View Full Version : Meucci's Deflection Myth Destroying Robot

03-22-2002, 07:56 PM
<font color=purple>I had my Hank Thompson sneaky pete cue tested last week at Valley Forge by Bob Meucci on "The Myth Destroyer", his deflection (squirt) testing machine.</font color=purple>

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.meuccicues.com/myth.htm>http://www.meuccicues.com/myth.htm</a>

<font color=blue>Would you concur or dispute that this is a valid squirt detecting mechanism?</font color=blue>

<font color=orange>I was pleasantly surprised to learn that my cue tested to cause squirt equal to that of a Predator.</font color=orange>

03-22-2002, 10:33 PM
Good evening:

For what it is worth, I have Two (2) Meucci SE12 cues and I have replaced the Meucci red dot shafts on each of them with Two (2) Predator shafts. I am much happier with the Predators shafts over the Red Dot shafts.

Dr. D.

03-22-2002, 11:22 PM
Tom, I too have had the experience of talking to Bob Meucci about his machine. Let me first state some observations and background on this "squirt" definition. Squirt is what happens to the cue ball when it is hit by the cue tip. Not the shaft. The shaft has a charactoristic called "deflection", which Meucci and Predator have had an ongoing marketing battle for about 10 years. Deflection is how much the cue tip will 'deflect' off the cue ball when the hit is off center. Different shafts have different deflection charactoristics. Stiff and whippy descriptions are often used when speaking of deflection.

Bob's "myth destroyer" is a measurement of side strength of the cue shaft. The amount of bend when pulled with a force measured in small weights. The radial design of the Predator is said to be equal on all sides, Meucci locates the least amount of bend (deflection?) and puts a red dot on the shaft. When I asked Bob what if all sides are equal, he replied.. Buddy Hall has those shafts. The majority of the shafts that Meucci makes, have un-equal measurements.

Squit is real, even Predator states that it only reduces the amount of deflection, and will not eliminate it all together. Meucci states that its design is also a deflection reducer.

No matter what cue you shoot with, Squirt will still be present and will have to be compensated for, to enable the cue ball to hit the correct spot on the OB.

Just MHO from reading lots of post about Squirt and Deflection.

From a post of Thomas Wayne Cue maker about Squirt and deflection Deflection/Squirt and the Predator shaft phenomenon explained:

First a bit of history...

My first experiments with loaded shafts came about for the same reasons as
many other cuemakers: the search for better performance. Yes, that's right,
the brass weighted ferrule (I tried steel) is OLD news. Many before me, and
many after me have played with it, all obtaining the same results. I won't
bore you with the physics involved (though believe me, I could), but the
massive sideways cueball movement caused by a weighted ferrule proves
conclusively that greater tip mass produces less shaft DEFLECTION (correct
use of term; see B. Stroud definitions) and correspondingly greater cueball
deflection, which we lovingly call "SQUIRT". This discovery prompted the
question: What happens if we REDUCE the mass at the tip of the shaft (I have
coined the descriptive phrase "negative loaded ferrule")? The answer to
this helped me solve another problem (actually two problems) I was having
with Ivory ferrules.

Because the winters in Alaska are so dry, Ivory ferrules tended to crack
uncontrollably. After much experimentation, I discovered that replacing the
standard maple tenon inside the ferrule with a softer wood allowed the Ivory
to shrink around the tenon -compressing it slightly- without cracking the
ferrule. This in turn led to another interesting discovery. Ivory ferrules
weigh approximately 25% more than phenolic ferrules and, as I already knew,
this causes them to exhibit more squirt. Lo and behold, the softer tenon
also weighs substantially less than a maple tenon, and this factor
eliminated the increase in squirt caused by the heavier Ivory ferrule. The
softer wood I use is Alaskan Yellow Cedar, which as strong longitudinally as
maple, but weighs almost as little as Balsa. Plus it exhibits the least
tendency to warp of any wood I have ever seen.

