Tip - Finding the Optimum Rolling Axis

[hackzaw]

Hello everybody. I've just finished reading a spectacular book by Tom Wishon called The Search for the Perfect Golf Club. He's got a tip at the very end of the book about finding the best rolling axis for the ball.

Basically, you take 1 cup of epsum salt, mixed with 1 cup water (I think it was 1 cup). After stirring the salts will have disolved into the water. Then, simply drop your ball in the bowl, and when the golf ball settles, mark the dimple that faces directly up with a Sharpie. If you drop the same ball in the solution, and your previous mark does not rise to the top, then the ball is in very good balance. But, if the ball has any unbalance, the mark will rise to the top again.

Tom Wishon said he saw a demonstration with a guy that had a robotic putter. He saw him mark the ball as described above, and had the robot putt it twice; once with the mark facing the sky, and once with the mark facing to the right when looking behind the ball. With the mark facing the sky, the robot sunk it everytime. With the mark placed to the side, the putt missed everytime. Every since, Tom has aligned his ball with the mark facing up. For that matter, Tom also places the mark facing up when driving as well.

I struggled at first visualizing how placing the mark on top helped. But then it dawned on me that in the water, the heavy end sinks to the bottom, and the light end on top. So as the ball rolls, it goes heavy end over light end, heavy over light, etc, etc. This is opposed to the heavy end of the ball placed to the side, which will basically cause wobble in the end.

I thought this was a great tip. Anybody else have similar tips? Do you guys do anything to mark the axis of the roll?

[bobblehead]

I read the same book too and saw this technique by Dave Pelz a few years ago. I tried it but now I used the Check-Go gadget.

[TWoody]

I read the same book too and saw this technique by Dave Pelz a few years ago. I tried it but now I used the Check-Go gadget.

I've been using the Check-Go for two years. When asked if it works I tell people "honestly I don't know, I can tell you it doesn't hurt".
TWoody

[Kilroy]

"Buy it now" for $10.95 + $8 shipping (USD) Shipped from Laval. He has 27 left
I've seen them in stores for $35.

I ordered one. I've wanted to try it out for a while. For $20 what the heck.

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Check-go-sweet-sp...ayphotohosting

[Chieflongtee]

I've got the check and go. But if you are a cheapo you can also use epsom salts


see the video balance

[covanant]

I had one a while back ,but i loose so many balls in the woods i got tired of it

[bobblehead]

"Buy it now" for $10.95 + $8 shipping (USD) Shipped from Laval. He has 27 left

That's a good price.

[leftylucas]

If anyone has the Epsom salt kit from Golfworks. I would like to try an experiment and conpare this method to my Check-Go and see if they get similar results. Maltby did endorse the CHeck Go type of machine but he also seemed to say that there was something lacking in the checkgo as it would not tell you how unbalanced the ball would be. We can get together and try a few different brands to see how each balancing system works out. Any takers?

[Kiwi]

I read this in Pelz too. Makes sense. Only think holding me back is what I see on TV with the pros. Seems that many have gone to the "line" on the ball over the last few years including, of course, Tiger. I believe that they draw a line along the same line as the manufacturer's logo. I have yet to see any ball - on TV - with a full line around the ball such as the Check-Go would impart. If the factory "line" is good enough for the guys playing for million$ then it's good enough for me.

[hackzaw]

Kiwi - regarding your thought about the balls the pro's are playing. Perhaps the balls they're playing are already factory balanced. In other words, perhaps the manufacturing of these more expensive balls, go through some quality control and only "balanced balls" go out the door. Any body put a Pro V in the check go or salt water to see if the balance is repeatable?

[Kiwi]

You might be right, but seems to me that I saw an interview with Tiger, or some pro, not that long ago and he was talking about the "line" and that he used either the logo line - for me it is the word "Distance" on my Top Flight XL balls - or a line drawn with a Sharpie, along that logo line. I know the clubs the pros use are not off the rack, but specially designed for them and their swings, so having "perfect" balanced balls could be their secret too. The other thread on this talks about the difference in results with the Check-Go and the Epsom Salts test. A $35 gizmo seems a little low teck to be able to verify balance. I like the double dip Epsom Salts method, do it once, mark and do it again to verify. I'd take it one more step and then draw a line through the dot to help with alignment on the tee and green.

[dreaded_snowman]

Interesting... I have a checkgo...
For the 'verify' issue, use the check go to mark the line, and then put the ball back in with the line on the top; spin it up and watch the line come back down to the side again... a perfectly balanced ball would not realign like that.... so IMO, it does do something good...

[Kiwi]

So the Check Go measures the same thing consistently, and as it is designed to measure the "heavy" spot I guess it is reliable... or is it? I still like leftyucas' idea of a second test <Epsom Salts> to check on the Check GOs accuracy. I have neither the "kit" nor the gizmo... but I do have the balls

[hackzaw]

Could it possibly be that the Check Go and the Epsom Salt method don't measure the same thing? I can't see how they'd be different. Can someone else with a Check Go, also verify that the Epsom Salt method do not correlate. This seems to defy science that they don't match.

Just so I'm clear, the Check Go spins the ball, and the result should be that the heavy part of the ball spins out to the perimeter, and the line is marked along this axis, right. And obviously, the Epsom Salt method has the heavy end of the ball sink to the bottom, and the mark is placed on the lightest end, right? One would think that the results have to be identical.

