Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[cole46]

Why is it easy to pot a ball touching the cushion with running side and virtually impossible with check side?

[travisbickle]

The cue ball approaches the red from a different line because it's swerved slightly so the contact isn't the same as it would be if the pink wasn't in the way and it could be hit direct. The contact made doesn't throw the red at all, and we can't see the pocket so have no idea of the correct line of aim, if the red was potted into the centre of the pocket, the side of the pocket or even if it was potted at all.

If you don't believe the cue ball swerves then set up exactly the same shot but use left hand side to make the same contact on the red to throw it the other way. If the cue ball goes straight to the contact point with no swerve then at the very least you should be able to make the same contact point shouldn't you.

I'm betting you can't, I'm betting that left hand side will deflect the cue ball into the pink and in order to miss the pink you'll need to offset your aiming and with the left hand side also swerving the cue ball the other way you'll miss the red altogether.

I really don't know where you are coming from vmax!

Look at the second shot on the first vid. Pause the vid just before I play the shot, get a A4 piece of paper then put it on the right hand edge of the CB/OB. You will see the pink is sticking out just like Wilson's shot. Play the vid, watch the CB closely, it doesn't swerve and contacts the red further to the left then before it was struck, hence no swerve!
Now pause the vid when CB/OB make contact then look closely at the angle,red clearly heading to the right hand side of the pocket, now play vid and you can clearly see the red thrown to the left hand side of the pocket.

To play the shot the other way round is impossible because the left hand side would just push the CB on to the pink.

[travisbickle]

Can't really tell from your video as the camera was on the side and there would still be a bit of the pink ball showing in front of the cueball even if the cueball hit BOB. Place the camera over the pocket so it takes in the pocket, pink and cueball but have the camera direcly facing the pink and try the shot again.

Camara was right behind the CB. Best possible angle to view the shot.
Bare in mind the shot was played with a little top spin which is not the best shot to throw the OB.
Little soft screw with side will throw the OB even more.
So holding the spot on a 3/4 black off its own spot is easy and I'm sure JK knows this already but wanted to see what your opinion was.

[vmax]

What the hell ????


Vmax,

The reason why I haven't responded to your post is because you said in your post :

,, I'm not going through this again,,

I took it you no longer want to talk about it and decided to respect your choice and your privacy.

I'm not going through the video again as I explained everything I was doing, then you had a dig at me using that travis video that shows nothing as you can't see the pocket and therefore the line of aim.


As i mentioned in my previous post in other thread, in som of the shots you played
the CB did change it's path.
except those which I made a screenshots from .
I did downloaded your vid. the problem is i can'nt play it at 10s/c. I could do this with travis vid.

On those Ramon I'm playing the shots hard with stun and screw so there's almost no swerve, all was explained and yet once again you use these to back up travis.

take a look at those pictures and compar the direction ( the line ) the cue is heading in your pic to the one Travis posted.
What do you see my friend?
You hold the butt abit higher than normal and you put the cue not stright.
Well, what you are doing here is playing a swerve shot.
of cours, this way you gonna push the CB off it's path and CB approaches the OB from a diff angle.

I don't play with my chin on the cue Ramon, the cue isn't as high as it looks, in fact it's touching the cushion and you can see my grip hand under my chin, thought you would have seen that on the line up I finished with. And a side shot is a swerve shot, just a very small one that you can hardly see which is the thing that you're not getting.

By no means I'm saying that you can'nt cue stright. Of cours you can!!
I think you did it here to show us the CB can change it's path.
And in most of the shots you played (not all of them), that's what happened.
If you want to test the effect of the side, it's very important your cue stright (not putting the cue across the CB) and keep the cue as low as possible.
Otherwise , you never find out .

Then make a screen shot of one of the shots I played slowly with the cue level and parallel to the line of aim then if you want a true comparison.


[IMG][/IMG]


[IMG][/IMG]

I now ask you, the same as I asked travis, to set up the same shot but play the cue ball with left hand side to make the OB red throw the other way on contact. If, as you say, the cue ball does not swerve at such a low speed struck with a level cue at 9 or 3 o'clock then you should be able to make the same contact point.

Well I have had another email discussion with Dr Dave about my theory , that you are actually reducing " natural throw" and not inducing or creating any throw on these shots, he said that is correct and directed me to this video, which surely shows everything you wanted to see.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threa...h.html#outside

All these shots show the cue ball spinning horizontally and not on the 30 degree axis that I showed happens when the initial skidding stops and the cue ball grips the cloth and rolls forward. Either these shots are played at a very close distance, struck very hard or the 30 degree axis spin doesn't happen on a napless cloth, which I very much doubt.

Maybe you could ask the good doctor if this happens on a napped snooker table cloth only, and if not why he hasn't captured it on any of his videos and what difference it would make to the contact of the two balls with the cue ball spinning on a 30 ish degree axis.
This is a snooker forum after all and we don't play on napless cloths.

[travisbickle]

If you hit the black dead-on in order to hold the spot then in my opinion the black ball would hit the top cushion about 6" from the pocket assuming the 3/4 pot with cueball above the black towards the pink. According to the laws of physical properties when the 2 spheres collide the black ball has to take off at 180* from the point of contact. If you used side and drag (bottom stuff) to pot the black then I believe if you can pot it your cueball must have curved into the black and at the point of contact made a perfect plant directly at the pocket or at least the far jaw just like Karnham's did, although he wasn't trying to hold the spot.

