Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[Ramon]

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.

Put your trust in Lord
keep the cue parallel to the table
cue smooth with less effort and stright

you will meet the stars and the light . So the victory shall be on your side.:snooker:

[jonny66]

Put your trust in Lord
keep the cue parallel to the table
cue smooth with less effort and stright

you will meet the stars and the light . So the victory shall be on your side.:snooker:

Are you starting your own snooker based religion Ramon?

[Ramon]

Are you starting your own snooker based religion Ramon?

No my friend, just abit fun with Terry. I'm sure he does'nt mind (I hope not).

On a serious note,
I think the video Travis uploaded is good enough to prove this whole stuff.

I can'nt get on a snooker table for weeks due to my work (very busy).
I asked my brother and my cousin to play a shot with side.
Not heard back from my cousin yet .

but, my brother played this shot and he marked the path of the CB with blue stripe.
He useed here lft hand side to keep the CB off hitting the cushion .
The problem is, they used 2 diff cameras and uploaded the vid to this software ( movavi ) in order to play it slow motion.
The part 2 which shows that the CB not changing his path and stays all the way on blue stripe is lost. they messed up with it .
Do'nt ask me how . bcuz , i do'nt know.

have already asked him to play this shot again , and make a vid from both side .
He has a backswing longer than 12" . but honestly you can play the shot with a short backswing .
as long as you cue stright , the CB stays on it's path and deflection would be min.

[travisbickle]

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.

Still in denial I see Terry.

Can't be the balls so it must be the cloth lol
What does it matter what causes it anyway...It happens,fact.

I very much doubt it has anything to do with the cloth anyway, as I can throw it both ways with & against the nap and 9 ball is played on Simonis which has no nap at all so how does that work!

You said I couldn't play the Karnham black full ball without swerving onto the correct BOB (vid has proved you well wrong about that!) and plenty of other posters on the thread have said it can't be done without a kick, which again has been proved wrong.

Keep living in the dark ages Terry

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

Still in denial I see Terry.

Can't be the balls so it must be the cloth lol
What does it matter what causes it anyway...It happens,fact.

I very much doubt it has anything to do with the cloth anyway, as I can throw it both ways with & against the nap and 9 ball is played on Simonis which has no nap at all so how does that work!

You said I couldn't play the Karnham black full ball without swerving onto the correct BOB (vid has proved you well wrong about that!) and plenty of other posters on the thread have said it can't be done without a kick, which again has been proved wrong.

Keep living in the dark ages Terry

Terry makes me laugh. He's now going on about physics, and looking for proof there.

Coriolis had it figured out in 1835!

[PatBlock]

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.

Good post Terry. At the moment of impact the balls compress very slightly and that's when energy may be transferred in the form of spin. But I still don't think there is enough compression to produce enough friction for useable spin transfer, I may be wrong, but I haven't seen anything yet which convinces me otherwise.

-

[Terry Davidson]

Good post Terry. At the moment of impact the balls compress very slightly and that's when energy may be transferred in the form of spin. But I still don't think there is enough compression to produce enough friction for useable spin transfer, I may be wrong, but I haven't seen anything yet which convinces me otherwise.

-

I agree, as is obvious I guess. However, the 'spin throw' fans just won't let me alone and keep trying to convince me that is exists (I agree with that) and that it is usable (which I do not agree with). As I've said, the Jehovah's Witnesses keep coming with their bible and Watchtower and I keep telling them 'I don't believe in your version of religion' but it just won't turn them off. I'm getting the same treatment here.

[travisbickle]

I agree, as is obvious I guess. However, the 'spin transfer' fans just won't let me alone and keep trying to convince me that is exists (I agree with that) and that it is usable (which I do not agree with). As I've said, the Jehovah's Witnesses keep coming with their bible and Watchtower and I keep telling them 'I don't believe in your version of religion' but it just won't turn them off. I'm getting the same treatment here.

Funny I thought we was talking about spin induced throw and not spin transfer!
There is only one preacher on this site as far as I can see and it's not coming from this side of the fence

[throtts]

Hahaha,,,, Terry, you should never of had them in for a coffee when they first knocked, fatal. The Mrs did and they stayed for bloody hours. However, years later and she is partially one of them, yes, a sister. She does not even try to convert me, not a chance.

[PatBlock]

Funny I thought we was talking about spin induced throw and not spin transfer!
There is only one preacher on this site as far as I can see and it's not coming from this side of the fence

There still has to be enough friction between the two balls for one to grab the other and alter it's path, it amounts to the same thing. I don't see how you could get one without the other, it's not push induced throw, as in a squeezed plant, so how could you get spin induced throw without spin transfer?

-

[Terry Davidson]

I changed it. Give a guy a break, it's early in the morning here and I haven't had my coffee yet. Have you worked out the calculus yet? If not take the time as it's interesting to see what the math says regarding SIT and CIT. I believe that CIT exists but for me the SIT thing ain't of any value, actually the same with CIT too.

But like the JWs you keep trying and no matter what I say or do you are still kicking this dead body.

[travisbickle]

I changed it. Give a guy a break, it's early in the morning here and I haven't had my coffee yet. Have you worked out the calculus yet? If not take the time as it's interesting to see what the math says regarding SIT and CIT. I believe that CIT exists but for me the SIT thing ain't of any value, actually the same with CIT too.

But like the JWs you keep trying and no matter what I say or do you are still kicking this dead body.

I don't need to work out anything. All the prove you need is in the video and you can't deny that.
Unlike JW's who have no prove whatsoever!

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I agree, as is obvious I guess. However, the 'spin throw' fans just won't let me alone and keep trying to convince me that is exists (I agree with that) and that it is usable (which I do not agree with). As I've said, the Jehovah's Witnesses keep coming with their bible and Watchtower and I keep telling them 'I don't believe in your version of religion' but it just won't turn them off. I'm getting the same treatment here.

Your fake news lines and religion comparisons are absolutely laughable.

I don't mind people not knowing these things but you're barking up the wrong tree here - if you want science and logic, stick with us. If you want faith and belief. go look in the mirror.

[jonny66]

I changed it. Give a guy a break, it's early in the morning here and I haven't had my coffee yet. Have you worked out the calculus yet? If not take the time as it's interesting to see what the math says regarding SIT and CIT. I believe that CIT exists but for me the SIT thing ain't of any value, actually the same with CIT too.

But like the JWs you keep trying and no matter what I say or do you are still kicking this dead body.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I changed it. Give a guy a break, it's early in the morning here and I haven't had my coffee yet. Have you worked out the calculus yet? If not take the time as it's interesting to see what the math says regarding SIT and CIT. I believe that CIT exists but for me the SIT thing ain't of any value, actually the same with CIT too.

But like the JWs you keep trying and no matter what I say or do you are still kicking this dead body.

All we are doing is describing what is happening.

You've got some nerve citing religion to us. If you're not trolling, you're monumentally stupid in doing so. You are perfectly within your rights to believe it's the sky pixies that move balls around a table, but we'll stick with scientific explanations, thanks.

Either way, if there are religious fruitcakes around here, it ain't us pal.