Tip - Finding the Optimum Rolling Axis

[Kilroy]

All the balls in the mug were finger spun a few times and balanced consistantly in the same spot. Perfect balanced balls would have come up more random.

Sorry but I did not mention that in my report. Adam and Jamie would be mythed at me for that one! My email is overflowing (not)!

[covanant]

Oh,i see...
When i had mine,i came up with different results almost every time with 3 different makes of ball.

[ironmaster15213]

All the balls in the mug were finger spun a few times and balanced consistantly in the same spot. Perfect balanced balls would have come up more random.

Sorry but I did not mention that in my report. Adam and Jamie would be mythed at me for that one! My email is overflowing (not)!

.....Dans golf balls are definitley out of balance cause they kept spinning to the same axis with the check go. Also they had the same heavy spot each time. The closer the heavy spot is to the cover the faster the ball will settle when spun with your finger. If the ball settles very quickly you had better have that heavy spot on the top of the ball when you putt or your putt will be affected.If your ball is really out of balance can you say shag bag

[Started2k3]

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.

Were the epsom salt marks in the "northern hemisphere" when respun in the check go? (obviously with the exception of ball #4)

[Kilroy]

I didn't make a mark on the ball during the epsom salt test. I'd have to repeat the experiment. Can do.

[Started2k3]

I didn't make a mark on the ball during the epsom salt test. I'd have to repeat the experiment. Can do.

Once that is done, we should test which way, check go line or epsom salt dot up, rolls "true".

[Kilroy]

So now I have to build a 20' perfectly level plane and a putting machine? LOL!

[ironmaster15213]

The heavy side of the ball being up is more important in putting than the line of a check go cause putting doesn't have high spin rates involved. Remember you are measuring two different things with the salt water and the check go. Again the salt water is good for checking the heavy balance spot on a ball (remember that spot or point can be because of more that one heavy spot) the check go is testing the ball under a gyroscopic condition and is finding a balance point where the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere weigh the same. You will notice after you release the button and the ball starts to lose its angular momentum that the marked line will not stay centered, that's because the heavy point of the ball will start to have more of an effect on the rotation of the ball. That is why it's heavy spot for putting and check go line for full shots where there is more spin involved.

[The Saint]

(remember that spot or point can be because of more that one heavy spot)

I agree ... and was going to post the same theory.. however you say it much-more better than me So you think we should mark two spots on the ball, one for putting and one for full shots?

[leftylucas]

I think we are getting to the end of the argument here. My logic is as follows: The Check Go and the Epsom salts differ but the point was always that the mechanical method could not differentiate a severely unbalanced ball from one which may be a little unbalanced. This is Maltby's entire point. The solution is simple really. Use the salt solution to determine any severely unbalanced balls, discard them and then mark only the acceptably balanced balls with the Check Go and there you have it. Now we can all go out and putt like pros. If we still miss those putts then it is obvious that it is not us but those darn balls!!

[BigFlopper]

Here's another experiment for you Dan. Balance and verify serveral balls with check-go, then hit them each 5 times and check it again.

A friend of mine that has a CG says the ball he tried that on didn't return to the original line. One ball isn't a large enough sample to really confirm anything though.

[ironmaster15213]

Here's another experiment for you Dan. Balance and verify serveral balls with check-go, then hit them each 5 times and check it again.

A friend of mine that has a CG says the ball he tried that on didn't return to the original line. One ball isn't a large enough sample to really confirm anything though.

.....You are right it will change the balance points cause when you hit full shots you quite often take some of the cover off with the grooves of your club thus changing the balance points of the ball, both measurements should be effected but probably only slightly, unless you have square grooves then all bets are off cause you can take some serious cover material off of a ball.

[Started2k3]

So now I have to build a 20' perfectly level plane and a putting machine? LOL!

mberube has an 8' one (I think he made it a few years ago).

[ironmaster15213]

I agree ... and was going to post the same theory.. however you say it much-more better than me So you think we should mark two spots on the ball, one for putting and one for full shots?

....I would, but you have to realise none of us are putting machines, sometimes that unbalanced ball will help you make a putt when you cut the ball or pushed it a little with your putter head But all said and told you are removing variables when you mark your golf balls with both methods. I think the reason people don't grasp the reasoning behind both of these methods is because they picture a golf ball like a cue ball with a lead weight in it. The cue ball will always travel to the direction the weight is towards, If a golf ball was perfectly balanced except for one spot (heavy or light) that spot would always be on the line of the check go mark. So that shows you there are many flaws in each golf ball.

[Started2k3]

I have thought further on this, and what do you think of this:

Imagine a ball composed two materials, one hemishpere is made of aluminum while the other hemisphere is made of tungsten (note this is an extreme example). The tungsten side of the ball is the heavy side, will weigh approximately 7 times more than the aluminum side.

So it is easy to see where the "epsom salt" mark would be (yes I know neither of these will float, but you could just put it on a table and you would find out which side is the heavy side).

