PDA

View Full Version : Physics is Phun



Shaft
02-01-2007, 09:27 AM
I am an engineer, so now you know my bias...

I am very grateful for "Dr. Dave," Bob Jewett, Robert Byrne, and all the other tekkies that bring a little science to this sport. Their systematic testing and mythbusting have probably shaved years off my learning of the game.

I think even the tekkies agree with all those who say that knowing the physics can't make anyone a great pool player(I wonder how many of the great players had ANY education in physics?); only practice at the table can do that.

OK, PoolTchr, practice and good coaching from a knowledgeable 3rd person.

But I do think that understanding the physics concepts CAN make you a more insightful student when you are practicing and guide you to better adjustments.

Few other games and sports lend themselves to this level of practical analysis. So, bring on the robots, the shaft testers, the better materials, the training aids, the charts, the graphs. Just more pieces of the puzzle...

BTW, last night I sank a LONG 2-9 combo, with thin cuts on both balls, remembering to cut the 2 a little "thin" to account for throw. You know the feeling.

dr_dave
02-01-2007, 09:45 AM
Shaft,

Excellent post, even if you are a biased engineer.

I agree 100% with everything you wrote. I guess great minds think alike. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Others and I have written many posts along these same lines (see the pertinent links under "advice" and "mental aspects" in the threads summary section of my website (http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/pool/threads.html) for the highlights). Maybe if we keep beating the drums, more people will eventually listen and benefit.

Regards,
Dave

PS: FYI, by aligning yourself with the pro-knowledge "techies," you open yourself up to attacks from the anti-science mobs. Beware!

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Shaft:</font><hr> I am an engineer, so now you know my bias...

I am very grateful for "Dr. Dave," Bob Jewett, Robert Byrne, and all the other tekkies that bring a little science to this sport. Their systematic testing and mythbusting have probably shaved years off my learning of the game.

I think even the tekkies agree with all those who say that knowing the physics can't make anyone a great pool player(I wonder how many of the great players had ANY education in physics?); only practice at the table can do that.

OK, PoolTchr, practice and good coaching from a knowledgeable 3rd person.

But I do think that understanding the physics concepts CAN make you a more insightful student when you are practicing and guide you to better adjustments.

Few other games and sports lend themselves to this level of practical analysis. So, bring on the robots, the shaft testers, the better materials, the training aids, the charts, the graphs. Just more pieces of the puzzle...

BTW, last night I sank a LONG 2-9 combo, with thin cuts on both balls, remembering to cut the 2 a little "thin" to account for throw. You know the feeling. <hr /></blockquote>

bsmutz
02-01-2007, 10:12 AM
Thanks for correcting his spelling, Dave. "Tekkies" is a little too close to "Trekkies" for my comfort, lol.

Billy_Bob
02-02-2007, 09:03 AM
I'm no Einstein, but it sure helps me to know what is possible, what is not possible. Also the way things work. Why things happen the way they do.

Many times the physics stuff is also explained in "English" for people like myself. So I can understand the basic idea by reading these notes.

Understanding how things work helps me everyday. If I understand how something works, how it should work, then I can fix it when it is broken. Saves a lot of money!

But I understand that some people are "mechanical" and other are not. (Like the guy I saw on the side of the road in a SUV having AAA change his tire for him...)

dr_dave
02-02-2007, 09:10 AM
Billy_Bob,

Well stated! I think even the people who don't like to understand things ("Just tell me how to do it ... or just do it for me") can benefit from knowing how things do and don't work. If the mind or subconscious knows something is right, it is a lot easier to be confident with your intuition. And confidence is critical to good and consistent play.

Regards,
Dave

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Billy_Bob:</font><hr> I'm no Einstein, but it sure helps me to know what is possible, what is not possible. Also the way things work. Why things happen the way they do.

Many times the physics stuff is also explained in "English" for people like myself. So I can understand the basic idea by reading these notes.

Understanding how things work helps me everyday. If I understand how something works, how it should work, then I can fix it when it is broken. Saves a lot of money!

But I understand that some people are "mechanical" and other are not. (Like the guy I saw on the side of the road in a SUV having AAA change his tire for him...)<hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
02-02-2007, 11:05 AM
Bill, if the shoe fits........

dr_dave
02-02-2007, 11:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Bill, if the shoe fits........ <hr /></blockquote>
I don't know about Bill, but I personally don't like Star Trek that much. Although, I can form a 30-degree angle Vulcan-style with two fingers pressed together on both sides. But I still like the peace sign better because it puts me more in touch with the late 60's, early 70's peace and love era.