I agree that in order to hold the spot you have to hit the black straight on to stop the cueball as otherwise from the 3/4 position the cueball would still have some energy left in it and would travel off the spot towards the cushion but in order to pot the black you have to hit it in that plant position and your bottom stuff would hold the cueball.

This is only my opinion based on the laws of physics that dictates the black has to leave at 180* to the contact point. If what you are saying is true you would have to change the direction of the black ball by 45* which is something I don't believe. I do believe you can change the point of contact though by using side on the cueball, especially with drag. But you tell me what are the exact mechanics involved in changing the direction of the object ball at or shortly after contact.

On the other hand, who cares? As long as you can pot the black and hold the spot using this throw effect some seem to believe in, and can use it consistently then it just doesn't matter. I haven't tried this specific shot of holding the spot on an angled pot but maybe I will see if I can do it. I wouldn't like the shot a lot because it means for your next shot if the cueball slipped a little you would have a chinese snooker on your next pot.

Haha what a load of rubbish.

Just one look at Ramon's still pics of the pink will tell you how wrong you are.
The CB hits the pink full ball and moves it by at least 15 degrees by the time it reaches the pocket, which would be more then enough to pot a 3/4 black full ball because a 3/4 black off it's spot is around 15 degrees and not 45 degrees like you said!
Use your Kinovia app on the pink if you dare!

[blahblah01]

that you are actually reducing " natural throw" and not inducing or creating any throw on these shots,

Yep as above, in my rambling Post.

It's a shame Nic can't get the CB spinning out of his contraption that shows Natural Kick, as I called it; but then I doubt he visits here anymore.....

I'm not sure going on about the OB spinning, though as it is either insignificant and\or of no use?

[itsnoteasy]

Well I have had another email discussion with Dr Dave about my theory , that you are actually reducing " natural throw" and not inducing or creating any throw on these shots, he said that is correct and directed me to this video, which surely shows everything you wanted to see.
http://billiards.colostate.edu/threa...h.html#outside

[Terry Davidson]

So can we transfer side to the object ball or not?

I say 'NO', not enough to matter and certainly nowhere near the spin required to alter the path of the OB by 45* or even 5*. If you were able to alter the path of the OB then we all would be missing every pot because of unintentional side since as has been said by Chisholm 'no one can hit centre-ball perfectly so we might as well use side on every shot'.

I don't think I could get even 10* on the cueball itself unless it was a masse shot, certainly not drag with side.

[Terry Davidson]

Terry have you been in touch with the university yet to tell them their understanding of physics is wrong . Here's a wee bit of evidence you could give them, along with , I can't do it and turn it the other way, you could include this
https://youtu.be/nfZ12UGiisM

I haven't done any scholarly research on this but maybe I'll send an email to a physics professor at MIT and ask what the laws of physics are with two smooth spheres colliding, one stationary and one spinning with a miniscule amount of friction between the balls but more friction with the bed of the table. I'm sure they'll spend thousands of dollars to prove if there is a way to alter the object ball's course. Just to see Mr. B.S. reaction we could task them to try the experiment in the vacuum of space where there's no friction on the bed.

Or maybe I'll email Scotty but of course he's dead, so that won't work. Maybe the new Scotty in the new Star Trek movies?

[tedisbill]

So can we transfer side to the object ball or not?

[Terry Davidson]

So a side-spinning ball reacts from a cushion the same as a non-spinning one? Nope: so an OB does not react the same from a side-spinning CB and a non-side-spinning CB.....

If I remember I will get vid's taken on Tuesday, to show it: and without bottom to try and lose the swerve of CB argument from this.....

An OB will react the same way from either a CB with no side or with side. The only ball we can alter the path of is the CB.

[Terry Davidson]

So a side-spinning ball reacts from a cushion the same as a non-spinning one? Nope: so an OB does not react the same from a side-spinning CB and a non-side-spinning CB.....

If I remember I will get vid's taken on Tuesday, to show it: and without bottom to try and lose the swerve of CB argument from this.....

Any side,whether top or bottom will curve the path of the cueball. Otherwise what's the point of masse? Of course the cueball curves with any side but as to the effect with cushions that is completely different as no effect is transmitted to the cushions which definitely don't throw unless they're not bolted down I guess.

[blahblah01]

So a side-spinning ball reacts from a cushion the same as a non-spinning one? Nope: so an OB does not react the same from a side-spinning CB and a non-side-spinning CB.....

If I remember I will get vid's taken on Tuesday, to show it: and without bottom to try and lose the swerve of CB argument from this.....

[Byrom]

yeah bu to fair to scotty he always found a way

[itsnoteasy]

What does it matter whether it's a coloured ball on its spot or not on its spot or a red ball sitting in the middle of the table. There is no physical way you can alter the path of the object ball by 45*. If you think you can then put up a video as I would love to see it. Place the camera over the pocket and show pocket, object ball and cueball in the frame.

I'll eat crow if you can alter the path by up to 45* for sure. In order to hold the spot of anothr ball you have to hit it dead-on, don't you?

Terry have you been in touch with the university yet to tell them their understanding of physics is wrong . Here's a wee bit of evidence you could give them, along with , I can't do it and turn it the other way, you could include this
https://youtu.be/nfZ12UGiisM