PDA

View Full Version : "mixed" aiming system diagram



heater451
07-11-2005, 08:10 AM
I didn't want to post this in the Hal Houle Aiming Thread (it's big enough). It's the diagram that I sent to BigRigTom, who was nice enough not to post it without permission, although I consider anything on my site for public usage.

For those of you who haven't seen this before, I drew it up a couple of years back. It shouldn't be new to anyone--or at least most of those who come here, but someone might be interested.

http://heater451.tripod.com/mixed.htm

The intention of the graphic is to show how some aiming systems determine the same angles. The overall diagram shows the 'regular' angles (30-deg, 45-deg, etc.), and there's a vague "ghostball" in light blue, to show where the cueball would contact the object ball for each cut. There is also a 2-lane like addition of two black lines and one dotted line, which shows how the ball-sections overlap, like the "equal-distance" system. And, then there is the "center/edge" aiming explanations at the bottom.

Apologies in advance, for the Tripod popups.

DISCLAIMER: This is in NO WAY supposed to show any of Hal Houle's systems or methods, so don't even start. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


=================================

dr_dave
07-11-2005, 08:21 AM
Excellent diagrams! Thank you for posting them.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> I didn't want to post this in the Hal Houle Aiming Thread (it's big enough). It's the diagram that I sent to BigRigTom, who was nice enough not to post it without permission, although I consider anything on my site for public usage.

For those of you who haven't seen this before, I drew it up a couple of years back. It shouldn't be new to anyone--or at least most of those who come here, but someone might be interested.

http://heater451.tripod.com/mixed.htm

The intention of the graphic is to show how some aiming systems determine the same angles. The overall diagram shows the 'regular' angles (30-deg, 45-deg, etc.), and there's a vague "ghostball" in light blue, to show where the cueball would contact the object ball for each cut. There is also a 2-lane like addition of two black lines and one dotted line, which shows how the ball-sections overlap, like the "equal-distance" system. And, then there is the "center/edge" aiming explanations at the bottom.

Apologies in advance, for the Tripod popups.

DISCLAIMER: This is in NO WAY supposed to show any of Hal Houle's systems or methods, so don't even start. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


================================= <hr /></blockquote>

recoveryjones
07-11-2005, 09:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> I didn't want to post this in the Hal Houle Aiming Thread (it's big enough). It's the diagram that I sent to BigRigTom, who was nice enough not to post it without permission, although I consider anything on my site for public usage.

For those of you who haven't seen this before, I drew it up a couple of years back. It shouldn't be new to anyone--or at least most of those who come here, but someone might be interested.

http://heater451.tripod.com/mixed.htm

The intention of the graphic is to show how some aiming systems determine the same angles. The overall diagram shows the 'regular' angles (30-deg, 45-deg, etc.), and there's a vague "ghostball" in light blue, to show where the cueball would contact the object ball for each cut. There is also a 2-lane like addition of two black lines and one dotted line, which shows how the ball-sections overlap, like the "equal-distance" system. And, then there is the "center/edge" aiming explanations at the bottom.

Apologies in advance, for the Tripod popups.

DISCLAIMER: This is in NO WAY supposed to show any of Hal Houle's systems or methods, so don't even start. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif


================================= <hr /></blockquote>

Is this the system that is called "Center to Edge?"

If so I've tried it and it really works,however,I could never get completley comfortable with moving my head to the left(or right)of the cue ball center as to align my eyes through various portions of the cue ball instead of the normal sighting of the cue ball right through the very center.

If one is succesful in lineing up the prescribed edges, this system is deadly.The 3/4,1/2,1/4 and 1/8 lineups will take care of the majority of ALL SHOTS in pool. For example a 32 degree angle or a 35 degree angle or 38 degree angle are all the exact cue ball to object ball lineup as described in your diagrams for a half ball hit.Get a protractor out...set up the shots... do the cue ball to object ball lineups as described on the diagrams....and find out that what I say holds true.I just found it tough (sighting wise) to line up the edges.At times I would make brilliant razor cuts and other times I would miss badly.In all fairness I didn't give this system a super amount of time because I found and like the shishkabob(another Hal one) system better.RJ

BigRigTom
07-11-2005, 10:39 AM
I am really glad you decided to share those diagrams with the rest of the CCB.
Also nice to see some clear concise information that helps about everyone and anyone.
I wish everyone was as willing to share their "secrets" and we could all benefit from them.
On the other hand maybe those secrets are not as valuable as the holder thinks they are to begin with....as long as they are secret, I guess the rest of us will have to just make do with the vast amount of good public information that is freely shared by all the nice people who enjoy this game.
Thanks again heater451!