Peace and Godspeed,
Dave

wolfdancer
02-02-2007, 12:01 PM
That was intended as a little joke Dr.Dave.
Bill's an engineer, nice guy, good player, especially on the snooker table. He has a great home pool room....two tables, a 9 ft'r for pool, and a not quite reg., but a 10 ft'r for snooker. (I think he has it tricked up, where I can't make a ball)
You don't like Star Trek?....downright Un-American.
I've never watched an entire episode, from day one.

bsmutz
02-02-2007, 12:29 PM
Hey, quit talking about me for a minute. I'm trying to watch this nail biter of a snooker match between Doherty and Ebdon. I'll get back to ya in a couple of hours...

dr_dave
02-02-2007, 01:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> That was intended as a little joke Dr.Dave.
Bill's an engineer, nice guy, good player, especially on the snooker table. He has a great home pool room....two tables, a 9 ft'r for pool, and a not quite reg., but a 10 ft'r for snooker. (I think he has it tricked up, where I can't make a ball)
You don't like Star Trek?....downright Un-American.
I've never watched an entire episode, from day one. <hr /></blockquote>I was joking too.

Wow, a 10' tricked up snooker table. That sounds like a true science fiction horror story to me. But I bet if you played on it for a while, your stroke and aiming would get a lot better. It's no wonder why those snooker players have such great fundamentals and mechanics (textbook!) ... because it's hard to make a shot without a "perfect stroke."

Regards,
Dave

bsmutz
02-02-2007, 01:47 PM
Okay, it's mid-session interval. While I have spent some amount of hours watching Star Trek and Next Generation, I think the Shatner era shows were a little over the top and way too predictable. The Next Generation was a little better thought out and had some interesting characters (especially liked Data). However, I will never consider myself a Trekkie. Maybe a CSIer.
Wolfie is a little too generous with the praise, but dead nuts on about the hours I spent before he arrived making sure that I would be the favorite on the snooker table. I have the two most important pockets set up so that the balls roll off if they aren't played correctly. It has worked to my advantage many times, lol. And, as usual, Dr. Dave has hit the nail on the head. It does take a straight stroke and a good aim to be able to play a decent game of snooker. Only wish I had room for a 12' table. I wonder what would happen to my pool game if I abandoned the pool table and 10' snooker for a 12' table. Hmmm, could be interesting...

cushioncrawler
02-02-2007, 03:45 PM
Shaft. Wellkum. Dont listen to the other postings --the "Society for Simplyfyd Spelling" spellz it Tekkyz (not really). Me, myself, i too woz a gingerbeer -- early on mainly working on water, irrigation, dam construction. Later a traffic engineer -- hence an interest in collisions, skidding etc.

The fizzyks of billiards is tantalizing. I bort lots of old and new books on this stuff -- if u ever kum across some of theze, dont hezitate to buyem.

Locock (1901 i think). The best (billiardz fizzyks) book ever. Dont know what he did for a living -- but he talks my language -- this mother really knows hiz [censored].

Hemming (1898). I have a photocopy only. Mathematics background (Oxford??) -- lots of calculus. Must be Dr Dave's long-lost great-grandad. Hiz equations switch onto the wrong track at times.

Riso Levi (1905 -1920). Some fizzykish stuff in most of hiz books, most of it nonsense. Amateur astronomer. Wouldnt listen. Didnt beleev in tranzmitted side. A good read but.

Western (1910??). I have a photocopy only. This guy woz a retired ex army cannoneer Colonel. He woz krazy. Did he ever actually test his stupid angle-theoryz and runthroo-theoryz uzing real ballz on a real table??? "Wirgy" must have stood too close to the wrong sorts of cannonz.

Captain Crawley (1861??). Haz the first bit of fizzyks in an english book (i think). Haz a chapter on cushion rebound written by a (Cambridge??) friend -- looks good, but in fact her logic kumz completely off the rails. I think the friend woz in fact a lady, and more than just a friend (reading between the lines here -- long nights testing cushion rebound can be very frustrating).

