The Jacksonville " EXPERIMENT"

[Qtec]

[ QUOTE ]
Some major surprises found by the video:

Most miscues seem to generate the sharp sound by the ferrule or
shaft slapping the ball.

On a hard shot, the ball sinks about 1.5cm into the rail.

There is no buckling as such (ferrule bending towards the ball)
but the front of the stick is seen to move parallel to itself,
which implies an s-curve shape in the stick at some point.

The stick side-ways resonance is about 40Hz (for mine).

The hop off the rail is often due to the ball being forced down
into the rail groove and hopping out.

The Hustler opening-scene bank shot is (nearly?) always a foul.

The cue stick slows down upon contact with the ball by about 50%,
but then rises to about 85% of its previous speed in two or three
centimeters (as the hand acts on it).

When held by Willie, the stick does not slow down on contact, probably
due to Willie's very firm grip/clamp. When we padded the grip with
bubble wrap, Willie showed slowing very similar to that with a human
grip.

The chalk cloud flies in both directions on spin shots -- towards and
away from the center of the ball.

Some extreme spin shots seem to hit the cue ball twice without a miscue.

Contact time increases on softer shots, for softer tips, and with more
eccentric hits, but these are not really surprises.

With extreme side spin, it is possible to get "retrograde" spin, in
which the opposite side of the ball moves backwards relative to the
table.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hr /></blockquote>

Bob Jewett.




Qtec

[Fred Agnir]

Was there a question?

Fred

[Qtec]

Thanks Fred, i will continue .LOL,
In any EXPERIMENT you have a control. If ,lets say ,you wanted to see if saltwater boils at a different temp. than normal water. You would have one sample with and one sample without. You record the difference ,if there is any , and then repeat the EXPERIMENT . An EXPERIMENT without a control is worthless. It doesnt tell you anything.
The jacksonville EXPERIMENT was conducted on a 9 ft pool table with a MEDIUM WORN CLOTH .Didnt bother with a new one . Most of the shots were played by a MACHINE. The other human testers i dont know , but i didnt see any snooker players there. No tests ,as far as i know, were conducted on a snooker table . If only to see if there WAS a difference.
There was refference to the 'double hit'.They say ,"There SEEMS to be.." implying that they are not sure .
20 years ago a similar EXPERIMENT was done on a snooker table and they also noticed this "double hit". It is also a fact that a snooker cue bends on impact with the QB.!The snooker EXPERIMENT was done to try and find out why snooker balls KICK now and again. They still do not know to this day why. There are lots of theories but nobody can say for sure.
While i was checking this out i came accross an interesting story. During a PRO tournament there was a shot set up on a free table.I wont go into details but it the idea was to play a draw. The only way you could play the shot was by generating MAXIMUM SPIN [draw] by using MINIMUM POWER. There wre only two guys who could play it . Corey D and ALEX P.
Coincidence.? I know that they werent used in the J. EXPERIMENT.


Qtec

[Fred Agnir]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Thanks Fred, i will continue .LOL,
In any EXPERIMENT you have a control. <hr /></blockquote>The Jacksonville Project was simply to see with high-speed photography rather than musing and guessing, what certain collisions look like.

The tone of your posts is somewhat discouraging since I believe you haven't actually seen the Jacksonville Tape. It's not fair to nitpick on words like "It seems..." The tape shows in 12,000 frames per seconds what looks to be a double-hit on an extreme sidespin shot. Even at that extremely high rate of framework, any body can say that it might not double hit it, but it sure seems like it did.

One of the experimenters was former Artistic Billiards World Champion Hans De Jaeger. I'm sure you know what type of stroke it takes for the Artistic Billiard scene, especially to be the World Champion at that discipline. He too was an "accelerate through" believer before he participated. I think his participation should answer any of the "special professional-only" stroke questions you might be hinting at.

If you watch the tape, I think you'll see that it doesn't matter if it's on a 9' table or a 12' snooker table. Napped cloth or slick cloth. To consider previous experiments somehow are comparable to the Jacksonville Experiment is grossly incorrect. No other undertaking has shown physical viewing of these shots with any high-speed viewing, let alone 12,000 fps!

I know that many things we learn in pool/billiards are completely contradictory to anything we've heard before or teach to others. I certainly always thought you could accelerate through the cueball, along with a dozen other things that I was very wrong about. Seeing is believing. That's the beauty of the internet age. Someone from across the country could set me straight without my ever meeting him.

