Slashdot Mirror
Physics of Billiards
Chris May writes "Amateur Physics for the Amateur Pool Player seems to have been around a while, but I have never seen it mentioned here. I know it would appeal to much of the Slashdot community-- 109 pages of complex Newtonian mechanics, on a trivial but informative subject. Hard to believe someone went to all this trouble." I'm having painful flashbacks - must - suppress - memories.
What about the fact that Newtonian Mechanics don't work in the real world?
:)
I mean, I'm not that good at pool, but in the future I want to be able to break *really* fast.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Don't base any big money winning shots on these equations. These only hold true until .1c or so -- then they kinda start to fall apart.
At Sourceforge I am beginning an open source pool simulation project, and this information is exactly what I was needing.
I had already spent a few days at a pool table making measurments with a ruler to figure out the physics of pool, but this will save me years of work. The project, by the way, is called X-Pool and I am very interested in recruiting developers.
- qpt
--
Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
Newton's mechanics DO work in the real world!!! This is an all-too-common misconception. They only break down at speeds close to that of light. (In which case Einstein's laws apply.) I don't think you'll be breaking a rack at a speed near 186,000 miles/sec anytime soon! :P
Through the perception of illusion, we experience reality.
Of course, the book, like all other books on billiards/pool, does not actually discuss -real- physics with pool. You'll never find a perfect table or a perfect cue unless you own them both, and take excellent care of them. :-)
Imagine sitting in a pool hall, drinking some brew, smoking a stogie, with your nose in this book between each shot, studying the exact way to hit it, and being perfect, except instead you miss every damn thing on the table because the cue is warped, and the table leans.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
i dont know about you, but i am just happy to play with my balls
I don't know beans about physics, but I can tell you that the shot on the home page will probably put "follow" (sometimes referred to as "forward English") on the cue ball, as long as the player has a good stroke and a properly-shaped and well-chalked tip. This ball will tend to roll forward of the natural line after it makes contact with the object ball.
All your racks are belong to us !!
slashdot broke my sig
Not neccassarily as some of the most skilled billiards' players get paid the big bucks. Although while I must say I am not "skilled" at pool, I am fairly adequate and can hold my own, most of the time. ;)
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Absolutely, one should rather spend time dilegently sharpening one's skills at the gentlemen's game of Quake III Arena. Clearly.
For example, where are the formulas for deformation of the playing surface due to the 350 pound man who leans his stomach onto the table to make the distance shots?
Slashdot editors are constantly making references to the math, science and especially computer science courses they took in college. I have yet to hear a single one wax nostalgic about an English or creative writing class.
Why is this?
--Shoeboy
This piece should be titled, "Amateur Physics for the Amateur Pool Player Who Is An Engineering Major In His Spare Time". The Introduction was promising, but page 1 has a big nasty equation right in the middle of the page! Quickly leafing through the rest of the document, I found not a single page without radicals, sigmas, or integrals, and indeed several pages had nothing but! In conclusion, the reading of this document should be avoided in the same manner one would avoid the reading of the source code to X.
I wonder if we'll eventually see a computer/robot vs. Human pool match a la Gary Kasparaov & Deep Blue? A pool playing robot would be simple enough (in comparison to something like Deep Blue) that any big engineering college should be able to put one together. Put it up against a world champion pool players, and you've definately got something for pay-per-view.
Unless the document's got handy advice for factoring in the effect of alcohol on shot selection, then sadly it will be wasted on me!
....these physics actually apply during tournaments. I think that during actual competition, everything reverses itself, all laws of physics go wacky, and a magic invisible goblin sits in each pocket and diverts all balls away from the pockets.
What you say!!
--
Er wait ... doesn't somebody have a patent on this?
Oh, shut up you uneducated american boor. The quote belong's to Churchill and is in no way to be taken as "job advice."
We were too busy learning the correct usage of "belongs" and that we should capitalize "American".
--
Although while I must say I am not "skilled" at pool, I am fairly adequate and can hold my own, most of the time. ;)
It's interesting, but pool is one of those few pursuits where nobody seems to want to admit to inadequacy. Even the most modest people seem to boast how much they "rock" at it. Who knows.
Except me, btw. I'm really bad at it.
--
All your base are belong to us.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
Let me tell you. Back in my college years I would carry this document with me wherever I went. To call it dog eared would be an insult to any dog. The corners were mangled, the text was blurred on many a page. Countless nights I spent visually caressing this wonderous text -- to the punishment of red eyes in the morning. I clearly remember nearly failing a 3rd year physics final exam because I had spent the last 3 nights studying the object ball throw sensitivity diagram on page 45 instead. Or how I would always give myself a chuckle by looking at the computer program I created to solve for the table of values required for problem 5.6.. Ahh, to be so young and clueless! Such unoptimized code! Regardless, I hope all of you can explore and hopefully enjoy this textbook of wonders. A text worth its weight in gold, if you were to print it onto an atom.