Bob_Jewett
07-11-2005, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr>...
For those of you who haven't seen this before, I drew it up a couple of years back. It shouldn't be new to anyone--or at least most of those who come here, but someone might be interested.
... <hr /></blockquote>
Nice diagrams. One small nit to pick, though. The exact cut angles for 1/8-, 1/4-, and 3/4-full hits are slightly different from the values listed. The actual value for 1/8, for example, is 61.0449756 degrees. This can be found, if you don't have a scientific calculator handy, by going to www.google.com (http://www.google.com) and typing in:

arcsin(1-1/8) in degrees

where "1/8" is the fullness you are interested in. (Google also does arithmetic.)

Pat Johnson also made up similar diagrams, and I made a graph of the complete fullness/cut angle relationship, which are both available as the 15th item at:

http://www.sfbilliards.com/misc.htm

Items 24, 26 and 31 there also pertain to aiming.

ceebee
07-11-2005, 11:05 AM
Hi Bob Jewett, can you post the "Shot Line" diagram I came up with... I would, but I don't know how.

heater451
07-11-2005, 11:19 AM
Thanks, for the clarification Bob, but there's no need to bring Trigonometry into it. . . .

Just kidding---I simply put down the common "exact" angles--which I supposed could be noted on the diagram as approximations. Then again, I also left out the "NOT TO SCALE" message!

Anyway, I figure that the "30", "45", and "60" degree angles are common enough that most people will run with it. That, and if you can agree with my "margin for error" (http://heater451.tripod.com/margin4error.htm) diagram, and if you allow for the inexactness of the human stroke, then the difference in 60 and 61 degrees on a pool table is probably neglible.

==================

Bob_Jewett
07-11-2005, 11:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ceebee:</font><hr> Hi Bob Jewett, can you post the "Shot Line" diagram I came up with... I would, but I don't know how. <hr /></blockquote>
I'm not sure I can find the diagram right now, but I'll describe ceebee's method in words.

Find the contact point on the object ball -- the point on the ball farthest from the goal (such as the pocket). Find the point on the cloth that is exactly half way between the center of the object ball and the center of the cue ball. Draw a line between those two points.* That straight line, if extended, will touch the cue ball at its contact point -- the point on the cue ball that will contact the object ball. Shoot through the center of the cue ball parallel to that line.

This system is equivalent to the ghost ball system, which means it is perfectly accurate if the correct goal has been chosen (to allow for throw).

* If you want to speak technically correctly geometrically, this line should be drawn at the height of centers of the balls, but most people visualize such descriptions as viewed from above, and diagrams are usually drawn from that view, and then whether the line is on the cloth or 1.125 inches off the cloth is not visible.

Bob_Jewett
07-11-2005, 11:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> ...
Anyway, I figure that the "30", "45", and "60" degree angles are common enough that most people will run with it. That, and if you can agree with my "margin for error" (http://heater451.tripod.com/margin4error.htm) diagram, and if you allow for the inexactness of the human stroke, then the difference in 60 and 61 degrees on a pool table is probably neglible. ... <hr /></blockquote>
I mostly agree with this, but I think it is important to be accurate in the statement of any system, including how much error is built in. For example, in the case of the "corner-five diamond system," the user should be told to expect up to a diamond of error on the fourth cushion, unless additional corrections are made. That may motivate them to study the Seattle Kid's allowances.

In the particular case of fractional ball with even angles, I imagine that the 4-degree error for a 1/4-full hit (48.6 degrees) will result in the shooter modifying either his notion of 1/4-full or 45 degrees.

tateuts
07-11-2005, 01:01 PM
Those diagrams are great. Now, would you say this is Hal's "system"? It seems to be what the RSB text was describing.

Chris

Chopstick
07-11-2005, 01:11 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bob_Jewett:</font><hr>One small nit to pick, though. The exact cut angles for 1/8-, 1/4-, and 3/4-full hits are slightly different from the values listed. The actual value for 1/8, for example, is 61.0449756 degrees. <hr /></blockquote>

Hmmm, I guess that means the size of a small nit is 1.0449756. What's a regular sized nit? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

SPetty
07-11-2005, 01:31 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote tateuts:</font><hr> Now, would you say this is Hal's "system"? It seems to be what the RSB text was describing.<hr /></blockquote>You must have missed the original disclaimer:

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr>DISCLAIMER: This is in NO WAY supposed to show any of Hal Houle's systems or methods, so don't even start. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

tateuts
07-11-2005, 02:02 PM
I missed it, thanks. Regardless, it seems to be what Hal is describing. The guesswork seems to be in selecting which hit to use, but that's another 10 page thread I'm sure.