One other interesting test to do would be to take a ball through the Epsom Salt test, and find one that's "perfectly" balanced. In other words, that the dot does not surface repeatably. Then take this same ball through a Check Go, and see if it repeats. This would demonstrate if one device was more sensitive than the other. Perhaps, the imbalance of a ball becomes undetectable with one method, while still detectable with the other?

[leftylucas]

Well guys I had to chime in here. In looking at Maltby's video he seems to say that the check go will definitely spin to find the heavier side of the ball but his point is that it does not measure how unbalanced the ball is vs the Epsom salt which will give an indication that a ball is severely off balance by the speed at which it returns to its original spot. so the check go will spin and you will mark the heavier side but you still maight be using a severly unbalanced ball. Yikes, I am going back to Golfworks on Wed to buy me some Epsom salts.

[Started2k3]

The centre of gravity being slightly off brings in another effect from physics:

The amount of backspin created from a tee shot should be different if the ball is placed heavy side up (more spin) or heavy side down (less spin). I don't think any human could notice but robot results could probably show this, especially with Maltby's "bad" balls.

[Kilroy]

So my check go arrived today. I already drilled out the pen hole so a sharpie will reach the ball.

So far it seems for best results you need a solidly anchored pen and just touch the ball for a couple of secs, where it souns like a "bzzz" . If you put any preassure on the ball you get a fat line on one side. The less you touch the ball the better.

Agent99 brought home some epsom salts. I'm gonna have a Mythbusters moment
Stay tuned...

[Kilroy]

OK, So the Check go puts a good spin on the ball, and can make an OK line with a light touch on the pen. The hole can be easily enlarged to accomodate a sharpie. The pen that comes with it is no good.

Image 1 illustrates 2 passes through the check go, one black and one green for each of 6 balls

The next image shows 4 check-go marked balls floated in 1 cup of water and 93 g of epsom salts.

Whatever is going on, these two techniques are not doing the same thing.

[The Saint]

I would think that all results should be the same as in glass #4.. Hmmm ... hey you physics nerds... what gives???

[jonf]

Where can I get one of those steins Dan?

[Kilroy]

My wife bought me 4 of them from Golf-O-Max. He used to sell them. Not sure if he still does.

[Started2k3]

I would think that all results should be the same as in glass #4.. Hmmm ... hey you physics nerds... what gives???

I am still thinking about the floating ball (web research continues ... Christ I have looked into how ice bergs float ... note to self ... need a life).

But I think the "check go" is actually trying to find the "maximum intertial frame of rotation" (MIFoR). Check out the pictures of the wood in the following link:
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlig...ode_story.html

DAN: I need another experiment. Once you have floated and marked the balls, try throwing them back in the "check go" and see if the marked side is up. If this is the case, then the centre of gravity of the ball only determines which way up the ball end up vs the MIFoR.

[Kilroy]

The check go always returns close to it's own balance, so no the epsom salts mark does not find the top in the check go.

[Kilroy]

But I think the "check go" is actually trying to find the "maximum intertial frame of rotation" (MIFoR). Check out the pictures of the wood in the following link:
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlig...ode_story.html

So would that be the optimum roll line at any speed? The space vids seemed to indicate so.

[ironmaster15213]

I have also done this experiment when I bought my check go, It also freaked me out when the heavy spot wasn't on the line but here are a few things to think about. The epsome salt solution will help you find the heavy or light side of the ball in a static situation. But what if you took a fine drill and kept drilling small amounts of material away from the shell at the heavy spot. Eventually you would balance those two points and then there would be a different heavy spot somewhere else on the ball. When a ball is spinning it will equalize all the heavy spots and find a true center line unless the ball is truely balanced then you won't get the same line twice or at least not exactly. Just my thoughts almost worth 2 cents. I would use the heavy spot up with the line going somewhat towards the hole for putting and the line up towards the target with the heavy spot near the top for tee shots.

[The Saint]

Here's a question... If you threw "Richard" into a pool of epson salts which part would rise to the top? ... Should we take a poll?

[ironmaster15213]

Here's a question... If you threw "Richard" into a pool of epson salts which part would rise to the top? ... Should we take a poll?

...I vote that he would definitly drown, only cause his head is so full of facts and stuff.

[Kiwi]

WOW!, enough fodder here for a Myth Busters episode AND an article in Golf Magazine. I guess if they end up with different results then either one method is wrong (gizmo) or they are measuring different things. Seems to me that if the ball consistently floats heavy side down that is what we (golfers) want to measure. Don't know where I'm going with this... just

[Started2k3]

WOW!, enough fodder here for a Myth Busters episode AND an article in Golf Magazine. I guess if they end up with different results then either one method is wrong (gizmo) or they are measuring different things. Seems to me that if the ball consistently floats heavy side down that is what we (golfers) want to measure. Don't know where I'm going with this... just

Don't forget the other option that both methods are wrong.

[covanant]

I used to have a ck-go,but found that all the balls i bought came up different when doing the same test as Dan.My conclussion...todays balls are alot better,balance wise.
If a ball is near "balanced" to begin with,the results will allways be different.
Most likely whats going on is all the balls in Dans test are near balanced.
With todays technology and quality control im not supprised
This could all be B.S,but thats why i think we get those results.