Fast forward to the early nineties. Alan Clawson approached me at a
tournament in Philadelphia to show me the new innovation he was involved
with: the Predator shaft/ferrule system. At that time, they wanted to
interest other cuemakers in buying laminated shafts from their company. In
the original illustrations he showed me, the ferrule tenon was drawn as a
SOLID phenolic rod. Of course, in production, the Predator ferrule tenon is
actually a thin walled HOLLOW phenolic tube extending about 2 to 3 inches
into the shaft. To this day, I don't know if the diagram I was shown was a
"smoke screen", or if they had intended to originally use solid rod. Based
on my understanding that it was to be solid, I knew I wasn't interested
(phenolic weighs much more than maple), so I passed. Incidentally, the idea
of a laminated shaft is as old as the hills; most of us have experimented
with it at one time or another. In fact, I have been told by a number of
other long-time cuemakers that George Balabushka experimented with laminated
shafts in the sixties! As an interesting bit of trivia, the Predator shaft
is NOT patented (I don't believe it can be); the only patent of record for a
laminated shaft is co-held by Colorado cuemaker Dave Kikel. Nor have I been
able to find any recorded patent for the Predator ferrule system. Of
course, if any cuemaker wants to achieve results similar to the Predator,
all he has to do is run a Yellow Cedar tenon approx. 3 inches into the
business end of a shaft and use an additional 3/4 inch or so for the ferrule

So, now you know just as much as I do about the Predator shaft (well, maybe
not quite as much), but we still haven't answered two key questions: 1)
Why does the shaft with lower tip-mass (negative loaded) squirt less? And
2) Should we really care so much about this great spawn-of-Satan: SQUIRT?

Why lower tip mass reduces squirt if easy: the equal-and-opposite-reaction
principle factors in relative mass. Lets ignore, for a moment, the major
linear forces involved in driving the cueball down the table, and just focus
on the peripheral forces caused by an off-center hit. And, for the purpose
of illustration, lets liken that action to one of hitting a round ball with
a hammer- sort of like a croquet mallet. If it's a tennis ball and a sledge
hammer, the ball is gonna zoom with very little effect on the sledge. But
if it's a tack hammer versus a bowling ball, well, I hope you get the
picture. (Go ahead and talk among yourselves a bit, if you need.) The
lower mass shaft tip is more easily moved aside- NOT flexed or bent, simply
shifted- by the cueball, resulting in what? Less squirt!

But is this result good? Do we really want less squirt, do we need less
squirt? ("...You want me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall!" Jack
Nicholson in *A Few Good Men*) Allow me to draw an analogy that relates to
my own profession... Every metal lathe in my shop has a dial attached to the
crank handles on the cross-slides. These dials are calibrated with index
marks that indicate each increment of travel occurring during the use of the
crank handle. So, by paying attention to these dials, I can monitor and
control the travel of the cross-slide (and therefore the cutting tool) to an
accuracy of 1/2 of one thousandth of an inch! If I really wanted control, I
could fit these cranks with dials twice as big, with twice as many
graduations. What I actually have done is equip each lathe with electronic
digital readouts which are accurate to 100 times the cross-slide dials.
This gives me LOTS of fine-tune adjustment. Now suppose instead I put
little bitty dials with just a few graduations on my cross-slides. Boy, I
sure wouldn't have much range of control, now would I? Have you noticed how
the Predator fans have praised the small amount of english required to
achieve dramatic results? Wow! I just hope you always are applying the
english exactly the way you want it. After all, the cue doesn't know
whether you executed the shot correctly, it just blindly performs as you
direct it to. I don't think anyone would disagree that any cue that
enhances and amplifies good execution can just as easily enhance and amplify
BAD execution. If the car you drive is typical, it requires 2 1/2
revolutions of the steering wheel to turn the tightest radius possible for
that particular make/model. But certainly Detroit has the technology to
equip your car with a steering mechanism which could crank the front wheels
"lock-to-lock" with just a quarter turn of the steering wheel. Would you
like that? Huh, would ya? I didn't think so.