Fred &lt;~~~ knows why kick happens

[Tom_In_Cincy]

[ QUOTE ]
Fred &lt;~~~ knows why kick happens <hr /></blockquote>

OK.. I am ready for a lesson.. what is Kick?
Is this a snooker term?

[Qtec]

Fred, good post . I will only ask you this . How can you explain that only 2 players could make the shot i mentioned ? If it doesnt matter how ,or where or with what you hit the ball, everybody should be able to play this shot .
No i havent seen the tape . The guy wants $30 for it! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif
Fact. Jimmy White was World Amateur Snooker champion aged 16 .He couldnt read or write.
Ronnie made his first maximum break at 13.
When i was young i remember my old man telling me that you needed to play snooker for 20 years before you were any good at it .My last pupil ,age 13 ,didnt know anything. After 14 months he made 3 breaks of 100+ on the same day , which is more than i ever done. I never corrected his cueing once.[ i teach self correcting].

The point is this .If i play a shot with E and it 'throws'1 cm everytime , I can use that . I adjust my aim. As long as it happens everytime ,i will pot that ball. Knowing the mechanics will not make any difference.The time a tip stays on the QB may be small , but you cant say for sure that is doesnt count.
Next time you put a new tip on , file it flat till you have a sharp edge. Try a long draw shot and tell everybody to get out the way. Chances are you cant keep the ball on the table.

I wish i lived in America ,then i could come round and we could talk all day .Things are easier when you have a table handy . /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[work on that handicap /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif]


Qtec

[Fred Agnir]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Fred, good post . I will only ask you this . How can you explain that only 2 players could make the shot i mentioned ? If it doesnt matter how ,or where or with what you hit the ball, everybody should be able to play this shot . <hr /></blockquote>But all of that does matter. Where you hit it and how hard. The Jacksonville Project doesn't dispute that. It does, however, dispute the saying of "accelerate through the cueball." The cueball leaves the tip with the result being that the cuestick rapidly decelerates.

Some people have the talent to repeatedly hit the spot on the cueball that they are aiming at, and send the cueball to a spot that pockets an object ball. I think that defines the individual's skill level. An Elephant Practice Ball or similar is a good tool to indicate how close you hit the intended target on the cueball.

Fred

[Fred Agnir]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Tom_In_Cincy:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred:</font><hr>
Fred &lt;~~~ knows why kick happens <hr /></blockquote>

OK.. I am ready for a lesson.. what is Kick?
Is this a snooker term? <hr /></blockquote>Same as skid or cling. Yes, it's the British/snooker term for it.

Fred

[highsea]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> On a hard shot, the ball sinks about 1.5cm into the rail.
<hr /></blockquote>

That's almost 5/8". It that for real?

-CM

[TonyM]

I know the shot that you are referring to. I watched Corey and Alex do this little demo in a Toronto area pool hall about 5 years ago. Again, nobody else that was there could duplicate the shot, even though it seemd simple enough.

The shot requires a very accurate hit on the cue ball (and very low!) at a precise speed. That's all. While this sounds simple enough, it is actually very hard to do consistently without practice. Corey and Alex have practiced this shot for years!

After the demo I tried the shot myself for the rest of the night. Finally, after about 100 failed attempts I finally was able to do it. And once I saw that it could be done, I did it a few times again afterwards just to say that it wasn't a fluke. I'm no pro, and I don't have the time to practice this type of super fine precision hit all day like they do. But I believe that I could eventually learn to make it fairly often.

It confirms my long standing belief that any shot is simply a function of where you strike the cue ball, the angle of the cue and the speed at impact, and nothing more.

Tony
-mind you, getting those 3 variables right often takes a lifetime!

[Alfie]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TonyM:</font><hr> I know the shot that you are referring to. I watched Corey and Alex do this little demo in a Toronto area pool hall about 5 years ago. Again, nobody else that was there could duplicate the shot, even though it seemd simple enough.<hr /></blockquote>Would you Wei Table it, please?

[Qtec]

Fred , you have seen the video ? Maybe you can answer this . How far in cm do the cue and ball travel together. eg, cue travels at speed x ,contact time 1 ms.Distance travelled together z cm. Any idea,s.