Koehler. Lots of good newish work. Makes lots of descriptive etc errors but.

The Cushion Crawler'z Bible (2005). Inkloodz lots of stuff relating to english billiards fizzyks only. None of this stuff applyz to pool ballz apparantly.

Have yet to get books by Marlow, Dr Dave, Coriolis etc.

Google. Lots of stuff by Bob Jewett and Ron Shepard and Dr Onada. Lots of stuff re research on ball collisions etc -- but hard to find amongst all the (skoolkid) krap out there.
Catchyaround. madMac.

HOWARD
02-02-2007, 06:06 PM
I still believe, common sense (not so common in truth) confidence and heart and love of the game are the key. Knowledge required, practice required, physics well maybe.

Howard

Stretch
02-02-2007, 06:56 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> Okay, it's mid-session interval. While I have spent some amount of hours watching Star Trek and Next Generation, I think the Shatner era shows were a little over the top and way too predictable. The Next Generation was a little better thought out and had some interesting characters (especially liked Data). However, I will never consider myself a Trekkie. Maybe a CSIer.
Wolfie is a little too generous with the praise, but dead nuts on about the hours I spent before he arrived making sure that I would be the favorite on the snooker table. I have the two most important pockets set up so that the balls roll off if they aren't played correctly. It has worked to my advantage many times, lol. And, as usual, Dr. Dave has hit the nail on the head. It does take a straight stroke and a good aim to be able to play a decent game of snooker. Only wish I had room for a 12' table. I wonder what would happen to my pool game if I abandoned the pool table and 10' snooker for a 12' table. Hmmm, could be interesting... <hr /></blockquote>

Snooker will help your Pool game, but your Pool game will kill your snooker game. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif besides, there is a lot of adjustments to do to play both of them really well, sometimes i think too much so. Different size balls, different cue. Playing both all the time would leave one's wieght control always an issue i think. St.

bradb
02-02-2007, 07:51 PM
Its the bloody napped cloth thats a killer when switching back from pool. Going back to the pool table is like going from a par 72 to a pitch and putt.

Jal
02-03-2007, 12:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>...The fizzyks of billiards is tantalizing. I bort lots of old and new books on this stuff -- if u ever kum across some of theze, dont hezitate to buyem...<hr /></blockquote>Hi Mac,

Appreciate the list - made a copy of it, in case.

Isn't it true that one of the authors not only had an abiding interest in the physics, but was considered a very strong player as well? Didn't he reach the quarter-finals of his country's prestigious open championship at one point?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>...The Cushion Crawler'z Bible (2005). Inkloodz lots of stuff relating to english billiards fizzyks only. None of this stuff applyz to pool ballz apparantly.<hr /></blockquote>There seems to be a subtle message in your last sentence. Is there some ongoing disagreement you have with some of the treatments you've seen here (or maybe our private conversations about masse veer, spin veer, etc.)?

Jim

cushioncrawler
02-04-2007, 02:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> ....Isn't it true that one of the authors not only had an abiding interest in the physics, but was considered a very strong player as well? Didn't he reach the quarter-finals of his country's prestigious open championship at one point? <hr /></blockquote> Nah. Riso Levi never did any good i think. Nor any others i think. The only one i know about iz Leslie Kidner, he woz a Structural Engineer, won the amateur once, he wrote a nice article on transmitted side in the March 1951 edition of The Billiard Player.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr>...The Cushion Crawler'z Bible (2005). Inkloodz lots of stuff relating to english billiards fizzyks only. None of this stuff applyz to pool ballz apparantly.<hr /></blockquote>There seems to be a subtle message in your last sentence. Is there some ongoing disagreement you have with some of the treatments you've seen here (or maybe our private conversations about masse veer, spin veer, etc.)? Jim <hr /></blockquote> There iznt any good reazon for me saying that, the big balls n small balls all moov the same way etc. But there is a difference in the way the cushions react i guess. The main difference is the way that a napped cloth reacts on roll and sidespin -- in fact the main reason that i got involved with the fizzyks is to explain how the (stupid) nap duz what it duz -- ie DriftKurv and SpinKurv. In fact madMac is the only person (and thusly the first person) to explain properly what goze on -- there are about 7 different forces or effects. The long (and stupid) historyz of the arguements and theoryz about tranzmitted side and about napKurv are good reading. madMac.