PDA

View Full Version : Bob Meucci's "Myth Destroyer" contraption



Eric.
04-01-2004, 03:57 PM
I had a chance to check it out at Valley Forge

http://www.meuccicues.com/myth.htm

HEre's what happenned-

I put my playing cue on it. According to the machine, my cue deflects around 4 inches. I tried another shaft with a just installed tip(dime radius vs. nickle) and the same results. The next person had a cue made by the same maker(Capone) and it had the same reults as me. A third person had a Scruggs which had the same results as both of us(within 1/2 inch). Oh, according to the machine, the Meucci only deflected 2 inches.

Anyone have any thoughts?


Eric >not selling my Capone anytime soon

Qtec
04-01-2004, 04:01 PM
Strange.
I made my post at the same time .
Were we thinking the same thing.
Like its all BS?

Q

Nostroke
04-01-2004, 04:15 PM
4 inches of deflection? You mean you would have to aim to miss by nearly 2 ball widths in order to make a full hit with English with your cue? I don't think anyone's brain could adjust for that and not know it.

I know he has been dragging that contraption around for at least 3 years and i havent met too many people that buy the results.Somebody said it looked like something made up for a high school science project due tomorrow. But from the pics, i think it's been upgraded since that quote.

Ken
04-01-2004, 05:47 PM
Bob's machine doesn't measure cue ball deflection. He measures where an object ball will end up after being struck by a cue ball that has experienced deflection.

A small amount of cue ball deflection is magnified when the object ball is hit, sending the object ball off to the right instead of straight ahead as it would travel if there had been no cue ball deflection.

He could simply hit the cue ball and let it strike the measuring strip but the difference in cues would be very small. If an object ball is interposed the effect is far greater and easier to measure. He still gets consistent results since the balls are placed accurately.

3/16 inch of cueball deflection measured at the object ball on a straight in shot would send the object ball off by 4.6 inches when it gets to the rail where he measures it (assuming the object ball is 2 feet away from the rail). That is what causes a missed pocket.
Ken in CT

cueball1950
04-01-2004, 07:35 PM
Hi eric...was nice seeing you again as usual. he had that machine at the open a few years ago and someone had a richard black shaft that put his shaft to shame, by the next day he had packed up and left. with 3 days left of the tournament. i think he was a little embarrased that his shaft lost in front of about 50 people. at that time i think he was touting the red dot shaft.......mike

Nostroke
04-01-2004, 08:00 PM
Now i get it-thanks

catscradle
04-02-2004, 06:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr> Bob's machine doesn't measure cue ball deflection. He measures where an object ball will end up after being struck by a cue ball that has experienced deflection.

A small amount of cue ball deflection is magnified when the object ball is hit, sending the object ball off to the right instead of straight ahead as it would travel if there had been no cue ball deflection.

He could simply hit the cue ball and let it strike the measuring strip but the difference in cues would be very small. If an object ball is interposed the effect is far greater and easier to measure. He still gets consistent results since the balls are placed accurately.

3/16 inch of cueball deflection measured at the object ball on a straight in shot would send the object ball off by 4.6 inches when it gets to the rail where he measures it (assuming the object ball is 2 feet away from the rail). That is what causes a missed pocket.
Ken in CT <hr /></blockquote>

Frankly, that makes no sense at all. He hits a cue ball with a shaft with no intervening ball, how is that supposed to indicate the resultant effect of deflection of the cueball upon the object ball.
I've watch him work his little carnival sideshow and I think it is just that. "Hurry, hurry, step right up, see the 2 headed boy ...". IMO it's all just smoke and mirrors signifying nothing.

rocky
04-02-2004, 08:42 AM
Next time you see his machine out ask him to pull a shaft off of one of his production cues there and stick it in his machine. I did and he wouldnt do it!

Fred Agnir
04-02-2004, 08:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr>
Anyone have any thoughts? <hr /></blockquote>Okay, you asked for it. I hope Bob Jewett is reading, because I really need him to correct me on this hypothesis.

I think Bob Meucci made a contraption that can reproduce repeatably the same stroke. Just like Predator/Clawson did. However, Predator's Iron Willie had to be modified to ensure that the stroke and shot was representative of real world conditions. Meucci's Myth Destroyer has not undergone the same thing.

What Bob Meucci did was redesign his cue shaft to specifically perform well on the Myth Destroyer. And I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it is misleading.

