Chris Hudson's, "The Vexed Question of Transmitted Side," (BQR. Issue No.7) has brought in quite a response. The whole question remains of interest and seems no nearer to resolution than it ever has. Geza Gazdag cannot understand at all why anyone should have any doubts, whilst Peter Wide - an engineer by profession has his doubts. Vince Hardwell raises an interesting point which seems to lend support to the theory of transmitted side, but Ross Porter reckons it's a lot of nonsense. Read on!
The articles of Chris Hudson and Martin Goodwill in the BQR No. 7 issue were quite interesting and although I have discussed in my book the transmitted side and the eccentric doubling of the balls along with some other dubious tenets - apparently without much effect - it seems necessary to return to these problems once more.
It would seem that some famous players (and authors) were convinced that their status entitled them to put forward nonsensical theories and claims knowing that nobody would dare to contradict them. A good example of this is what the great Lindrum said and what Willie Smith claimed in connection with transmitted side.
However, Riso Levi's comment on that quite clever soup bowl experiment is a different matter altogether. His facetious wit that billiards is played on a table and not in a soup bowl only shows, at least for me, that he would not have been able to recognise truth if he fell over it.
The fact is that the unknown chap who hit upon this idea provided irrefutable proof that there is an interaction between a spinning and a stationary ball. The only difference between this experiment and actual play is that in a soup bowl the contact between the ball being continuous the transmission of side will be quite dramatic, while on a table, due to the momentary contact, it will be negligible by comparison.
The effectiveness of transmitted side will depend on the amount of side initially generated in the cue ball; next on the thickness of the contact on the object ball and last but not least on the amount of friction the balls will have to cope with in the particular shot.
Although the friction on a napped cloth is considerably greater than on a napless one, regardless of the nature of the cloth, the transmitted side effect will ultimately depend on the distance between the balls and between the object ball and the cushion. To sum up: the faster the cue ball spins at the moment of contact, the thicker the contact and the shorter are the distances involved (as in nursery play) the more effective the transmitted side will be and vice versa.
Ever since I started playing English billiards this controversy about the existence of the transmitted side was incomprehensible to me, but eventually I came to the conclusion that for the non-believers nothing less would be acceptable as proof than a vigorous the transmitted side in standard in-off shots. It is of course, a forlorn hope because these shots fall into the 'vice versa' category just the same as the vast majority of shots do in the indirect and the 3-cushion cannon games. If you asked a cannon player about the role of transmitted side in these games, he would probably tell you that apart from a few situations it is irrelevant, because his first priority is getting the cannon.
Whoever drew Lindrum's Diagram 8 could not have had much idea about billiards. It is commonly known that an in-off played with running side needs a wider spotting up than a plain ball one, assuming the same contact on the object ball.
The in-off showed by Martin also appears in Lindrum's book, except - if my memory serves me right - at the left hand top pocket. In my view it is not the best practical proof for transmitted side. For one thing I would not back myself to hit the object ball exactly on the same spot a number of times from that long distance even without side, let alone with check or running side. Furthermore being a medium pace shot, it is also debatable if after the long run-up to the object ball the cue ball would have much side in it left to transmit.
However, if we played the same shot with the cue ball a foot from the object ball the situation is quite different. From that distance even I could hit the object ball repeatedly on the same spot and as the shot would become a stun with virtually no loss of side, it should be an acceptable proof for transmitted side.
As to the other problem, although Chris talks about the object ball, it is obvious that if the cushion can impart side at all, it would do so to any ball. Riso Levi actually used the cue ball when he was trying to explain the eccentric doubling of the ball.
How much side is normally generated in the cue ball depends not only where the ball is hit but also on the speed of the cue. By the same token the higher the speed of a rolling ball at the moment of impact the more side the cushion ought to impart to it. This running side effect allegedly will continue if the ball hits an adjacent cushion; however, if the second cushion happens to be facing the first one, it will become check side. This simply is not so.
When a ball hits a cushion at 90 degrees the rubber will momentarily cave in and a negative impression of the appropriate part of the ball will appear. The higher the speed the deeper this impression will be. The question is what will the shape of this impression be if the impact angle is less than 90 degrees, say 45 degrees. Clearly we can forget about that nice, symmetrical concave impression the ball produces at 90 degrees, because as the ball digs deeper and deeper into the rubber it will compress it more and more on the exit side. The resultant barrier will have a 'checking* effect on the rebound angle, which will be 46 degrees or more, depending on the impact speed.
The same applies to the cannon and pool cushions as well, but not to the same extent. The reason for this is that apart from the impact speed there is another factor which affects the rebound angle: the more rubber available above the initial impact point for the ball to dig into, the more the created impression will be turned towards the bed of the table producing an additional breaking effect. Now, the available rubber on our tables is about 9 mm, while on the cannon and pool cushions it is perhaps 2 mm. Due to this difference no matter how fast you hit a ball into the cushion on the cannon table, it will always zig-zag between the cushions up the table. The doubling effect between the cushions Chris and Riso Levi talked about just does not happen (On the cannon table.) Generating side implies the existence of a generator, a moving force. What I find most astonishing about this whole affair is that according to some, a fast spinning ball, a moving force cannot transmit side, but the stationary cushion, can.