Chris

heater451
07-11-2005, 07:40 PM
I think the similarities w/ Hal's descriptions is why people confuse his system (or, one of his systems) with fractional aiming.

One thing that seems different, is that in the Mega-thread, he mentions using the "center of the edge of the ferrule, and the edge of the cueball", which is different than using the "center/half" of the cueball.

Picture it this way---I don't have time or energy right now, to do a diagram. . . .If the cueball is 2-1/4" in diameter (57.15 mm), then half the ball is 1-1/8" (28.575 mm). The "center/half" of the cueball would then be about 9/16" (14.2875 mm) from the edge OR the center. What Hal seems to be describing would involve subtracting half the diameter of the cuetip/ferrule, say 6.5 mm, for a 13 mm tip. So, to stay in the metric system for a bit, we would take half the tip dia. from half the ball dia. (28.575 - 6.5 mm), for 22.075 mm, and then the middle point of that distance would be 11.0375 from the edge, but 17.5375 mm from the center (11.0375 + 6.5). Converting back to standard, that would be about a little less than 7/16" from the edge, and about 11/16" from the center.

Okay, so I have time to do a truly horrid, text-diagram. . . .

The following represents the equator of the cueball. 'LR' is Left/Right of center ball. 'LC' is the Center of the left half. If you aim this at the object ball, you get the rough, 30-degree/half-ball hit.

-------LC
(---------------LR----------------)


When we subtract half the cuetip diameter, we get the following "center" with which to aim--'xx' representing the area for the cuetip:

------C
(-------------xxLRxx------------)

(BTW--these centers are off, due to the non-fixed-width font. As long as you can see that the second section accounts for the cuetip.)

This would put you in the 37.5-degree area of cutting--which is something of a point, although the relevance may be lost. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif I'm thinking that this odd-angle may, coinciding with the allowable error to pocket a ball, may be some 'magical' combination for potting--although, I'm not allowing for aiming at the actual center of the object ball.



=======================

Rod
07-12-2005, 12:48 AM
I have used this diagram for some time, years it seems, thanks. It may not be perfect but it shows a basic aming system. Doesn't matter if it is exactly true. If its 45 or 48 degrees who cares? It's basic but close. Thank you!

Heater, I know your name, has presented a format which is fairly easy to follow if you care to. Don't get involved with rocket science just yet. There is no magic, but if there is it is the person swinging the cue.

Rod

Rich R.
07-12-2005, 02:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote heater451:</font><hr> Picture it this way---I don't have time or energy right now, to do a diagram. . . .If the cueball is 2-1/4" in diameter (57.15 mm), then half the ball is 1-1/8" (28.575 mm). The "center/half" of the cueball would then be about 9/16" (14.2875 mm) from the edge OR the center. What Hal seems to be describing would involve subtracting half the diameter of the cuetip/ferrule, say 6.5 mm, for a 13 mm tip. So, to stay in the metric system for a bit, we would take half the tip dia. from half the ball dia. (28.575 - 6.5 mm), for 22.075 mm, and then the middle point of that distance would be 11.0375 from the edge, but 17.5375 mm from the center (11.0375 + 6.5). Converting back to standard, that would be about a little less than 7/16" from the edge, and about 11/16" from the center.<hr /></blockquote>
Is it against the rules to take a calculator to the table? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

DickLeonard
07-12-2005, 07:21 AM
Dr.Dave I think this resembles the diagrams from the 1835 book by Corell name not in my vocabulary. One day I will get all the diagrams, the Librarin was willing to copy. I just didn't have the time.####

dr_dave
07-12-2005, 07:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Dr.Dave I think this resembles the diagrams from the 1835 book by Corell name not in my vocabulary. One day I will get all the diagrams, the Librarin was willing to copy. I just didn't have the time.#### <hr /></blockquote>I have copies of all of Coriolis' diagrams from 1835. In fact, I am currently writing a series of articles about Coriolis' work (see my July - November '05 instructional articles (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/bd_articles/index.html) as they come out). Coriolis did cover a tremendous amount of material, and he created lots of diagrams, but the diagrams are often very complex (with lots of geometric clutter) and are not very illustrative by today's standards.

Regards,
Dave