Sidespin on a snooker table both with and against the nap

[jonny66]

I'm talkin to me lol

Well played sir!

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I agree. Plants are not a SIT effect at all and can't be used to prove SIT.

Is it pantomime season yet? I'll get the ball rolling even if it isn't: oh yes it is!

[dan_ormerod]

It has to be the correct weight for the amount of swerve you need to contact BOB, too hard and it's not enough, too slow and it's too much.
They will tell you that maximum SIT happens at low pace with trace side and cue ball sliding on contact with OB, yet the evidence for this comes from Dr. Dave's site where the player playing the shots pivots his cue (addressing centre cue ball first) to apply sidespin with cue ball and object ball only a couple of inches apart. Do this yourself using differing amounts of sidespin and power and see what happens and then play the same shots applying side with cue parallel to the line of aim and then both methods with the balls a couple of feet apart giving time for the swerve effect to take place, and with that pivot shot at low pace with trace side and the cue ball not sliding but rolling on the 30 degree axis you'll find it's different.

I'm afraid I can't disagree more vmax. The cueball doesn't hit the BOB.

I've played the game enough to know what angle the ball will take after they collide, plus I've videoed myself with a gopro, plus all the many many videos on here.

I asked a question quite a few pages ago to you asking how jimmy white managed to pot the ball as with the screenshots I gave it clearly was not going in the pocket.

I would like to here your explanation for that.

Even if the cueball did swerve off and then come back online (even though I doubt it with the space between the balls and the fact he was holding his cue parallel to the table) it would be irrelevant as it didn't hit back of the ball.

[dan_ormerod]

So what? I didn't believe it and now I want to learn all the parameters so I can explain those effects to students and how they would go about using them but not one of you experts has been able to fully explain just how much pace and spin is too much. Maybe one of Dr. Dave's videos can explain the limits but none that I've seen.

To be fair you wouldn't tell a student that you have to adjust your aim by so many millimeters when using side as you need to take into account how much deflection of the cue ball will be.

The amount of deflection would depend on your cue and how good of a cueist you are.

Why should it be any different for SIT?

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

To be fair you wouldn't tell a student that you have to adjust your aim by so many millimeters when using side as you need to take into account how much deflection of the cue ball will be.

The amount of deflection would depend on your cue and how good of a cueist you are.

Why should it be any different for SIT?

This hits the nail on the head. People need to stop thinking of SIT as some magical extra ingredient. It isn't, it's just an effect that happens naturally, which our brains adjust to automatically.

People need to stop asking facile questions and work it for themselves.

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

I'm afraid I can't disagree more vmax. The cueball doesn't hit the BOB.

I've played the game enough to know what angle the ball will take after they collide, plus I've videoed myself with a gopro, plus all the many many videos on here.

I asked a question quite a few pages ago to you asking how jimmy white managed to pot the ball as with the screenshots I gave it clearly was not going in the pocket.

I would like to here your explanation for that.

Even if the cueball did swerve off and then come back online (even though I doubt it with the space between the balls and the fact he was holding his cue parallel to the table) it would be irrelevant as it didn't hit back of the ball.

There's ALWAYS one mate!

[vmax]

And the physics vmax? The Fizz-Icks! Ever gonna discuss that? That's where the *evidence* comes from mate. Real, provable, peer reviewed evidence.

Your evidence is, in comparison, a little thin.

When I played a spinning CB hugging the edge of the triangle to cancel out the deflection and swerve, the OB didn't throw one little bit and when I played the same trace side pivot shot, with the CB and OB only a couple of inches apart, as the bloke in the Dr. Dave video I got the same result as he did, less deflection, nothing more and that is proof enough for me. You need to get on a table sometime and have a go for yourself, Oh I forgot, you don't play do you, and you don't understand the physics either, you just link to something on the internet to look clever, but you actually have no knowledge or experience of your own.

I agree. Plants are not a SIT effect at all and can't be used to prove SIT.

Dr. Dave says otherwise and uses it extensively to prove his SIT theory.

I asked a question quite a few pages ago to you asking how jimmy white managed to pot the ball as with the screenshots I gave it clearly was not going in the pocket.

Not clear at all as the camera was at an angle to the shot and not directly behind the line of aim. And the cue ball can move 2mm over that distance when using side and that's all he probably needed. Why do you think these shots can only be played pocket weight over such short distances, why do you believe that a ball with an almost frictionless surface spinning at such a gentle pace transfers it's sidespin to a stationary ball with an almost frictionless surface in a gear effect to throw the stationary ball in a different direction ?

On top of that I have proved that a ball loaded with sidespin rolls forward spinning on a 30 degree axis so any throw would not take place along the horizontal plane, unless of course like Dr. Dave you skew the results by showing all SIT examples with balls only a couple of inches apart and the cue pivoted with very little deflection at that gentle pace, hence his sliding cue ball excuse.

A thick enough contact that makes an OB into the side of the pocket is not proof of SIT and the alledged physics that mean it only happens at low pace with trace side and a sliding CB on certain angles with a pivoted cue is an SIT get out clause and shows that Dr. Dave can come to the wrong conclusion with skewed experiments that incude plants and sets where squeeze is happening.

He needs to do the same experiments with balls a good distance apart, to allow for deflection and swerve, on a napped cloth with a player who cues parallel to the line of aim when applying sidespin. I've done them and the results are different to his and it's **** all to do with my cue action

[Hello, Mr Big Shot]

When I played a spinning CB hugging the edge of the triangle to cancel out the deflection and swerve, the OB didn't throw one little bit and when I played the same trace side pivot shot, with the CB and OB only a couple of inches apart, as the bloke in the Dr. Dave video I got the same result as he did, less deflection, nothing more and that is proof enough for me. You need to get on a table sometime and have a go for yourself, Oh I forgot, you don't play do you, and you don't understand the physics either, you just link to something on the internet to look clever, but you actually have no knowledge or experience of your own.



Dr. Dave says otherwise and uses it extensively to prove his SIT theory.



Not clear at all as the camera was at an angle to the shot and not directly behind the line of aim. And the cue ball can move 2mm over that distance when using side and that's all he probably needed. Why do you think these shots can only be played pocket weight over such short distances, why do you believe that a ball with an almost frictionless surface spinning at such a gentle pace transfers it's sidespin to a stationary ball with an almost frictionless surface in a gear effect to throw the stationary ball in a different direction ?

On top of that I have proved that a ball loaded with sidespin rolls forward spinning on a 30 degree axis so any throw would not take place along the horizontal plane, unless of course like Dr. Dave you skew the results by showing all SIT examples with balls only a couple of inches apart and the cue pivoted with very little deflection at that gentle pace, hence his sliding cue ball excuse.

A thick enough contact that makes an OB into the side of the pocket is not proof of SIT and the alledged physics that mean it only happens at low pace with trace side and a sliding CB on certain angles with a pivoted cue is an SIT get out clause and shows that Dr. Dave can come to the wrong conclusion with skewed experiments that incude plants and sets where squeeze is happening.

He needs to do the same experiments with balls a good distance apart, to allow for deflection and swerve, on a napped cloth with a player who cues parallel to the line of aim when applying sidespin. I've done them and the results are different to his and it's **** all to do with my cue action

Vmax, lad - what ARE you on about?

[oldun]

would the throw still happen if the impact occurred on a glass surface?