Qtec

[Qtec]

Alfie,[ QUOTE ]

There is a challenge draw shot that I witnessed Alex Pagulyan and Corey
Duel performing in Toronto a few years ago. The cueball is in the center of
the table, and the object ball is on the foot spot. The idea is to try and
draw the cueball back to the far rail, before the object ball rebounds and
passes the cueball.
<hr /></blockquote>START(
%AN9O4%P[5O4%WD8O7%XM5O5%]q8Q8%^O3Q5

)END

There is a question, in your great experiment you were so kind to share with the world, when the cue tip meets the cue ball at impact, does it ever hit the cue ball more than once before the cue ball breaks free, and if not, how long does it take for the cue ball to seperate from that impact.
The Ice Mon

[eg8r]

Both balls come to rest touching opposite rails?

Ouch. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

[Fred Agnir]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Fred , you have seen the video ?<hr /></blockquote> Crazy as it may seem, I was one of the first people to buy the video.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Maybe you can answer this . How far in cm do the cue and ball travel together. eg, cue travels at speed x ,contact time 1 ms.Distance travelled together z cm. Any idea,s.

Qtec <hr /></blockquote> The range is in the millimeters, not centimeters. For a hard/fast shots ( 5 meters/sec cuestick speed ) we're talking ~ 4 mm contact distance. 5 meter/sec(11 mph) cuestick speed results in about 7.5 m/s (16.5 mph) cueball speed.

I know, I know, most people would guess it's in the centimeters or inches range. They'll even swear they feel the contact for that length of time.

Fred

[Fred Agnir]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote gna:</font><hr> There is a question, in your great experiment you were so kind to share with the world, when the cue tip meets the cue ball at impact, does it ever hit the cue ball more than once before the cue ball breaks free, and if not, how long does it take for the cue ball to seperate from that impact.
The Ice Mon <hr /></blockquote> I thought these questions are what this entire discussion is about. On standard centerball shots, there is only one contact. The contact time is approximately 1 msec (.001 sec)

Fred &lt;~~~ wasn't my "great experiment"

[Ken]

It seems to say that the cue ball gets drawn back to the head rail before the object ball passes it on the rebound off the foot rail. I don't see anything about where they come to rest. I believe they can both continue to move but the cue ball must hit the rail before the object ball passes it or hits it.
KenCT

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote gna:</font><hr> There is a question, in your great experiment you were so kind to share with the world, when the cue tip meets the cue ball at impact, does it ever hit the cue ball more than once before the cue ball breaks free, and if not, how long does it take for the cue ball to seperate from that impact.
The Ice Mon <hr /></blockquote> I thought these questions are what this entire discussion is about. On standard centerball shots, there is only one contact. The contact time is approximately 1 msec (.001 sec)

Fred &lt;~~~ wasn't my "great experiment" <hr /></blockquote>

Mr. Adair, you are a great teacher, settle something that has bothered me and my league pals for a long time. The cue tip hits the cue ball, it leaves instantly, that is what you are saying. If you get one tip out using english, then there is no time for the tip to grab the ball. Is that true, and if that is true, then does that not mean there is no reason to ever use a soft tip. Is that why most of the top pros today are using very hard tips, when years ago most were using soft to med soft tips? What's the real skinny on this please, if any one knows, you know sir.
The Ice Mon

[Wally_in_Cincy]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote gna:</font><hr>

Mr. Adair,

.....<hr /></blockquote>

Actually that's the guy that puts out oil well fires. They made a movie about him.

http://www.redadair.com/

[Qtec]

You play a draw on the 1. The object is for the QB to reach rail A before the ! ball does . Not easy .

Qtec

[Fred Agnir]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote gna:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr>

settle something that has bothered me and my league pals for a long time. The cue tip hits the cue ball, it leaves instantly, that is what you are saying. If you get one tip out using english, then there is no time for the tip to grab the ball. <hr /></blockquote> Of course there is time for the tip to grab the ball. If there wasn't, there'd be no spin on the cueball. The .001 sec is the time that the tip grabs the ball.

[ QUOTE ]
Is that true, and if that is true, then does that not mean there is no reason to ever use a soft tip. <hr /></blockquote> Some people like the feel of a soft tip rather than a hard tip. The debate between hard and soft tip is a rather lengthy one. My handwaving argument says that a soft tip has no advantage over a hard tip, as long as the hard tip can hold chalk. It's the chalk friction that counts the most.