All true experiments and theory point to the effective end mass as the number one parameter for squirt. The question is, how much is that effective end mass? There was a recent discussion on RSB that pointed to the idea that when you wack the stick with a lateral force, the resultant sideways wave will travel down the stick at about 3 inches per .001 second. Further, the Jacksonville Tapes show that on a shot with english, the tip is in contact with the cueball for about .002 sec. So, the conclusion might be that the weight of the first 6" or so is what causes the sideways squirt angle. Predator has bored a hole in their shaft approximately 6" in. That make sense.

Here's the problem with the robot devices. If the cue is held too rigid, the robot pile drives the cue without slowing down, and the contact time is much longer than .001 or .002 seconds.. In the real world, our skin is too pliable to hold the cue that rigid such that when the tip contacts the ball, the cue undergoes immediate deceleration. When Iron Willy was modified using bubble wrap around the cue, the contact time (tip to cueball) was the same as with a human shooting.

Meucci's Myth destroyer holds the cue rigidly. The "bridge" is about 12 or more inches behind the tip when contact occurs and it prevents lateral movement. The cueball sits in a detent to ensure exactly the same placement over and over. I think the detent allows an increase in contact time at collision because a certain amount of force and time are needed to get the cueball out of the detent. If, let's postulate, the contact time increases to .004 sec. because of the detent, then now we're talking about effective mass being the first 12" or so of the shaft. And Predator's shaft is only bored out in the firs 6". Further, if that bridge is at 12", then the cueball will "see" the mass of the rigid bridge as well, futher increasing the squirt.

Meucci's ferrule design is such that it is effectively decoupled from the tenon and much of the shaft. There's a gap between the ferrule and the tenon. The long and short is that this design doesn't get affected by the bridge or the length of the sideways wave unless the ferrule is in contact long enough for the ferrule to bridge the gap and contact the ferrule. And, that might never happen on most shots.

So, there it is. That's what I think is happening.

Fred

Cueless Joey
04-02-2004, 09:49 AM
The only myth this robot destroyed is the myth that Meucci is still making good cues. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Has anyone seen anyone else operate that machine except Bob and his dog and pony crew? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Why do the make these robots when you can just make a pendulum? Oh wait, you can't cheat on that one. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Eric.
04-02-2004, 11:08 AM
Thanks for your input, guys.

Personally, I'm leary as far as the results. One thing that caught my eye was the fact that 3 different cues/4 different shafts from 2 different custom cuemakers all had similar results (within 1/2"). Another note; the cue is held by the machine with a rubber lined clamp, tightened by 2 wing nut screws. Can tightening one screw less than the other side affect the results?

Also, Fred made some good points in his post regarding the machine "pushing" the cue through the CB rather than hitting it.

Bottom line: I did the Myth thing for ho ha's. Just curious. I'm not smart enough to know any better but I do know that with my cue, the CB goes where I aim, the OB goes in when I hit it good and the CB does what I'm expecting it to do. What more do I need to know?


Eric &gt;K.I.S.S.(some are more stupid than others, though)

Troy
04-02-2004, 12:03 PM
IMO, that is about what one should expect of a cue. All the other stuff is just fluff 'n' stuff.

Troy
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> ..... I do know that with my cue, the CB goes where I aim, the OB goes in when I hit it good and the CB does what I'm expecting it to do. What more do I need to know?

Eric &gt;K.I.S.S.(some are more stupid than others, though) <hr /></blockquote>

JohnBarton
04-02-2004, 12:37 PM
Deflection schmection. Alls I know is I wandered down to the lion's den, otherwise known as the bet all you want to arena, and chanced across my good friend Jade playing on an unbelieveably rare $10 challenge table. I slapped my quarter down and borrowed her Meucci cue. I ran out with no problems. I didn't even look to see if it had a red dot, black dot or no dot.

I ain't endorsing Meuccis I only want to say that they are still pool cues that players can play good pool with.

FWIW the Bunjee Jump Break cue also performed "well" on Bob's machine several years ago in Vegas.

John

cycopath
04-02-2004, 01:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote rocky:</font><hr> Next time you see his machine out ask him to pull a shaft off of one of his production cues there and stick it in his machine. I did and he wouldnt do it! <hr /></blockquote>

Really?

