Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[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.

[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 .

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[pottr]

Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

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

[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

Apologies... No video tonight.

ipad is not playing ball...

will be sorted in the morning x

[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.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

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

Serious question: how long have you known about CIT?

[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.

[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.

[blahblah01]

I'd say that it is to do with how long the CB and OB are in contact: so fuller contact and slower speed of CB is more than a fast CB.

I can't be assed digging out the ROy vid, but he does something on power\speed of CB.

Seriously, line the CB and OB up on Baulk Line, or missing a pocket and go for full ball contact with helping side and watch it move.

I find it more consistent for potting and I am more confident re CB positioning, especially when I don't want the CB moving sideways (to the pot) on off straight shots ie upto 3\4.

With more than 3/4, well less if you know what I mean, I kept missing thick ie the Nic B contraption thing and "Helping Side" can compensate for that.

The big problem that I have found with this is on longer shots and CB moving to wrong side and managing to pot CB in intended pocket of OB in a way that is quite incredible.

[Terry Davidson]

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.

No they're not at all and I suppose you consider yourself one of those 'finer minds'. You don't even know me or what my mind is capable of and thats exactly the same as you disguising your identity and spouting off all these theories which you haven't come up with yourself, you just repeat what other have said starting with the bogus note you've used multiple times regarding the Frenchman in 1835. These theories might work if we used stickier balls I guess. Read my other post, energy NEVER disappears.