[ QUOTE ]
Is that why most of the top pros today are using very hard tips, when years ago most were using soft to med soft tips<hr /></blockquote> I think pool pros have figured out that they can get as much juice on the cueball with a hard tip. Considering that there's less maintenance on a hard tip, it seems to be a no-brainer.

Most snooker pros that I've seen play still use the softer Elk Master Tip. OTOH, I'm sure it's not because of any tremendous amount of sidespin you might be able to achieve with it on a snooker table.

Fred

[eg8r]

I did not see it either, I did not understand the ultimate goal.

Qtec explained it. I guess I will try it out tonight (tons of times). After watching Scott Lee do some draw shots, it would be interesting to see if he can do it. He draws really well for such a soft hit.

eg8r

[Fred Agnir]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I did not see it either, I did not understand the ultimate goal. <hr /></blockquote>

Wei Grey Egg Table (http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~wei/pool/9egg/)

START(
%AN8O6%P[4O5%Qs1N8%WP3O8%XZ5O5%Yr3P0%ZP1P1%[D6O5%\N3O7%]R3N8
%^D2N8%eB3b8
)END

The goal is to draw the cueball back to the cushion A before the object ball reaches the cushion A.

Another one of those purity of hit challenge draw shot is this:

START(
%Ag5O5%Pn5O6%Qs1N8%Wh8O7%Xm4O6%Yr3P0%Zh9P1%[D6O5%\f6O8%]R3N8
%^D2N8%eB3b8
)END

The goal in this one is to draw the cueball back to the cushion A, but the object ball can't touch cushion A.

Fred

[eg8r]

Thanks for the shots. I am going to try them out and see how I do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

eg8r

[travin]

Fred,

Thinking back to Solid Mechanics in college makes me think that there are two advantages to a soft tip when it comes to increasing english.

1. When a softer tip hits a cue ball it deforms more than a hard tip. This has the effect of increasing the surface area in contact with the ball and thus the friction between the stick and the ball. This increase in friction causes a larger percentage of the force of the shot to be converted to spin.

2. Per Qtec's original post, the time that the tip is in contact with the ball is increased with a softer tip. This makes sense when you think of a softer tip acting as a shock absorber. This increase in the time that the force acts upon the ball also increases the percentage of force causing the cue ball to spin, because friction is a time related phenomena.

On the other hand a hard tip transfers more of the total force of the stroke to the cue ball and probably (I am guessing here) leads to more consistent shots. I believe that this is true because it is impossible to expect the tip to always deform in a predictable manner as it wears and especially when tips are changed.

Well, that's my $0.02.

Todd

[Ross]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fred Agnir:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Fred , you have seen the video ?<hr /></blockquote> Crazy as it may seem, I was one of the first people to buy the video.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Maybe you can answer this . How far in cm do the cue and ball travel together. eg, cue travels at speed x ,contact time 1 ms.Distance travelled together z cm. Any idea,s.

Qtec <hr /></blockquote> The range is in the millimeters, not centimeters. For a hard/fast shots ( 5 meters/sec cuestick speed ) we're talking ~ 4 mm contact distance. 5 meter/sec(11 mph) cuestick speed results in about 7.5 m/s (16.5 mph) cueball speed.

I know, I know, most people would guess it's in the centimeters or inches range. They'll even swear they feel the contact for that length of time.

Fred

<hr /></blockquote>
I would call 16.5 mph cue ball speed more of a weak break speed. In Capelle's analysis of an Archer vs. Reyes match he found the average shot speed was 5 mph, with a range from about 1.5 (extremely soft safety) to 9 mph (extremely hard 3 rail power draw by Efren).

Taking Fred's calculations for 16.5 mph = 4 mm contact distance, a typical non-break shot would result in 1.2 mm contact distance (5/16.5 x 4).

And that's not much distance - it's about the width of a credit card!

[Fred Agnir]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote travin:</font><hr> Fred,

Thinking back to Solid Mechanics in college makes me think that there are two advantages to a soft tip when it comes to increasing english.