He did it at the BCA show in NOLA a couple years ago. He was demostrating the Black Dot shaft along with the usual "other brands" when a guy asked about the Red Dot shaft. Bob literally went over to the rack with his displayed cues and grabbed one at random (I guess), showed all of the observers that the tip hadn't ever been properly shaped or chalked. He put some chalk on it and put it in the machine. It performed better than the "other brands" but not as well as the Black Dot.

Ralph S.
04-02-2004, 02:42 PM
I have read all the responses so far, and now am ready to voice my opinion on this "contraption". First of all, I am not a physics major or a rocket scientist. Although, due to basic highschool science courses, I am able to follow this fairly well. I beleive this "myth destroyer" device, to be nothing more than coffee house, smoke and mirrors trickery.

If this device is so accurate and the Meucci cues are so superior, then why, on several occasions, has Bob Meucci refused to put his own cues on the "device" , as witnessed by several posters. Common sense tells me that this gadget is simply nothing more than a sales aid to help boost Meucci cue sales.

This is just another version of the Predator saga. The only difference is, the manufacturer is different this time.
I seem to do just fine with the cues I am using now, and see no reason to jump on the bandwagon of what I perceive to be nothing more than a sales gimmick.

nAz
04-03-2004, 10:41 PM
LOL hey Eric two years ago i got my cue tested by on the machine and it a deflection of just over 3 inches, he then fitted my cue with one of his shaft (red) and it was still the same. he shrugged his shoulders at me and said next! lol

Papasmurf
04-04-2004, 01:24 PM
Whats funny about all these robotic machines is that when you go to the Billiard Expo... Predator has one also and its machine gives a complete different view on their shafts versus meccui shafts. Go to Meccuis robot and it switches again. Makes you wonder how these machines are calibrated and just how much advertisement value it really is instead of true fact!

SpiderMan
04-05-2004, 08:33 AM
If I was curious whether the machine was tricking me on a squirt comparison, I'd just perform the standard "aim and pivot" squirt test to compare cues. Whichever one has the most rearward pivot point for exact compensation using back-hand english is the one that produces lowest cueball deflection. This is easy to do, doesn't require any machines, and all the important variables (such as skin flexibility in the bridge hand) match those found in actual play.

For those not familiar with the test, here's how I do it:

Set up a straight-in shot, cue ball about 2 feet from the object ball, object ball about two feet from the pocket. Line up perfectly straight in with centerball, then use back-hand english (keep bridge fixed and pivot butt of cue only) to hit the shot with about a tip of side. If the cue ball stops dead and spins in place when the shot is made, then measure the distance from bridge hand to cue ball and record it. If it doesn't, move the bridge and try again. I also try both left and right spin to get an average, in case I'm seeing "straight in centerball" a little bit "off". If the test is too sensitive for you (can't get the C/B to stop), make the shot easier by moving the balls a little closer to each other and the pocket. But if you can't do it with spacing around 18 inches, then cueball deflection is the least of your worries /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The closer the bridge must be to the cue ball for a perfect stop-n-spin, the more cue-ball deflection you have compensated out (because the pointing angle of the cue must change more for the same tip offset as the tip-to-cueball lever gets shorter).

The reason "back-hand english" works so well for so many people is that the pivot point for exact compensation often turns out to be very near a comfortable bridge length for play. It's also the reason why those same players have so much problem adjusting to a low-squirt cue.

Important - since the amount of cueball squirt is dependent on the ratio of the cueball mass to apparent end mass of the cue, you have to use the same cueball to compare sticks. You'll get less squirt (pivot point further back) with a heavier ball.

SpiderMan

rocky
04-05-2004, 02:47 PM
Hey John how is Jade? You have been in Arkansas to long! "aint" hehe

Tiabin
04-05-2004, 04:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> If I was curious whether the machine was tricking me on a squirt comparison, I'd just perform the standard "aim and pivot" squirt test to compare cues. Whichever one has the most rearward pivot point for exact compensation using back-hand english is the one that produces lowest cueball deflection. This is easy to do, doesn't require any machines, and all the important variables (such as skin flexibility in the bridge hand) match those found in actual play.

