Re (good) oldfashioned dufferin bar cues.
I see that some (other) modern cues are (krappy) half spliced cues, and (shite) inlay-splices that look a bit like proper 4 pt splices but aint a proper splice at all.
SLIGHTLY BLUNT..... My old 1pce dufferin haz 4 sharp points and 4 slightly blunt points at the butt end.
VERY BLUNT............ Some of my cues hav very blunt points at the butt end (so too the Eliminators).
8 SHARP POINTS....... I see that some cues hav 4 sharp points at both ends of the splice.
All of theze "machined splices" are good and all look good -- I don't hav a preference. Apparently some cuesmiths wrap wrap over blunt points to hide them koz they reckon that blunt points look ugly.
MACHINE SPLICES. We call them pointy splices machined splices -- to differentiate from the olderfashioned single (1) splice, and the old butterfly splice (2), and the old double butterfly splice (4 splices) (which we now called hand-spliced).
But I see that machined splices kan be sort of made by sort of hand. Like whisler cues. mac.
I reckon that in the 3/8 10 types of steel pins (for wood to wood joints) the flat bottomed type looks snugger and stronger and better.
Alltho, the flat bottomed steel pin haz a bigger minor radius than the ordinary thread, and thusly would be heavyer (not so good).
But I still prefer 5/16 18, with a brass sleeve.
Hmmmmm, praps theze would work ok without the (wt of the) brass sleeve -- if u used a longer length. U wouldn't need a longer length of pin, just uze the same pin, but glue less into the butt, leeving a longer bit to thread into the shaft. And u might seal the wooden thread in the shaft to harden.
Some cuesmiths prefer to seal wooden threads to harden them -- but I karnt find which glues or sealants they uze -- still looking. Praps linseed oil would be goodnuff -- but praps this shoodnt be added to the threads until/unless the threads wear a bit, ie if the joint bekums a bit loose (do they bekum loose?), ie the oil would swell the wood a bit and tighten the looseness.
The thing about flat faced wood to wood joints iz that they havtabe very tight to proply tranzmit the shockwave of the hit to the butt. Here i meen that the joint needs to be well tightened, by hand, before play. That extra little klick duzz the trick. A bit risky praps, if u are worryd about splitting the shaft (no collars allowed).
A bit of oil on the thread would help get the extra klick-- talking about steel to brass here (ie 5/16 18), not steel to wood. But praps a bit of oil on steel to wood (3/8 10) might be good allso.
The tighter the joint then the better the compression shockwave transmission -- but the main profit iz in the transmission of the tension shockwave. After all, it appears that the shockwave(s) go up and back praps 30 times [EDIT, 1.5 TIMES MORE LIKELY] during the 0.001sec that the qtip iz in kontakt with the qball.
Just think about all of thems poor orphaned little shockwaves departing everywhichway from silly stupid steel-joints and butt-tenons and ivory-inlays and rubber-bumpers.
Cuesmiths argue about whether lite maple shafts are better than heavy maple shafts.
Heavy maple iz usually 20 or 30 rings per inch. Lite iz praps 8 per inch (but they allso say that it aint necessarily so).
Me myself i like the idea of lite, with less rings, wider grain (fast growth trees usually).
Thusly an 8 ring maple shaft with a 12mm tip might praps weigh the same az a 24 ring with an 11.5mm tip -- and play the same. If u like fatter tips but don't like the squirt then u might prefer wider grain.
I met an oldtimer who told me that the best ash-wood woz regrowth ash-wood. I guess that he meant that regrowth woz the runtish regrowth that u get growing out of a stump of old-growth. Or praps he meant some other type of regrowth. Anyhow i suspect that thin young straight sappy regrowth on a stump might be ok if proply dried.
I am finding verbage that badmouths laminated shafts koz they are heavyer koz of the glue.
And wordage saying that simple natural shafts are potentially better, if straight, and if they stay straight. But, bends kan be straightened fairly eezyly.
Alltho an old shaft bend will need regular straightening -- no big deal.
I went the other way -- years ago i had a bent-cue phase -- i had old straight cues and i liked to put bends in them by using a house brick for weeks. This worked ok, except that the damned old shafts kept returning to dead straight, so i hadta rebend almost weekly.
In fakt i don't know why cuesmiths worry so much about shaftwood moving -- and why they wait 2yrs or more for the shaftwood to moov -- and why they make multiple reduktions to the size of the shaftwood, letting it moov tween. Mostly all a waste of time and effort i rekon. They shood take less time and simply straighten any bends during and/or after.
Likewize players kan/shood straighten bends az they appear (if they want). Karnt really see the need to laminate etc to try to guarantee that there will be zero bending.
If silly cuesmiths made an F1 racer using the same silly logic az for their silly joints and silly shafts and silly inlays and silly wraps and silly bumpers and silly butt tenons, the F1 racer would weigh ten tons and cost ten times more, and perform 1/10th. With due respect to good cuesmiths.
When bob jewett says that some modern shafts or cues are unplayable, iz he talking about (laminated) shafts or about (steel) joints or about slippery wraps or what????
Bending a cue is easy, just leave it propped up against a wall for a few days. On Bob, his taste is weird so I'm not sure. Last I heard, he shoots with a cue with no ferrule.
Ferrules aint necessary.
All u need iz a nice flat Bakelite or melamine fibre backing on your leather tip. Allmost nobody around here ever used a ferrule in the 60's.
A few of my billiards cues are like that, zero ferrule -- I uze a 10mm or 11mm Triumph tip, ie with a reddish backing (instead of a ferrule). Or I uze the backing, but I stick an elk tip on it.
In one instance, with one of my cues, the brass ferrule got loose -- so instead of glueing it, I removed it. With one other cue, I took a few inches off the shaft, and didn't bother putting on a new ferrule.
If u uze an elk tip (no backing) without a ferrule, the maple burrs over/out, and the cue might even split.
If u wanted a steel to wood kontakt, ie if u wanted the steel pin to skrew into the maple shaft, with no collars or sleeves or reinforcing, then a 5/16 18 would be less likely to split the maple, compared to a 3/8 10 (especially the 3/8 10 radial). Lemmeseenow.
Komparing the outwards splitting force in a maple shaft for 18tpi compared to 10tpi -- for the same axial joint force pulling the shaft and butt together -- the 10tpi will hav 18/10 times the outwards force.
Komparing a 3/8" dia to a 5/16" dia -- the 3/8 will hav 5/6 times the outwards force.
Thusly a 3/8 10 will hav more outwards force than a 5/16 18 in the ratio of 18/10 times 5/6 = 3/2 = 1.5 = 50% more outwards splitting force.
If the 3/8 10 haz a radial style of thread, and if the radial thread haz an effektiv internal angle of 90dg (just guessing), and if the 5/16 18 haz a standard 60dg thread, then the 5/16 18 will hav a smaller outwards splitting force in the ratio of tan45 to tan30, which iz 1.7321 = 73% more.
In total the silly radial style of thread might hav more splitting force (compared to 5/16 18) in the ratio 3/2 times 1.732 = 2.5981 = 2.6 = 160% more splitting force (depending on whether 45dg iz korrekt).
Plus, a 3/8" pin iz stiffer than a 5/16" pin, and hencely it would introduce additional splitting forces compared to a 5/16" koz the 3/8 wouldn't bend to accommodate any misalignment tween shaft and butt. No wonder the 3/8 needs big klunky WW1 surplus joint collars.
No, I will stick to my 5/16 18 Eliminator wood to wood joints (ie flat to flat) -- and praps one day I might dispense with thems little brass sleev bits in the shafts. [When I say wood to wood flats, approx. 75% iz wood to wood, and say 15% iz wood to brass, and say 10% iz steel to brass].
I squirted a little oil on the threads of my Eliminator, and on the wood to wood flat face, and I get that last little extra klick (when tightening the joint, ie when getting more face to face axial force in the joint) with less effort, thusly with even less outwards splitting force. But I am carefull not to overtighten -- overtightening wont split the brass sleeve, but it might pull the pin out.
Re the 3/8 10 steel pins with a nonstandard vee thread (and not radial) and with a larger minor diameter (which givs a snugger fit) -- I aint sure what to think, praps these aren't such a good idea -- a stiffer pin kan make kracking worse if there iz an alignment problem, az I sayd before.
Hmmmmmm -- re splitting -- I didn't take into account the length of the steel pin -- if u double the L of the pin then u halve the stress.
The threaded bit of the Eliminator pin iz 16mm.
A 3/8 10 radial pin would hav (if my guess re the 90dg thread angle iz korrekt) the same splitting potential az a 5/16 18 if the radial pin (and thread) woz 2.6 times 16mm = 42mm (poking into the shaft).
And a standard 3/8 10 (nonradial) pin would need to be 1.5 times 16mm = 24mm (poking into the shaft).
Re bursting force (and bursting stress) produced by the threaded pin in a wooden shaft (at the joint).
A 90dg buttress thread would hav zero bursting force -- 85dg would hav a small bursting force.
Hencely, az I sayd earlier, a steel pin with a buttress joint would be ok to skrew into maple -- no need for a brass sleeve, nor collars.
However, a buttress thread would need a big fat steel pin (eg 3/8") -- if so then the wt and stiffness would be bad news.
And (or) a buttress thread would need a coarse thread (eg 10tpi) -- if so then it would need forcefull tightening to get axial thrust, bad news.
Hmmmm -- praps best to stick to 5/16 18 with brass sleeve -- ie steel to brass, rather than steel to wood.
When I say that a buttress thread would hav zero bursting force -- there are bursting sorts of forces in every joint (no matter what the thread) whenever u hav any sort of compression. In fakt u would get theze same bursting forces in a 1pce cue. But threaded joints giv rize to additional bursting forces.
I read a new AZbilliards forum article/thread/posting lauding fat heavy steel joint pins, koz they giv a joint more stiffness.
What a silly sausage. Truth iz, axial force (ie propelling the qball) iz tranzmitted along a (2pce) cue (ie passing the joint), via surfaces (at the joint) square to the axis of the cue.
In the case of a (big fat) stiff pin the surfaces doing the work will tend to be the angled faces of the skrew threads -- theze surfaces are say 30dg off square (not az good). And, the thread surfaces are nearer the center (axis) of the cue, not az good az being nearer the perimeter.
However for a (thin) bendy pin, the surfaces doing the work will tend to be the flat (90dg) faces of the joint. Or at least the kompression bit of the axial shock wave will be mainly via the 90dg faces. But the tension bit of the shock wave will be via the angled (usually) thread faces (for thin pins and for stiff pins).
Aktually, u kan alter the tension forces. Its like this -- a part of the tension wave iz transmitted by the flat face by virtue of the flat face initially being in compression due to the axial force exerted by the player when tightening the joint. The first bit of the tension wave iz in effect the loss of compression in the face. The remaining bit of the tension wave iz transmitted by the face of the pin thread.
Hencely, if u kan tighten the joint hardnuff, all of the tension wave kan in theory be transmitted by the flat face (and zero by the thread). That's why I sayd back there that u shood tighten joints extra hard (and use oil).
With due respect to silly sausage -- it might be diffikult to tell the difference tween a good joint and a bad joint, at least on an 8' table.
And in any case a bad joint will usually giv less squerve (especially a heavy stiff bad joint), if that's what silly sausage wants (and if that's what sausage duznt want). [Shood I say more squerve or shood I say less squerve -- whatever -- u know what I meen].
Civil Engineers will recognize that tightening the joint iz similar to prestressing a concrete I-beam. Concrete aint so good at resisting tension, hencely if u put the whole I-beam in compression (using prestressing cables or posttensioning cables), a loaded I-beam (say in a bridge) will never hav any (or much) tension in the concrete.
IVORY JOINTS AND FERRULES.
Some players beleev that ivory makes the best joint collars and ferrules. I suspect that their reasoning iz faulty.
In fakt ivory iznt very elastic -- ivory haz a lower coefficient of restitution than Bakelite and polyester and melamine etc. Here I mean COR az measured by ball bounce tests (ball bouncing on anvil) and ball to ball kollizion tests.
COR rankings might go -- melamine 0.94, polyester 0.91, Bakelite 0.90, cellulose 0.84, ivory 0.78, aluminium 0.62.
Re ivory -- some say 0.78, some say 0.81, some say 0.89.
Ivory duznt transmit sound very well (ivory would make good sound insulation). Ivory iz soft -- the ball to ball impact marks on ivory balls are twice the size of impact marks on some Bakelite balls. But, ivory balls sound harder than other balls. Why -- it iz bekoz the vibration in an ivory ball evaporates very quickly.
So, ivory in joints and in ferrules will absorb force and shock and energy more than duzz Bakelite (now called phenolic). So, praps ivory duzz giv a different sound and feel. And praps ivory iz better for some players (but for the opposite reasons).
Aktually, metal joints and ferrules are in some ways worse than ivory (some metals hav a smaller ball bounce)-- and in some ways better (some metals transmit sound very well). Hmmmmmmm -- strange bizness -- I will havta look into this.