1. When a softer tip hits a cue ball it deforms more than a hard tip. This has the effect of increasing the surface area in contact with the ball and thus the friction between the stick and the ball. This increase in friction causes a larger percentage of the force of the shot to be converted to spin.<hr /></blockquote> I think you're mixing up what "increase in friction" means. The friction in this case is static friction. As long as the tip/cueball interaction doesn't slip (which it doesn't unless you miscue), then increased static friction doesn't increase anything. The spin is based on the sideways force from the tip, not the static friction as long as that sideways force doesn't overcome the static friction. If it does, you get a miscue.

Therefore, regardless of how much static friction is available at the tip, the tip offset and force of the cuestick determines the amount of spin. . Spin/speed ratio would just be based on the offset. Absolute spin would be the tip offset times the force of the hit. Usually, you model a force at a point, not an area. That point is usually referencing the object's center of mass. If the contact area suddenly increases, the force remains the same.



[ QUOTE ]
Per Qtec's original post, the time that the tip is in contact with the ball is increased with a softer tip. This makes sense when you think of a softer tip acting as a shock absorber. This increase in the time that the force acts upon the ball also increases the percentage of force causing the cue ball to spin, because friction is a time related phenomena.<hr /></blockquote> Is there a reason why you think that increasing the contact time increases the "percentage of force causing the cue ball to spin"? Certainly not from Solid Mechanics. It's torque. Force times distance from the center of the body. The end result is determined by conservation of energy and momentum, it doesn't depend on the forces and contact times between the start and finish of the collison that are required to satisfy those conservation laws. Those collisions are usually modeled as instantaneous. So, it would seem intuitive that as the contact time increases, you'd actually get less force transfer, not more. But, I'm speculating there , so don't quote me. (As if anyone's still reading).

Fred &lt;~~~ hey, TonyM, bail me out here.

[travin]

Fred,

You did a very nice job explaining away my first point and after a little thought I must agree that you are correct, I was confusing static and dynamic friction.

But, on the second point I think I disagree. I will probably get some of my terminology wrong so please bear with me. A force is being applied over a longer period of time, so the total energy transfer should be greater. I think the piece that was missing is that when the stick hits the ball the player is still applying a force to the stick so using simple conservation of force and momentum calculations might not work without taking into account this added force. I believe that it is this transfer of momentum from this "outside" source (outside of the simple system of the ball and the stick) during the impact that increase the total torque of the ball.

As I think about this I am managing to confuse myself more and more.

Todd

[eg8r]

[ QUOTE ]
But, I'm speculating there , so don't quote me. (As if anyone's still reading). <hr /></blockquote> I am still reading. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am just getting a mild headache in the process.

eg8r

[Qtec]

Fred ,you forgot about a persons 'Chí'. There are some things you cant measure .

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ras314]

Where can I buy this video?

[Fred Agnir]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote ras314:</font><hr> Where can I buy this video? <hr /></blockquote>
Contact Bob Jewett.


http://www.sfbilliards.com/

jewett@sfbilliards.com

I'll warn you that this video is simply the slow motion frame-by-frame video with absolutely no commentary. You have to reference the chicken scratched notes to figure out what you're looking at. Not exactly a Friday night date movie.




Fred

[TonyM]

"Fred &lt;~~~ hey, TonyM, bail me out here."

Hehe, gee Fred, I thought you were doing just fine!

Well, I was entertained at least.....

But seriously....

It turns out that the equations for the spin produced on the cue ball (see Ron Shepard's "Everything you always wanted to know about squirt" article) suggest that the details of the time dependant force F(t), don't matter in the relationship between the spin and speed of the cue ball.

While it is true that a harder tip would have a shorter contact time than a softer tip, the magnitude of the force (F) during that shorter contact time is larger. Thus this "impulse" (the integral of force vs time during the collision) remains the same.

Likewise, even though the softer tip would have a slightly longer contact time, the force (F) would be reduced by just enough so that again, the impulse remains the same.

What this all means is that for the same tip/ball contact point, soft and hard tips would produce the same spin/speed ratio.

Some years ago I did some experiments with a very soft (and grippy) rubber tip. The idea was to try and increase the spin/speed ratio by possibly allowing for a larger tip offset than what is possible with a leather tip.

I did achieve this. However....

The very soft tip reduced the cue ball speed significantly, so that if there was any significant distance between the cueball and the object ball, I actually saw LESS draw than with a leather tip!