Squirt exists. Every top player has learned to work with and around it. If
you believe that your game will be better with a "squirtless" cue, buy a
Predator. Or ask your favorite cuemaker to make you a low-mass-tip
(negative loaded) shaft. If he didn't know how before (no shame in that,
very few do) he certainly will after he reads this article. Just don't
blame me if your higher highs come with some lower lows. My friend Bill,
the mountain biker, loves to buy the latest in titanium seat-post bolts- at
$60 a pop- so he can shave 1/3 ounce off his bike. My suggestion of passing
up lunch to shave 1/3 ounce off his ass seems to fall on deaf ears. As my
water-skiing training partner, Bob, loves to say (about new, 'improved'
equipment): "Everybody wants to BUY a better turn". My advice, as someone
who really does know a little something about pool cues and about physics,
is: focus on improving your game, too. Achieve skill and understanding in
pool the same way you get to Carnegie Hall (ask any musician).


03-22-2002, 11:39 PM
Does that mean I have to turn my 314's into some government bureaucratic agency and get a stamp on them before I can hit any more balls with them???

03-22-2002, 11:53 PM
Cheesy you are just too much..

03-23-2002, 12:00 AM
Thanks Tom,

03-23-2002, 12:20 AM
That's an interesting testimonial, Doctor, since the biggest benefit Meucci touts about their shafts is that they cause less squirt than any other, Predator included.

I'll bet a snifter of single malt to a donut that some persons, like myself, are wondering what possessed you to make the switch. And since you've tried both, have you subjectively determined that the Predator has less squirt, or is your preference based on some other criteria?

Finally, what say you about the squirt testing machine? Do you accept or reject it as an accurate provider of empirical data on the squirt/deflection characteristics of a cue shaft?

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.meuccicues.com/myth.htm>http://www.meuccicues.com/myth.htm</a>

03-23-2002, 12:26 AM
Cheesemouse, you have already achieved the <font color=blue>distinguished</font color=blue> status of being CCB's first <font color=red>enthusiast</font color=red>. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gifYou can slow down now, LOL. /ccboard/images/icons/smile.gif

03-23-2002, 12:40 AM
I to strike the orbs with a Meucci cue.
So far I have had no trouble sinkng the roundies.
But I think, if I added to all my thinking, all the thinking that you have on the topic I might start to miss thin cuts to the corner.
Left is left right??

I once blamed all my misses on the unseen magnetic force that the joint of my cue attracted in certain situations. No word of a lie, the workings of a pacemaker not 20 paces from a table I was playing on cost me a brown (for non canadiens that means 100 dollars). I would make some cheesy referance to the standing of the Canuck dollar to the all powerful American dollar, but then you would think I did not know how to spell reference.

I suggest you ask Efren the meaning of squirt to his efficiency of potting. His answer might suprise you.
It would suprise me for sure, but then I would be suprised if feelers ever got the advantage on thinkers.

For what is advantage anyway??


03-23-2002, 02:23 AM
Actually Tom, Bob has two and distinctly separate machines. One measures the object ball angle (not the cueball angle) after it has been struck with a cueball shot with sidespin. This machine is intended to measure squirt. I think that it is this one that he calls the Myth destroyer.

The second machine measures shaft deflection per unit load, and is intended to measure radial consistency.


03-23-2002, 02:25 AM
Carson, can I have whatever it is you are smoking? Seems like good stuff.....