For those not familiar with the test, here's how I do it:

Set up a straight-in shot, cue ball about 2 feet from the object ball, object ball about two feet from the pocket. Line up perfectly straight in with centerball, then use back-hand english (keep bridge fixed and pivot butt of cue only) to hit the shot with about a tip of side. If the cue ball stops dead and spins in place when the shot is made, then measure the distance from bridge hand to cue ball and record it. If it doesn't, move the bridge and try again. I also try both left and right spin to get an average, in case I'm seeing "straight in centerball" a little bit "off". If the test is too sensitive for you (can't get the C/B to stop), make the shot easier by moving the balls a little closer to each other and the pocket. But if you can't do it with spacing around 18 inches, then cueball deflection is the least of your worries /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
<hr /></blockquote>

That's all with the assumption that you can actually line up perfectly straight in with centerball. I wouldn't even call that an educated guess at which cue is better. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Doing it by hand introduces a lot more variables than using a machine does. Without using a machine, as close as you can get to a test is simply trying different cue/shaft combinations over a period of a few months.

--

SpiderMan
04-05-2004, 06:15 PM
Not so - if you arrive at the same pivot point for both left and right english, then you're lining up OK. If you've been unable to do that, try getting someone to stand in front of you and watch you line up centerball, or do the classic end-to-end lags as Scott Lee recommends.

This non-machine test can also demonstrate the difference in squirt for changing cueballs with the same stick.

SpiderMan

Barbara
04-05-2004, 07:09 PM
Okay Eric, I can't resist anymore.

Bob Meucci brought this contraption to the Expo a few years ago. I asked Barry Sz. about it. He told me a story about Bob Meucci and his Dad. Gus Sz used to bait Bob Meucci by declaring, "A wood shaft without deflection? HAHAHAHAHAHA." Rumor had it, Bob would leave the room.

Barbara~~~knows which shaft to play with for a given shot...

Tiabin
04-05-2004, 07:17 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> Okay Eric, I can't resist anymore.
Bob Meucci brought this contraption to the Expo a few years ago. I asked Barry Sz. about it. He told me a story about Bob Meucci and his Dad. Gus Sz used to bait Bob Meucci by declaring, "A wood shaft without deflection? HAHAHAHAHAHA." Rumor had it, Bob would leave the room.
<hr /></blockquote>
Wow, there is a documented claim, or even more than one witness of him saying he could make a wood shaft without deflection? I didn't realize that... Bob would leave the room without making any statement? What a wuss, sounds just like him... I'm sure that rumor is true. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
PS: Spiderman, I still don't believe any player can truly hit center ball. Think about the fact that a new player may miscue altogethor, now even if you're *GOOD* it's still going to be highly unlikely you can hit centerball (and mean to do it). That's aside from the fact that if you're hitting center ball you wouldn't be experiencing deflection in the first place... so what would it matter what shaft you play with?

SPetty
04-05-2004, 07:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tiabin:</font><hr> I still don't believe any player can truly hit center ball. <hr /></blockquote>That's just a weird thing to say. What do you know that makes you say that no player can hit center ball? That's just weird... seriously...

Tiabin
04-05-2004, 07:54 PM
Try drawing a perfect circle. It's the same concept, and the same reason, many times, hand-made products come out defective where inlays, etc. arn't spaced out right. Anything that requires you using your eyes, and hands typically is never going to be truly perfect and that stands the same for hitting center ball. It's the same reason I couldn't really tell you, just by looking at you, how much you weigh within a tenth of a pound, but I could, however take a good guess within 10lbs... it's the same way with trying to "hit center ball". Even a really good player isn't going to be able to hit center ball everytime, nor is he going to even be sure when he honestly hit centerball if he did (unlikely).

Nostroke
04-05-2004, 11:13 PM
I know for sure that i cant hit centerball unless im lucky. It's my biggest problem and it hasnt improved one bit in all these years. I can line a shot up "perfectly" thinking i have center ball, then look at the OB and then bring my eyes back to the CB and this time my eyes tell me i am off centerball by literally 3/8 of an inch and i havent moved my cue.

Just last nite i hit a shot with outside English,made the shot somehow and the CB hit the rail and came off with obviously a ton of Inside English!-more than i would ever expect to get trying to use Inside. If i could ever find centerball consistently, my game would be up at least 2 balls!

Cueless Joey
04-05-2004, 11:46 PM
Try placing your grip hand a little further in the back.

SpiderMan
04-06-2004, 08:10 AM
You misunderstood. Go back and read my post, I said LINE UP centerball, then find the average for your pivot point by testing one tip of side both right and left. If you're not lining up centerball, the test will tell you by giving a different result for right vs left. The real answer will be in between, which is why you average the two if they're close (and work on your technique if they're not).