This is because the reduced cueball forward speed gave the cloth/ball friction more time to rub-off the backspin, so that the ball would arrive at the OB with less spin.

So for something like draw it is more complicated than just how much spin you can produce, or even the spin/speed ratio that you can achieve.

In practice the only thing that matters is how much backspin is still present on the ball at the moment of cueball/objectball collision.

And this is dependant on BOTH the initial spin on the cueball AND the initial speed.

For this reason, in practice, a hard tip can often produce more actual draw than a soft tip, for the same tip/ball contact point.

The reason is that even though the spin/speed ratio for soft vs. hard tips is the same, the initial cueball speed can be slightly higher with the harder tip, thus the ball can arrive with a little bit more backspin still present.

The ultimate tip (for draw) would actually be a very hard tip that allowed for a very large offset without a miscue.

I think that the ability for a tip to hold chalk when near the miscue range is far more important than it's hardness imo.

Tony

[TonyM]

"A force is being applied over a longer period of time, so the total energy transfer should be greater."

Hello Travin.

You would be correct if the force being discussed was the same for a hard tip and a soft tip.

In reality it is not.

It turns out that the soft tip produces slghtly less force than the hard tip. In fact, the amount of force is always reduced by just the right amount so that the total "impulse" ( the integral of the force vs. time) always remains the same, regardless of the tip hardness!

This assumes, of course, that the same tip/ball contact point is hit, and that there is no miscue.

This means that the spin/speed ratio is essentially fixed by the tip offset, not by the tip hardness.

It also means that all things being equal, a harder tip can produce slightly more actual draw than a softer tip, due to the slightly higher initial cueball speed.

If you look up Ron Shepard's article about squirt on the playpool.co website, you will find details (and equations!) that explain this further.

Tony

[travin]

Fred and TonyM

Thanks for the great posts, you gave me something to chew on for a while.

Todd

[eg8r]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the great posts, you have me something to chew on for a while. <hr /></blockquote> Might that be....Aspirin. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif This is the most interesting thing lately except for BCn.

eg8r

[NH_Steve]

Okay, then now I am wondering why I switched to a soft tip -- thinking that since I play mostly One Pocket, with lots of soft spin shots, that a soft tip would reduce miscues. And empirically I feel like I have cut down on miscues since I made the switch. Is this a figment of my imagination???

[TonyM]

No, probably not.

One of the most forgiving tips that you can buy is the lowly Elkmaster. You have to really try hard to miscue with one of those!

And some of the artistic billiards players also favour a soft tip. For shots requiring extreme spin/speed ratio (like Masse shots for example) they may alow you to hit slightly farther away from center.

The point is that there is always a trade-off one way or another with tips. Harder adds a bit of cueball speed, but tends to miscue more easily. Softer miscues less often but loses a little bit of cueball speed, and tends to wear faster.

So you pays your money...yada yada yada...

Tony
-plays with medium Tiger Sniper....

[Tom_In_Cincy]

If anyone is interested in ordering a copy of the Jacksonville Experiment.

Bob Jewett can be reached at San Francisco Billiards Academy (http://www.sfbilliards.com/)

The last time I heard it was $30 a copy (sorry, I don't know about the shipping and handling)

[SPetty]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> This is the most interesting thing lately except for BCn.<hr /></blockquote>I bought the video awhile back, and watched it in fast forward motion - even in fast-forward it's slow!

If you make it back out here before you head back to FLA, we can put it on the TV for background ambiance if you'd like...

And remember, if you have favorite pool playing background music on a CD, bring it along and you get to choose the CD is replaces in the jukebox! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[eg8r]

[ QUOTE ]
If you make it back out here before you head back to FLA, we can put it on the TV for background ambiance if you'd like... <font color="blue"> Sounds like a deal to me. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I am headed to Florida tomorrow for the interview. Get this, my boss is sending a laptop with me to keep working while I wait. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif (I must love my job) </font color>

And remember, if you have favorite pool playing background music on a CD, bring it along and you get to choose the CD is replaces in the jukebox! <font color="blue"> I know, I know. I always forget to bring a CD. Oh by the way, will this need to be a CD that I leave in the Jukebox? If so, will the Jukebox play a CD-R? If not, I will be hitting the pawn shops. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

SPetty, thank you for the hospitality, I will do my best to take you up on it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Hopefully, I get the job, and we can all party one last time.

eg8r