03-23-2002, 02:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> My advice, as someone
who really does know a little something about pool cues and about physics,
is: focus on improving your game, too. Achieve skill and understanding in
pool the same way you get to Carnegie Hall (ask any musician).


excellent treatise on the subject.

all of that is too hard for me to figure out in my head every time i set-down on a shot. rather, i try to figure in what i know about the cue. the more consistant it is the better able i am to figure that.

the preds are real consistant, radially, and that show up mostly, to me, on the power shots.

it is my experience that i make more power shots with the pred than the other cues i've shot with. when i need to really get on that sucka i know what i'm going to get.

you can do all that figuring on which cue has the most this and that but i want a cue that will give me the exact same thing everytime i use it and that's what i get with the pred. i'm not at all sure what the deflection/squirt/etc are of the cue but i know what it will do.



03-23-2002, 03:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: houstondan:</font><hr> ...I try to figure in what i know about the cue. the more consistant it is the better able i am to figure that. ...you can do all that figuring on which cue has the most this and that but i want a cue that will give me the exact same thing everytime i use it... I'm not at all sure what the deflection/squirt/etc are of the cue but i know what it will do.<hr></blockquote>Dan, it so happens that Meucci measures the consistancy you are talking about with his spine guage. A picture of it is at: http://www.meuccicues.com/spine-l.jpg. However, that is only tangentially related to what I was trying to get at.

My question is this: Assuming you cared about the deflection/squirt production of a cuestick; would you trust the results from Meucci's deflection testing machine as seen at http://www.meuccicues.com/myth.htm ?

03-23-2002, 04:22 AM
Dan, I think all shafts hold pretty true to what they do, related to our stroke. Some squirt more and some less.
When our stroke changes out of the norm, or the bridge length varies to a large degree is when things go wrong.
We all get use to or adjust with what we play with. Very few people could adjust to my tree trunk, and like wise I can't handle a toothpick. Things just work better for all of us when were comfortable. For some people maybe those cue companys have found a nitch. I think less squirt is great, but it depends on what your use to. I also think it depends big time on bridge length and the stroke used, I guess I said that, but for me it's very true. We all need to compensate a little on aim at times, but were comfortable with how we do that, because of our equipment.
I'm glad your happy with your cue. Um are your other cues now house cues? Play well, Rod

03-23-2002, 09:25 AM

You asked, "My question is this: Assuming you cared about the deflection/squirt production of a cuestick; would you trust the results from Meucci's deflection testing machine...." Having once interviewed Bob Meucci for a magazine article, I found him an engaging, entertaining, and energetic individual. But, to quote a long-time legendary pool cue maker, "Bob lies perfect." Excuse his grammar, but note his meaning....I think Bob Meucci makes a pretty good cue stick, I've had several, but he is the ultimate salesman and flim flam man. I don't trust the results of his machine precisely because it IS his machine.

03-23-2002, 09:33 AM
Hey, cheesemouse...glad to see that you finally found a gif that shows you eating the cheese!

03-23-2002, 09:55 AM
Good morning:

Following the purchase of my first SE12, noting the Red Dot on the shaft, I telephoned the Meucci organization and asked what, aside from the marketing aspect, was the purpose of the Red Dot and what I should do and/or where should it be, when I was executing a shot. I was told that for regular shots, non english shots, I should pay no attention to the location and/or position of the Red Dot.

However, when executing a shot with english the Red Dot should be placed in the verticle position (12 o'clock) in order to maximize the effectiveness of the shaft and reduce squirt. This explanation reminded me of the days, centuries ago, when I used to play softball and the fact that I had to pay attention to the "Label" on the bat when hitting a ball.

The Predator shafts have no "Label" and as such you need not worry about the position of the shaft, like the baseball bat, before taking a shot.

Just some simple, or not so simple, logic from a corporate bean counter.

Dr. D.

03-23-2002, 10:11 AM
Just in time cheese. I was starving. Now that the cheesemouse has cheese he is alertish. You waisted one coma in your other wise perfect paragraph about Bob Meucci. You still get an 'A'w/cheese.