Until you've successfully performed this experiment it's hard to visualize, but it works and is repeatable by a moderately-skilled player without special equipment. I can usually get someone doing it reasonably well in fifteen minutes.

BTW, the test I described does back up predator's claim's of lower squirt than most standard cues. The pivot point for exact compensation on a 314 I tested was 3/4 of the way back to the joint using a blue dot cueball. I've not tried one of the new Meucci shafts.

SpiderMan

Eric.
04-06-2004, 12:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr>
Barbara~~~knows which shaft to play with for a given shot...

<hr /></blockquote>

O.k. I give up, what's the answer?


Eric

Big_Jon
04-07-2004, 10:19 AM
Ok, here is what i know to be true... a good friend of mine got to the VF expo a day early, when everybody was setting up, and he walked by Meucci's booth. Bob Meucci and Mike Sigel were going back and forth about cues. Bob said his cues took the guess work out of pool, and mike countered with "it doesn't matter what you play with, you still have to guess where to hit the damn ball, on every shot." Well bob put his (then the "best shaft available") red dot shaft in the machine, and the test showed that the OB hit about 2 feet from the laser line. My friend said "damn bob, what's going on here, i thought this was the best shaft in the world according to you." and all bob said was... "i have to dial the machine in..." that should tell you all you need to know. I could take a Joss with ivory ferrule and "dial it in" and it would deflect less than any other cue you tested. It's a con... always has been, always will be. My friend went ahead and bought a red dot for his schon, and couldn't miss on bob's table (with red circle cue ball) when he got home, and tried it on the Valley ball, and red dot (dynamo) cue ball, he couldn't make three in a row. The next time he saw Bob... he asked him about this... and bob said "all you need is a thicker shaft, around a 13.5mm..." Friend said "wouldn't that just make it stiffer, which is what you are preaching against..." Bob said nothing...

Decide for yourself.

Thanks,

Jon

Tiabin
04-07-2004, 06:21 PM
If he was setting up perhaps he meant he didn't have it setup right? In which case if he had put another shaft on it would've screwed it up also.
I don't know if you've actually seen the machine in person, but the front portion of it has a very thin plate that he uses to position the object ball... it seems to me pretty likely that he could've just had the object ball wrong (since he obviously didn't have the machine fully setup in the first place).
If you haven't seen the machine I'm pretty sure they offer a video demonstrating it if you call/email them, and I doubt he could skew the results without it being VERY obvious to people watching.

Ken
04-07-2004, 07:09 PM
The machine indeed has to be set up. Here's a pic of the machine and several components have to be made parallel to the long rails:

http://www.meuccicues.com/Myth-Front.htm

Once it is set up there is no way it can know which shaft is being tested.

I've watched him a lot and I don't think he is doing anything to skew the results. I do think the machine is probably flawed along the lines that were discussed by Fred. I think the bridge he uses may be unrealistic. The machine does show his designs to be superior to most everything else. He can even show a difference in the joint material which probably should actually have no effect on deflection. That suggests that the machine may not be showing what he claims.
Ken in CT

Big_Jon
04-07-2004, 07:27 PM
Ok, yes i have seen it in person, i watched him test half a dozen different cues, last year at VF. In the encounter i mentioned, he didn't say "set it up"... he said... "DIAL IT IN"... i would understand "set it up", that is obvious, it was on the table, locked down. He said, it needed to be dialed in... anybody here that understands English, should know the difference between the two. I can "set up" a microscope, and it will do as it was intended, enlarge what i want to see, but i can also "dial in" the microscope, to get the view (results) that i want... how hard is that to grasp. I am an avid user of back hand english, i've always played that way (and didn't know it for a long time) and i tried out four different Meucci's in this order: 1) Original 2)whatever was between original and red dot 3)red dot 4)black dot. using backhand english, it seems that neither of them deflected a bit, but using parallel shift english, they all deflected like a mother, just like (almost) every cue out there...

Thanks,

Jon

Ken
04-07-2004, 07:55 PM
What you are saying is indeed hard to grasp since it doesn't make any sense. If his cues do not do what he claims, it is the machine that is designed improperly. Is that so hard to grasp?

Ken in CT

SpiderMan
04-08-2004, 08:52 AM
One thing Jon said made lots of sense - He has tested the Meucci cues using aim-and-pivot methods, and his results indicate they DO produce significant cueball squirt. The fact that BHE compensation works with them says that they squirt. The necessary bridge length to get good results using BHE would tell us how much they squirt relative to one another.