I feel sure that you will have something to say about the next piece which is by Peter Wide. Peter Wide used to play in the Notts Institute's league and had many a battle with the BQR Editor. Peter is a pretty good performer at both billiards and snooker. His work as an engineer has taken him to many countries and he was at one time the Hong Kong champion at both games. Peter originates from the West Country where he is well known to Bill Andress and Co.
Once again B.Q.R. arrived and brought a breath of 'Billiard-fresh' air to a deprived exile! It's good to get news of the 'real' game but like other of your correspondents I deplore the 'best of 7' format and although I didn't see the televised championship, I'd rather see a format which would enable the leading players to continue unhindered with break building. I wonder how the leading snooker players would react if matches were to be over, say 49 frames with all 'frames' reduced to 1 red and the colours?
However, the main purpose of my writing is to add to the correspondence on 'transmitted side' and the interesting articles by Chris Hudson, Martin Goodwill and part of the recollections of a visit to Riso Levi by Alan Firth.
Whilst I hold the opinion that side cannot be transmitted from cue to object ball for the reasons given below, I feel that only professionally conducted photography of a high quality with marked balls will resolve the argument. I wonder if it has ever been done or attempted - if it has I'm sure we'd have heard about it.
Now to my views for what they're worth. I feel that the 'throw' theory is the correct explanation. Referring to my diagram, it is a know and accepted fact that, if for positional reasons, it is necessary to apply side to the cue ball when potting the red, if right hand side is applied the red should be aimed at jaw 'A' because on impact the rotation of the cue ball will 'throw' the red to the left. Conversely, if left hand side is applied, resulting in a 'throw' to the right, the aim should be to jaw 'B'. I'm certain that this is the reason for the differing return paths of the object ball shown in the diagram of losing hazards by Martin Goodwill.
Regarding the experimental results relative to Martin's first diagram it appears that he allowed some degree of tolerance between 2 strips of tape on the bottom cushion. Now if the object ball hit the cushion at a slight angle, it would - as mentioned in Chris Hudson's article - have slight 'cushion -imparted' side which, when returning up the table would tend to deviate the ball from a straight return even more. I'd be interested to have more actual details of this experiment if such are available.
Now it must be recognised that the coefficient of friction between 2 balls is extremely low and even though the pressure between balls at the moment of impact is very high, it is improbable that the side on the cue ball, acting at the radius of the object ball with such a low coefficient of friction would be adequate to overcome the resistance to spinning resulting from the object ball virtually resting in a concave hollow in the cloth. Now if I understood Levi's challenge correctly as reported in Alan Firth's article, it consisted in getting the cue ball to return off the sheet of glass after hitting the red or object ball. The fact appears to be that the spinning of the ball on glass, where the coefficient of friction between ball and glass is minimal and insufficient to cause the ball to roll instead of spinning in one place. This highlights the comparison I've just made - the relationship between ball and ball and ball and cloth and I incline to the view that there would be some similarity between the coefficients of friction between 2 balls and a ball and glass. I speak of course of good composition balls.
Now if anyone is interested in an extremely erudite treatise, written I believe in 1899, they should get from their library, 'Billiards Mathematically Treated'. From memory I think this is the title but it was written by a Q.C. with an extensive knowledge of advanced mathematics. I enclose a photocopy of part of the book dealing with transmitted side and the friction between the balls. At the time the book was written the balls would certainly have been ivory - probably with a greater coefficient of friction than their present day counterparts. The diagram he shows does not I think prove anything, except that a ball played across the nap will tend to drift towards the top of the table.
So much then for my contribution - I hope it stimulates other comment and who knows, maybe within the ranks of your readers there lurks under a black cloth and behind a tripod, an accomplished billiard playing photographer!
I found the articles on Transmitted side very interesting. I would like to mention a point brought to my attention years ago by a friend of mine. It concerns playing an in-off when both cue-ball and object ball are in baulk. If the shot is of the forcing type it is often a struggle to get the object ball out of baulk however hard it is hit. If the shot is played with check side the object ball is inclined to run rather square and fails to cross the line. If it is played with running side the object ball seems to gain a slight angle which usually helps it over the line. I have always assumed this to be due to transmitted side and wonder how many other players make use of it in the circumstances I have described. It is easy enough and is not the kind of shot limited to the expert cueman.
On page 65 of Sydney H Fry's, "Billiards for Amateurs," Sydney states:- "Putting side on the cue ball imparts a certain amount of side onto the object ball" He goes on to claim that this transmitted side helps a ball being potted along the cushion to spin in off the cushion angle. This nonsensical theory was also believed by Willie Smith of all people. I'll wager that you, like me, know the real reason why it is easier to pot along the cushion with right hand side (when potting to the right) than without side, and I've always been amazed that no one, to my knowledge, has put this reason into print during the past century.