03-23-2002, 11:17 AM
It appears to be a fairly valid piece of test equipment to me. I would imagine from looking at it that it is capable of detecting fairly miniscule variances from shaft to shaft. This is all very thought provoking. It could very well be useful in producing a more consistant shaft.

Now for the real world application: I don't suspect that I stroke with the accuracy, and consistancy of a machine. My guess is my Viking is consistant enough for me. In otherwords, if I turn my current shaft from one side to the other and shoot the same shot over and over, would I be able to tell which side of the shaft I had turned up? Probably not. This is not to say that this isn't a valid or even valuable piece of equipment. It only says that my skills aren't honed enough to appreciate the difference.

03-23-2002, 12:01 PM
Not sure what it is, but I get it through second hand smoke in billiard parlors..


Ralph S.
03-23-2002, 05:42 PM
This is the first I have ever heard of this testing device and would like to see how my McDermott fairs on it. As for Meucci cues, I never have been comfortable with them and the Predators I have tried feel about the same as my McDermott.
Ralph S.

03-23-2002, 06:12 PM
I watched Bob and the machine for quite a while and have to conclude that I'm not convinced that his machine measures squirt accurately. I am somewhat leaning to the thought that the machine is a better indicator of shaft stiffness or simply a different way of measuring shaft stiffness. I am suspicious of the fact that his shafts always perform quite a bit better than the predator does.

03-23-2002, 06:22 PM
Good evening:

Meucci makes an excellent cue, I own Three (3) of them. However, in my humble opinion, the more someone talks about how great they are and/or is trying to prove how great they are the more concerned they are about the competition and the less convinced they are that they have a superior product and/or service. How does that old saying go? Those that can, get it done; Those that can not, talk too much or teach!

Dr. D.

03-23-2002, 10:50 PM
There have been some great posts on this. I too have been intriged(sp) with Bob's machine. What I believe may be being overlooked here is the fact that a shaft such as the predator will give you very close to the same deflection no matter where you rotate the stick. This computes to consistency of squirt. It may not matter what the sqirt amount is if you know it will be the same(approx) every time. As for Bob's red dot &amp; now his black dot(26 flat laminated layers),these will perform consistently ONLY if you have the dots in the same place each time. What I found most fasinating with Bob's machine was how it utterly exposed the radial INconsistancy of common one piece shafts (no matter who made them)and that I could easily relate to in missing shots. I think all of this is good and technology is great but nothing will substitute for GOOD practice and concentration

Harold Acosta
03-23-2002, 11:12 PM
Yeap, he's only 175 posts away from being "an addict" according to this Board's own rules:
<font color=blue>
What are these titles about?

Everyone has a title within the forum. You will notice them below the Username in each post. Some titles are automatically assigned based on the number of posts a user has made, and some titles are assigned by the forum owner to denote official representatives of the company or other VIPs in the forums.
Here is the list of the standard titles and # of posts to achieve them:

0 stranger
25 newbie
50 journeyman
100 member
200 enthusiast
400 addict
700 old hand
1200 veteran
1600 Pooh-Bah
2500 Carpal Tunnel

03-23-2002, 11:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Doctor_D:</font><hr>... the more someone talks about and/or tries to prove how great they('re products) are the more concerned they are about the competition and the less convinced they are that they have a superior product and/or service. <hr></blockquote> It seems to me that some concern or at least awareness of the competition is generally appropriate for most businesses, and I'm not sure how to reconcile your comments with normal marketing and advertising strategies; however, the whole concept of the 'Myth Destroyer' is to dispel phony marketing claims and sales pitches.

It is an accurate, consistent, repeatable measuring device that provides valid data on the deflection/squirt characteristics of a cue stick. No sales hype, no exagerated claims. Just scientifically tested results. Would anyone dispute that?

03-23-2002, 11:40 PM
I guess I read it differently.

Begin QUOTE from Muecci page "Perfect Radial Consistency?"
Sorry, it just ainít so!

