the world.

[throtts]

Hahaha, ffs..

Ramon"s post is not a ""pink handbag"" one mucker..

His going to shoot himself again. The first time he didn't keep his head still..

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

Well my video should be uploaded tonight, Raymondo...

can't wait for yours... should enlighten us all.

I didn't back down from any debate. I have been consistent and have provided footage which proves all I thought to be correct.

If I was clever enough to learn it all by myself, more power to me.

Like I always say, it's only because I'm better at cuesports than you