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.

27 of 82 comments (clear)

  1. Caveat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

    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.

    1. Re:Caveat by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2
      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.

      Damn, and here I thought my relativistic linear accelerator pool cue was gonna revolutionize the game. Guess I'll have to crank it down to some paltry hypersonic speed...

      --

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  2. Finally by qpt · · Score: 2

    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.

  3. Newton's laws by chavster77 · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Newton's laws by fnj · · Score: 2

      More correctly, Einstein's rules work in the real world. Newton's laws, which are based on his observations of many years ago, hold true in a particular subset of the real world, where nothing is traveling quickly relative (no pun intended) to the speed of light.

      Close, but no cigar. Newton's "laws" are an approximation of the truth. Einstein's theories are a better approximation. We don't know if a still better approximation will be developed in the future.

      Newtonian physics is a better approximation the farther speeds are restricted below light speed, but there is no cutoff. As long as things are moving at all, there is some relativity effect.

  4. welp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    i dont know about you, but i am just happy to play with my balls

  5. An interesting read.. but lacking by LordOfYourPants · · Score: 2

    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?

  6. A question by Shoeboy · · Score: 3

    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

    1. Re:A question by nomadic · · Score: 4

      I assumed by the spelling in their posts that they never took those classes...

      Sorry, I know it's mean, but I couldn't help myself.
      --

    2. Re:A question by ScuzzMonkey · · Score: 2

      You, sir, are a troll and a fool.

      Your pardon, but the last time I spoke with anyone in the UK, they sounded not a whit like any Shakespeare or Milton I've ever read. And what about Middle English? You think you could sit down and rap with Chaucer? Surely that's the 'true' English--which you are just as far from as us. And the Bible, of course, was hardly written originally in English. The English educational system is much more deficient than the American in many regards; for instance, it seems to have left you with the preposterous idea that Americans are all from England when this is in fact clearly not the case.

      I submit, sir, that your version of English is outmoded and has been superseded by a superior edition, as practiced here in the United States.

      Good day to you, sir.

      --
      No relation to Happy Monkey
    3. Re:A question by Fishstick · · Score: 2
      er, I don't equate replying to a troll with a tongue-in-cheek movie reference to YHBT

      what are _you_ talking about (...and no need to get personal)?

      ---

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

  7. wrong title by Alatar · · Score: 2

    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.

  8. Computer vs. Human pool match? by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 5

    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.

    1. Re:Computer vs. Human pool match? by spongman · · Score: 2
      Someone did this with snooker a while back (>15 years) in England. There was a spot on Tomorrow's World about it. They had a robot setup overhanging a half-size snooker table. The software looked like it was quite sophisticated - looking ahead in the break and taking account of error, but the robotics part wasn't very good. I seem to remember Steve Davis commentated a game between the machine and a famous snooker referee.

  9. You cannae change the laws of physics! by KNicolson · · Score: 2
    But the way my pals and I were playing last night, we damn near managed it!

    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!

    1. Re:You cannae change the laws of physics! by s390 · · Score: 3

      Good for you and your pals!

      Have you ever played pool (or billiards, a rather different game) for drinks or money? I have done that, with about even success (you win some, then you lose some, it all works out just about even). But getting _really_ good at it takes real focus. I've seen a very good player. It was impressive. A good player can run 150 balls, straight pool, without a miss, and make it look easy. That's good! Sort of like programming skills... There's a ten or more multiplier between patzer and master, in terms of effectiveness.

      On a good night, I can hold a pool table against all comers. If drinks are bet, I drink for free, in the US, Middle East, and Austrailasia. But I'm not exceptionally good.

      My wife, however, used to take guys for real money at pool. Part of it was the way her skirt hiked, leaning over the table. But she was also skilled, and ruthless about it.

      A CIO I once worked for had previously made his living playing pool, for a while when between jobs. I did not seek out an opportunity to play poker with this individual....

  10. If only..... by Calle+Ballz · · Score: 4

    ....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.

  11. Can they do this? by xkenny13 · · Score: 3

    Er wait ... doesn't somebody have a patent on this?

  12. Re:Yeah, but... by nomadic · · Score: 2

    Yeah, do they take into account what happens when you propel the ball at relativistic speeds?

    I thought not.
    --

  13. The memories this text brings back.. by Karma+Sponge · · Score: 3

    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
  14. Forward problem is easy. What about backward? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3
    I think that good pool players can not only calculate where the balls will go if they hit it a certain way, but they also solve the reverse problem:

    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?

  15. Wish I had this manual during my freshman year. by Restil · · Score: 3

    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
  16. i smell... by cunninglinguist · · Score: 4

    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."
  17. review, please by bcrowell · · Score: 2
    It looks like most of the posts so far claiming to have read it are really jokes. But if someone on Slashdot actually has read it, it would be great if they could review it on The Assayer.


    The Assayer - free-information book reviews

  18. The TRUE physics of billiards... by mindriot · · Score: 2

    ... are as follows:

    1. The probability of the white ball dropping into a pocket ist at least three times as high as that of any other ball.
    2. The table's rails have an increased gravity. Balls tend to stop only so close to the rails that a successful next shot becomes almost impossible.
    3. The laws of reflection do NOT apply to rails on billard tables.
    4. If you try to pocket a ball and fear that the white ball will drop as well, then it will.
    5. If you change that shot so that the white should stay on the table, it will still drop.
    6. If you do try the shot but concentrate so much on not pocketing the white ball that you even miss pocketing the original ball, the white ball will still drop.
    7. The worst novice will succeed in making the most unbelievable and impossible shots.
    8. The same novice will at the same time manage to screw up a ball that actually was so close to a pocket that it didn't seem possible to not pocket it; instead, this ball will move away from the pocket and the white ball drops.
    9. Not caring about a shot and blindly shooting the white ball across the table will increase the likelihood of a positive outcome.
    10. 8 balls can not make it into the intended pocket, unless by a strange accident.

    OK, maybe that is a little inspired by Murphy's Law, but I've seen it happen. Really.

  19. The Pioneering Robot Snooker Player 1986-1988 by Wills · · Score: 5

    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.

  20. Not the same game by alexburke · · Score: 2

    from the pocket-pool dept.

    I think the physics for that particular variant of the game can be found here.

    --