As I noted before, this is a test that doesn't involve anyone's special equipment. I doubt it's just a coincidence that the "Myth Destroyer" and "Iron Willie" both produce results that say their own maker's cues squirt the least.

Jon, have you compared the black dot and the 314 side-by-side with BHE and parallel-shift? I'd do it if I knew anyone playing with a black dot, and publish the results here.

SpiderMan

Big_Jon
04-08-2004, 09:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> One thing Jon said made lots of sense - He has tested the Meucci cues using aim-and-pivot methods, and his results indicate they DO produce significant cueball squirt. The fact that BHE compensation works with them says that they squirt. The necessary bridge length to get good results using BHE would tell us how much they squirt relative to one another.

As I noted before, this is a test that doesn't involve anyone's special equipment. I doubt it's just a coincidence that the "Myth Destroyer" and "Iron Willie" both produce results that say their own maker's cues squirt the least.

Jon, have you compared the black dot and the 314 side-by-side with BHE and parallel-shift? I'd do it if I knew anyone playing with a black dot, and publish the results here.

SpiderMan <hr /></blockquote>

First of all, thank you for agreeing with me... i think it's the first time anybody on this board has done that lol. Yes i've tried both black and red side by side (one after the other, back and forth) All in all, the black dot is stiffer, and if i had to choose, i would go with it. And to the post above spiderman's... i grasp that the machine was designed and built to make Meucci's cues look good, and everybody else's look bad, give me the time and material, i'll but my cue on my machine and read zero deflection... maybe even negitave deflection!!!!

Thanks,

Jon

Tiabin
04-08-2004, 08:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ken:</font><hr>He can even show a difference in the joint material which probably should actually have no effect on deflection. That suggests that the machine may not be showing what he claims.<hr /></blockquote>
Hey Ken!
Why do you believe joint material would have no effect? And if it isn't showing a difference in the joint material everytime would could account for it? Then again it may just be some other problem with a cue, etc. that he is attributing to joint material... but in all honesty even if it is slightly flawed at least he seems to be honest (and now skewing the results... I agree with you on this obviously... I think if the machine was meant to skew results it'd be built much differently).

Tiabin
04-08-2004, 08:26 PM
Big_Jon... Is that firsthand information about the "dial it in" part? In all fairness just because he said "dial it in" doesn't mean anything. I've heard people talk about typing as "punching buttons" and when you think about it that is a pretty odd way to phrase things. Could just be a dialect difference. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

PS: Spiderman, I don't think it's fair to really compare the myth destroyer to iron willie. Iron Willie had no bridge at all (they just placed the cue ball where they wanted... EASILY skewing results), was made of wood and weighed down by sandbags, if I recall correctly, and as far as I know hasn't been showing up a whole lot lately. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Bob_Jewett
04-09-2004, 01:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> Anyone have any thoughts? <hr /></blockquote>

Yes. A stick's squirt is best given by a pivot point, such as "10 inches" and not by some arbitrary distance observed in a shot that has a great number of variables. I believe that the pivot point length is nearly independent of speed and amount of side spin.

I think that Bob should modify his machine to measure pivot points.

Big_Jon
04-11-2004, 07:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eric.:</font><hr> Anyone have any thoughts? <hr /></blockquote>

Yes. A stick's squirt is best given by a pivot point, such as "10 inches" and not by some arbitrary distance observed in a shot that has a great number of variables. I believe that the pivot point length is nearly independent of speed and amount of side spin.

I think that Bob should modify his machine to measure pivot points. <hr /></blockquote>

Yes, i would have to say, that is a good idea. But i don't think Bob would go for it lol. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Thanks,

Jon

Popcorn
04-11-2004, 09:29 PM
I have never seen him randomly just go the Meucci display and select a cue to test. He always seem to use the same cue each demonstration that he knows gives him a good result.

Big_Jon
04-12-2004, 09:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr> I have never seen him randomly just go the Meucci display and select a cue to test. He always seem to use the same cue each demonstration that he knows gives him a good result. <hr /></blockquote>

Gee... you noticed that too??? Some people on this board don't really have an opinion, they just want to argue for no apparent reason...

Thanks,

Jon

That was in no way directed at you Pop, just to let you know. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif