The Ghost Ball Myth... And A Potting Robot

[vmax4steve]

No, pretty sure you are wrong on this one.
The balls need not to be touching to make reverse plants, being very close is enough, like 1 to 2 centimetres at most. What prolonged contact? Maybe if they are touching. But if not, it is the same contact as if the ball is being hit from large distance.

Yeah I know, fair point, but when the balls are very close together and the cue ball makes contact they can all be touching and moving together for a split second before contact is broken, the result being the object ball nearest the pocket can come off at a different angle due to the push effect of the cue ball and the first object ball, which is the basis of my argument.

[markz]

Brilliant - I have started calling it Ronnie The Robot! Hope you don't mind!
Pricing revealed on Wednesday 1900hrs GMT!

Your welcome to adopt the name Nic. Good luck with the launch on Wednesday.

[Nic Barrow]

Helping side dot com ?

Yes some players use that. But for the majority of players below 60 break standard that is an added difficulty that is too expensive compared to any benefit. Many players above that standard prefer to use helping side as they prefer centre ball striking for simplicities sake. Watching a top player I was working with recently play everything centre ball gave me the idea to stop using helping side, and my game (after a period of three weeks to completely adjust) was better for it. But of course, no product is for everyone all of the time.

[Nic Barrow]

blimey , that contraption is bloody massive . who is going to carry that around with them to the snooker club. i thought it was going to be a little gizmo one could place next the the OB to confirm the contact point.

also i'm with Ted here , yes this device might show you the aim line but still you have to learn it yourself. i've been practicing the blacks by putting an OB on the far knuckle so i can get use to aim thinner.

i also think playing virtual snooker can help too the view from behind the cueball is very realistic.

i wouldn't dare take something like the aim frame into a club, i get enough glances when i set up the lineup. maybe this would be useful for coaches to help students during a coaching session.

The device was for research and is not for sale unless you have around £5k to recoup our development time on it!

The Aim Frame will fit inside an A4 envelope, and has loads of video content to address the various comments I have been getting over the last four weeks since opening these conversations.

[Nic Barrow]

Blimey!!! Thought I was back at school having one of those science lesson demos with Mr Summers ! a real nutter tweed jacket with leather patches on the elbows, hair and a beard a werewolf would die for.

'LOL' - my jacket doesnt have patches!

[Nic Barrow]

Only my opinion for what its worth ! There is no short cut to being able to pot and learn the angles, its a case of lots of practice and potting angle memory, you already have a built in super machine called your BRAIN, BETTER THAN ANY MACHINE INVENTED you can put a telescopic sight on a rifle but that does not mean you will hit center target every time you have to learn to control your breathing and body, You can be a real ace on the speed ball or heavy bag but you are not going to be world boxing champ over night, You could buy one of those super Tennis or Cricket ball delivery machines but it wont turn you into a great Cricketer or Tennis player WITHOUT THAT MAGIC WORD PRACTICE.

What I have found is that the Aim Frame acts as stabilisers for aiming until the brain can accept that what they think is the potting angle, actually is the potting angle. From there, practice is usefull - otherwise improvement will not really come at the rate it should. Then it is down to hours and dedication you are right. If eye alignment is not correct (the finding of which is the first video exercise within the product video area) then a player has no hope of learning potting angles properly.

[Nic Barrow]

That's not the Aim Frame. That's just a potting machine that Nic used as part of his research.

I just meant in my post, that even if this new Aim Frame shows me where to aim, surely my brain still has to learn to recognise that potting angle.

Yes is acts like a bicycle stabiliser we had when we were young. I have found when testing this that the eyes need re-educating to acknowledge the actual potting angle.
Often, this will be the first time in someone's life that they have ever seen the potting angles correctly.
They are then rewarded for correct cueing, rather than punished for it... which causes cueing compensations.

[Nic Barrow]

oh my days.... wait 'til Sidd sees this

all this is irrelevant if you cant regularly cue straight in the first instance.

Of course.
There is a built in feedback mechanism in the Aim Frame which helps us diagnose what our cueing is doing, this being the first stage correcting any errors.

[Nic Barrow]

I think Nic is on to something here, there is a difference between the contacts made between phenolic resin balls and super crystalate balls.
Quite a few of the old guard dropped away quite quickly when the phenolic resin balls were introduced to the game in the late 80's early 90's, I myself found a quite distinct difference between the balls, having learned with and being so used to the supers, when playing at new clubs that had Aramith balls I was terrible, even though their new tables had bigger pockets.

Over a period of time, the brain will have the correct angle implanted into it, as super crystalate is a superior material and can be polished to a greater degree there will be less impact throw on them than with balls made from phenolic resin which cannot be polished as highly and therefore have a greater contact friction, we all know they kick more often, and my belief is that this is the reason for it.

I would like Nic to get hold of an old set of supers, clean and polish them up a bit, and try them out with his potting robot to see if there really is a difference. I know I was cynical at the start and took the p1ss a bit, but I would take it all back if this was proved to be true and I could play better if I aimed thinner, might just try it anyway.

Thanks Steve
I never noticed you taking the pee.
We have tested this with a wide variety of balls and tables all over the world for the last 3 years and still got accurate results - the angle recognition part of the Aim Frame (finding / checking eye alignment being the first), has worked in all situations I have tried it in. If anyone can find a situation or a table where it does not work, then I would be very happy to find out about it.

[Byrom]

Ok if its not that Perspex ghost ball device with the dial on it that sits in a ball plant position this will be like a plastic fork thing that attaches to your cue then?

Probably makes you strike centre ball and just a little screen that divides the object ball up like a pie into quarters?

Just guessing

[Nic Barrow]

So you just had to get that dig in there huh? I doubt I'll be buying any of these devices unless my students want one and would rather order it from me. I mean after all you only need one don't you?

The only problem I have with this is Nic has not shown the device on here nor said what the price (incl shipping) is going to be. I have an idea on what the device is and I have to agree the robot sort of confused me as I'm not sure what it's value is because I have always thought the brain has to get trained and once that's done a player (as long as he uses the same technique) will learn how to aim properly and the brain will automatically compensate for any 'throw-off' caused by cloth friction.

Give the brain a chance and it will resolve everything with the one exception of a player who changes his technique all the time.

Yup
What we have found is that the eyes once set on an 'opinion' of what the correct potting angle is will usually keep it and try to compensate with cueing errors.
Re educating the eyes using the aiming 'stabiliser' effect (like we used to learn to ride bicycles as kids) with the Aim Frame in many cases helps players recognize the correct potting angles for the first time in their life.

[Nic Barrow]

Quite wrong there, reverse plants happen because the two object balls are touching, and stay together for a split second when contacted by the cue ball, so that the effect is that of a push stroke, with all three balls touching and moving together for a split second on contact, and when they eventually split apart the ball nearest the pocket can be potted even though the plant isn't dead set.
This is the reason why push strokes are banned, prolonged contact of the tip of the cue, when cue ball and object ball all touching can make any angle possible depending on when tip contact is released as the cue ball can be effectively steered by the tip.

Impact throw doesn't always happen as a result of a push though - it happens on clean contacts too. So this effect needs to be accounted for in angle recognition.

[Nic Barrow]

Ok if its not that Perspex ghost ball device with the dial on it that sits in a ball plant position this will be like a plastic fork thing that attaches to your cue then?

Probably makes you strike centre ball and just a little screen that divides the object ball up like a pie into quarters?

Just guessing

Try again sir!

[Byrom]

Why you waiting - patent pending? You spent 5k investing in that robot thing Nik? They could have knocked you one up for half that on Blue Peter back in the day

Right anyway only teasing - last guess its a flat dial thing that lies on the table and has the geometrically correct potting angle associated to it and you just aim the cue ball to roll over it -

Bloody hate surprises! There is another Nic that does this to me EVERY year - yer the same as him cept he's a saint

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Impact throw doesn't always happen as a result of a push though - it happens on clean contacts too. So this effect needs to be accounted for in angle recognition.

There is little point in trying to educate vmax4steve on the physics of how balls react when they collide. The man simply doesn't get it.

Regardless, clean balls throw much less than dirty ones - how is this to be factored in, if not through experience?