Feed The Sponge
...yet falls a bit short of the mayrad imprecise human endeavors that we all take for granted. In doubt? Spy the numerous comments as to the sufficiency of mankind. Oddly, and not unlike computer chess, this sort of mathematical modeling has been around since most of you Slashdotters were still playing with Cabbage Patch Dolls. (I don't mean that as a put-down, in any way, but merely as a historical reference.) Highly perceptive of the poster to point out that this has not been seen here before. The original Crays, Big Blues, and all of the other eccentric PARC, MIT and Cal (forgive ommissions!) "superconmputers" were after one thing back then: to be more human. Hence the birth of "Artificial Intelligence". (Whatever became of that supernatural phrase, I wonder?) Now we live in the world where database programmers using free-as-in-umbrellas software are doing things these "fuzzy logic" hacks of old were only dreaming about on cocktail napkins. (And I should know, I was one of them.) I swear to you all, and forgive the preaching, we live in the future. Not just the now but the future dreamed of by so, so many. Now is the time. Use it wisely. You have the tools.
Where do I want the balls to be at the end of my shot, so that if I miss my opponent will have a hard time, and if I don't miss I will have an easy shot. How can I get the balls to such a position. And, better pool players probably look a couple of steps ahead: if I shoot here she might be able to shoot there and then there and then there.
Anyway. Just calculating where the balls go if you hit them a certain way is a good start. But maybe it is a bit akin to knowing where a chess piece will get to if you move it a certain way?
During my freshman year in college I would always skip physics class to play pool. Somehow this seemed like a legitimate use of my physics time, since it was at least SOMEWHAT related to the subject matter. Sorta. Well, it was an adaquate excuse for MY purposes. :)
:)
In any event, had this manual been available, I might have actually thought to consult it, and I might have actually learned some physics during this time period, although I did get rather good at playing pool.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Are you kidding? Lack of skill at billiards is a sign of a wasted adolescence. What the hell did you do with your adolescence that was less wasteful than billiards? I'm not really good at pool or anything, but it's still one of the absolete best pastimes for the disgruntled student.
Just gimme that Math short from Disney with Donald Duck and I'll hustle all of ya!
--Chemguru
--Chemguru
function location() {
if (my.state != "coding" & my.conscious == true)
{
return ("at the pool hall");
}
}
and while at the pool hall (Amsterdam Billiard Club, NYC) I have watched and played many professional pool players.
Yes, pool is governed by the laws of physics (even when your opponent snaps the nine-ball in three consecutive times).
No, knowledge of these physical laws will not make you a professional player.
Take a bank shot, for example. If you assume that the angle of deflection of the object ball into the rail equals the angle of deflection, calculate that angle and shoot, there's still a good chance you won't make the shot. One reason: from table to table the hardness of the rails varies.
A few other variables which your ruler and protractor probably won't account for:
crap in the air (humidity affects the speed of the cloth)
crap stuck to the balls
crap on the table (damn that shard of chalk!)
crap on your cue tip (chalk/no chalk?)
crap going on around you (people talking about the likelihood of you missing)
crap on the line (the money you're about to give the guy who's kicking the crap out of you.)
So, when you get right down to it:
pool == physics + Random (crap);
and the good players have a better sense of smell.
"ooh, I got you all wet..." "yes, but my martini's still dry."
What about amateur physics for the naughty amateur?
Either that, or an American Pie-like love experience with the table (or, help us all, the cue).
Then again, he might just be referring to some class about Newtonian mechanics (physics?), information which has since escaped his grey matter in lieu for more useful knowledge.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
Does anyone else remember the little Disney cartoon with Donald Duck that talked about the same thing? It was made in the 50's or 60's I think and I saw it in the mid-80's. My memory is a little foggy, but I think I remember them using some trig to explain the relationship between the taget pocket, the ball you want to hit, the cue ball and the little dots on the side of the table. It was pretty complex for a seven or eight year old, but I remember actually understanding it and testing my new found knowledge the next sunday at the arcade. Of course I can't remember very much of it now. Does anyone know the name of this?
Stupid Cheap Guitars
Mirror anybody?
Who won in "Silent Running" on the Valley Forge? Bruce Dern or the "robot"? I haven't seen that movie in a long time but I recall a pool (some odd "futuristic" version) playing robot.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
The Assayer - free-information book reviews
Find free books.
In Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth IIs kingdom we measure a persons success by their class, breeding, and manners. None of which have anything to do with how fast they can run or how good they are at throwing a ball around.
It strikes me that in the US, the lack of a proper class system leaves a vacuum which has been filled by mindless worship of sports, and to the cult of the 'Jock' as I believe you call people who are good at games.
Anyway I am in danger of becoming offtopic. A site such as slashdot, catering as it does to the more thinking, educated sector of the American population should think carefully before posting 'sports' stories like this, no matter how interesting the physics may seem, it is a short step away from joining the mainstream of America, with its mindless sports obsession.
Slashdot - please, I implore you, lets have no more of this sports nonsense, try and stick to 'news for nerds - stuff that matters'.
Finally, one observation. Given most American's obsession with pornography in all forms (thankfully illegal here in the civilised UK) I would have thought they would be more interested in the 'physics of pocket billiards'
http://library.thinkquest.org/C006300/main.htm
/*
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
... are as follows:
OK, maybe that is a little inspired by Murphy's Law, but I've seen it happen. Really.
oh, i'll easily chime in here.
:)
i own a table and am still bad.
i understand the physics, i understand the intended means to execute that physics.
i just can't make the two meet
Peter
NB:I am American. You claim that the values with which you define success are superior to our values. What makes your choices of values better than our choices? From what I see, they are fairly equal: you choose to measure success by "class, breeding, and manners", the first two which are assigned at birth. You claim that we measure success by the skill we have at "run or how good they are at throwing a ball around." Those, also, are somewhat determined at birth, less so admittedly than class or breeding, but you get the point: what you call value is determined at birth, as what you claim we value is also. (whether I agree that sports = value is another point, but I am merely discussing your post) I ask, then, what makes breeding and class better values than skill at running or throwing? You attack the values of our society (whether they are really our values or not) without providing any basis for your claim that yours are better than ours. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I would rather have athletic prowess as a measure of success than breeding or class. I would rather have a trait that requires some work to develop (though it depends somewhat on birth) than one that depends entierly on your birth and the merits of others! Even disregarding my opinion on the matter, the objective fact is that your opinion on the definition of success is flawed logically as your definition of success is based on grounds that have little difference from ours.
As I recal, it was called "Donald Duck in Math-Magic-Land" I think it only showed him how to "play the diamonds" and how that related back to simple geometry. I think Donald's way of winning came from the "if I hit the ball hard enough, it will eventually knock something in" school of billiards.
Yup yup...chess is the same way.
"Chess, huh? I kind of suck, and I haven't played in months..........but I'll kick your butt any day"
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
Your first few words just inspired me to create a new acronym: IANAA (I am not an American) And quick, I'm patenting it so no one but me can use it! Or at least mention my name when they do. It will be my 15 minutes of fame!!! Hahaha. "Freak.."
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
if the physics are easy enough, the computer will never miss, and it doesn't have to think about that sort of thing
What if you hit the ball at near light speed? It changes all the angles...
--------
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
RECREATIONAL MATHMATICS tribute to Grey Havens...
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
The first robot ever to play snooker (related to the game of pool) was developed under a team led by Professor Khorosh Khodabandehloo at the University of Bristol, UK.
The Bristol snooker robot played a famous match against the then world snooker champion, Steve Davis of the UK. The robot, a customised IBM Model 7565, was severely handicapped because its operating envelope covered only about 87% of the table and also because freeplay in its joints limited its mechanical accuracy and repeatability. The strategy part of the robot was quite sophisticated having been based on advice from Steve Davis himself. It was able to make forward and reverse analyses of states of play based on support logic programming (related to but more powerful than fuzzy logic programming). The cue it used to hit a ball was actually a pneumatic piston powered by compressed air. Davis beat the robot easily! As an undergrad student, I helped to design, implement and test the robot's image processing software using the now defunct Automatix AV4 Image Processing System once made by Robotic Vision Systems, Inc..
The whole project was filmed and shown on BBC television on the Q.E.D. science programme of 16th March 1988. Extraordinarily there are now no webpages at Bristol University to celebrate this pioneering robotics project. Professor Khorosh Khodabandehloo has left Bristol University to run his own robotics consultancy. One of his former research assistants, Ken Ho, however, has made webpages about the Bristol snooker robot: here and here.
Scroogle
from the pocket-pool dept.
I think the physics for that particular variant of the game can be found here.
--
These physics questions are rather useless. As a pool player, I think the most important question that no one has explained clearly in physical terms is "How to draw a ball."
I have talked to pros and semi-pros and read lots of books about drawing the ball on the pool table. Contradicting suggestions: lift the queue butt . don't lift the butt. And then, the one suggestion from professional player: just practice every shot as a draw until you get it.
There is a certain "stroke" that is required to make a draw shot. no one can explain the "stroke."
I don't like the idea that every newbie must go through the painful process of discovering the "stroke" of a draw. it would be interesting to see if any good physical explanation can help. For many years, I have wondered about it. Now that I know how to make a draw shot, I still cannot explain it.
I talked to a physics PhD student about it. he seems to be contempt with my theory of the cue tip accelerating after the initial compact and get stuck on the cue for a little bit, but frankly i am not happy with this analysis.
"a trivial but informative subject."
Trivial my ass! I play pool at work for at least an hour a day. Here in the Herndon/Reston Virginia area, tech job fairs are regularly held at the local pool halls. For us, pool is far from trivial.
Not true. Pool is famous for people who claim inadequacy ... right before they offer to double the bet.
moron: pool and billiards are different. look it up
Newtonian mechanics works fine for pool balls, its only in the limits that things become very small (Quantum Mechanics) or very highly energetic (Special relativity) that it's not accurate any more