Not only did the new Meucci Spine gauge clearly prove that there is no such thing as perfect radial consistency; it revealed that the one piece shafts used by most cue makers have less variation than the segmented or graphite shafts we tested. end QUOTE

What I gather from that is that Muecci believes the one piece shaft is more consistant than the radially spliced or segmented shaft.

I won't argue with anyone as to what's best. I think it all boils down to personal preference, and what feels good to the individual. Like you, I think practice will improve my game faster than anything.

03-23-2002, 11:42 PM
I have heard it this way,

Those that know how and can perform, DO
Those that know how and can't perform, Teach
Those that know how and can't perform and can't teach, are contractors.

03-24-2002, 01:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: stickman:</font><hr> What I gather is that Muecci believes the one piece shaft is more consistant than the radially spliced or segmented shaft...I won't argue with anyone as to what's best.<hr></blockquote>That is correct stickman, and some prior posters have also brought that up in this thread, but it is not the question here. Meucci has a testing machine for radial consistancy and a separate testing machine for squirt. We are ignoring radial consistancy at the moment for the purposes of this discussion and only considering squirt.

While you may not wish argue as to what's best; the considerable interest in Predator shafts speaks for itself about how many people consider low squirt to be desirable. That being stipulated, would you regard Meucci's squirt testing machine as a viable and valuable resource for determining the amount of squirt in a cue?

03-24-2002, 02:56 AM
Tom, I think it's a reasonable test. There may be more here than meets the eye but as I said it is ok.
I think however tests should be done with at least 2 different bridge lengths, and at least a med slow to med firm cue speed. Tip hardness and radius may play a small part here also. My thinking is no matter what the numbers are, how do You adjust for that? As an example what if you knew your cue had 2 degrees of squirt, what then?

03-24-2002, 10:22 AM
I have not personally seen it, but it would appear to be to me. Of course the premise behind Muecci's testing, and Predator's claims of low squirt is that I should run out and buy one of their sticks and instantly become a better pool shooter. This is where I have my doubts.

03-24-2002, 11:23 AM
Defection, squirt(I thought this was Carols problem), soft, hard tips(another story) and radial consistancy" Holy crapola BATMAN to the bat cave". Don't get me wrong I'm all for somebody other than me knowing all this cool stuff and then building a better mouse trap(did I just say that? Yikes!!!) but I'm just an end user who would use a piece of drift wood if that was the industry standard. Here's the limit of my knowledge: If a guy walks up to me and says "this cue squirts and this one doesn't, which do you want?" I'm taken the one that don't squirt on the table...I will now appologize for my irreverence...I'm a sorry little mouse...hehehe

03-24-2002, 12:33 PM
/ccboard/images/icons/laugh.gif LMAO

03-25-2002, 03:36 AM
Tom, there is a long thread on this very topic right now on rsb, I believe it is called "Meucci robot testing" or something like that.

Several of us are disputing Meucci's squirt claims, and there are ideas about the possible sources of error and so on (typical rsb technical thread!).

i suggest that you check it out.


03-25-2002, 07:59 PM

What you seem to have missed is the fact, that the graphite of Cuetec and pie pieces of the predator were the worst for radial inconsistency! Yes, that's right the Predator's pie pieces are not in the dead center and so it makes the spine of the shaft more off center than solid wood shafts. I am angered by this marketing ploy, claiming to have perfect radial consistency, yet to be one of the most radially inconsistent brand. Those who have dished out the big bucks for his shaft, should go after him for false claims. Bob Meucci has backed up his claims, now time for Predator to publicly saw up his shafts in the center and back up his claims, I dare him. Come up with a guage that tests spine, such as Meucci's. Show the world how Meucci's spine guage is flawed.

Predators are less radially consistent than Viking, Schon, Meucci, etc. Instead of making false claims, Meucci has simply decided to provide the consumer with the exact location of the spine that every cue has...I suggest anyone (no matter what brand you use) who has the good fortune see Bob Meucci at a show, have him locate the spine for you.

Those that ignore the effects of spine in their game are just simply shooting in the dark.

03-26-2002, 11:50 AM
I think it's commendable that Bob's machine and results are available for peer observation and review. While I didn't get a really warm feeling that he understood his machine when I talked to him at his booth in 'Vegas last year (for example, he didn't see the need to check whether the machine could demonstrate zero squirt for a straight-on centerball shot, or whether left and right offsets produced the same squirt), at least he's got it out there in the open. I've never seen the Predator guys bring a demo to that show. Maybe it's because they'd have to explain why the machine they used for their testing didn't really look like the pictures in the advertisements?

I do think the red dot hype is a little bit counterintuitive. According to Bob, it's used to indicate the best vertical line of symmetry for shaft stiffness. This is not the primary driver behind cueball squirt, yet he wants you to "line up the dot" to make sure the left and right squirt characterisics are consistent. BTW, if you look at the shafts, the dot invariably lines up with the side (as opposed to the flat) grain lines. No surprise there, you could probably put the dots on without ever making a measurement.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> <font color=purple>I had my Hank Thompson sneaky pete cue tested last week at Valley Forge by Bob Meucci on "The Myth Destroyer", his deflection (squirt) testing machine.</font color=purple>

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.meuccicues.com/myth.htm>http://www.meuccicues.com/myth.htm</a>

<font color=blue>Would you concur or dispute that this is a valid squirt detecting mechanism?</font color=blue>

<font color=orange>I was pleasantly surprised to learn that my cue tested to cause squirt equal to that of a Predator.</font color=orange> <hr></blockquote>

03-26-2002, 12:18 PM
Hi Rod, I am always interested in how people relate to squirt. Most of the players I know are looking for a cue with no squirt. Frankly, I would miss not having squirt, it has gotten me out a tight spots many times. got straight in on a side pocket shot? Not a problem if the player knows the limits of his cue. Cheat the pocket a little with hard spin and watch the cueball squirt up or down table. I was left hooked the other nite with several balls around a corner pocket with a straight in as the only option. 1 1/2 tip of spin with a hard punch and the cue ball went straight up table (pocketing the OB). I know this isn't news to you but I hope some of the other posters play with this idea. It can mean the difference between continuing a run or watching the rest of the game from a chair!

Best, Ron.

03-26-2002, 01:32 PM
Hi Ron, Mr Squirt is my friend, and I'd miss it also.
Well said.

03-26-2002, 09:31 PM
Dave Kikelís patent that you mentioned incorporates a piece of wood of contrasting color in between two crescent shaped pieces in order to provide an aiming line along the shaft. The shaft design that Predator has copied is an earlier patent of 1901 by Mereness. This matter has been discussed ad nauseum on the old board.

One of the patents that Predator apparently has the rights to is 6,162,128. That one describes the ferrule, tip and shaft construction in considerable detail. One embodiment does mention a ferrule without an internal bore.

I watched Bob for quite some time and noted that he seems able to predict which shafts will do well in his machine. He does this by hitting the butt of the cue and then watching the vibrations that result. He prizes those shafts that seem to show a lack of movement at about the middle of the shaft, something like a node in a standing wave. However, since the cue is fixed only at one end instead of the force being reflected at the end of the cue it seems to be dissipated by the whipping of the tip of the shaft. No surprise, he likes whippy shafts.

I think his machine is designed simply to exploit the whippiness of his shafts by putting the bridge far enough back to maximize the effect of the shaftsí flexibility. He is getting a reduction in squirt compared to more rigid shafts. I doubt that his machine would show all the squirt reduction that Predatorís design provides. If the bridge were closer to the tip I think the effect of shaft flexibility would be minimized and the predator design might perform better.

In other words I donít think the machine is an accurate measure of the squirt tendency of shafts as used by pool players.
Ken in CT