In the Check Go, the heavy side, I would think, would remain on the bottom and the sharpie line would be where the two sides join. This is like spinning a top, generally they are most stable with the heavy side down but you can spin some upside down and with some rare tops you can spin them on their side.

This sphere could not spin on its side because it would want to spin around its center of gravity which is just off centre of the tungsten hemisphere's centre, so when it tries to spin around that point it will find that there is a point (actually two circles) on the surface that will allow this but it is thiner than a pin point, so it could be easily destablized and it would be very unlikely that it would return to this point. Also this type of spin would be more like a wobble. This sphere would be stable spinning upside down but it could be destabilized and it could return to this point. This sphere spinning heavy side down would always return to spinning heavy side down.

So I think the "epsom salts" and Check Go are measuring completely different thing.
Charles

[ironmaster15213]

I have thought further on this, and what do you think of this:

Imagine a ball composed two materials, one hemishpere is made of aluminum while the other hemisphere is made of tungsten (note this is an extreme example). The tungsten side of the ball is the heavy side, will weigh approximately 7 times more than the aluminum side.

So it is easy to see where the "epsom salt" mark would be (yes I know neither of these will float, but you could just put it on a table and you would find out which side is the heavy side).

In the Check Go, the heavy side, I would think, would remain on the bottom and the sharpie line would be where the two sides join. This is like spinning a top, generally they are most stable with the heavy side down but you can spin some upside down and with some rare tops you can spin them on their side.

This sphere could not spin on its side because it would want to spin around its center of gravity which is just off centre of the tungsten hemisphere's centre, so when it tries to spin around that point it will find that there is a point (actually two circles) on the surface that will allow this but it is thiner than a pin point, so it could be easily destablized and it would be very unlikely that it would return to this point. Also this type of spin would be more like a wobble. This sphere would be stable spinning upside down but it could be destabilized and it could return to this point. This sphere spinning heavy side down would always return to spinning heavy side down.

So I think the "epsom salts" and Check Go are measuring completely different thing.
Charles

....If you could get this sphere to spin quickly the heavy side would not stay down it would acually move towards the center of the spinning ball so that the top half and the bottom half of the ball would weigh the same (balanced) remember that once you add spinning at high speeds into the equation the centrifugal forces will overpower the gravitational forces thus the ball would spin with half the heavy side of the ball above and half below, of course you would have a hard time trying to spin this ball cause it would be so out of balance.

[Started2k3]

....If you could get this sphere to spin quickly the heavy side would not stay down it would acually move towards the center of the spinning ball so that the top half and the bottom half of the ball would weigh the same (balanced) remember that once you add spinning at high speeds into the equation the centrifugal forces will overpower the gravitational forces thus the ball would spin with half the heavy side of the ball above and half below, of course you would have a hard time trying to spin this ball cause it would be so out of balance.

So it would spin like this?

[ironmaster15213]

So it would spin like this?

....It may want to spin like this but it would still be spinning as a sphere, but you are correct as to where the heavy and light sides would be located.

[Started2k3]

....It may want to spin like this but it would still be spinning as a sphere, but you are correct as to where the heavy and light sides would be located.

Let's get Dan to try it on his Check Go.

Dan, if you are up for an experiment ...
Check Go a ball (preferably not a treasured ball)
Put a small screw into the ball (not on the check go line, and preferably flush with the ball surface)
Check Go the screwed ball

Does the line shift so that it intercepts the screw?

Damn these threads, now I am thinking I am going to have to go out and buy one of these gizmos.

[ironmaster15213]

Let's get Dan to try it on his Check Go.

Dan, if you are up for an experiment ...
Check Go a ball (preferably not a treasured ball)
Put a small screw into the ball (not on the check go line, and preferably flush with the ball surface)
Check Go the screwed ball

Does the line shift so that it intercepts the screw?

Damn these threads, now I am thinking I am going to have to go out and buy one of these gizmos.

You don't have to go thru all that trouble. I have a trick cue ball with a lead weight in it and I can tell you for sure that if you spin the ball with your hands with the mark(heavy spot) on the bottom touching the pool table the mark will come up to the side of the ball due to centrifugal force. It won't be at 90 degrees cause I can't spin it that fast, but if I could spin it at around 9 to 10 thousand rpm that mark would be at 90 degrees and probably wobbling a bit. If dan were to put a screw into a golf ball I would pretty much asure you it would fall off while starting to spin.

[Kilroy]

Yup. The screw in the ball would not stay on the check go. However, the hole I drilled became the light side and it did spin.

Blue is the pre drill, Green is drilled. They look perfectly perpendicular to me.

[Started2k3]

Yup. The screw in the ball would not stay on the check go. However, the hole I drilled became the light side and it did spin.

Blue is the pre drill, Green is drilled. They look perfectly perpendicular to me.

WAY TOO COOL!

So the next question is:
What the H-E-double-hockey-stick is the epsom salt method testing for?

Throw the drilled ball into the salt solution?

[ironmaster15213]

Let's get Dan to try it on his Check Go.

Dan, if you are up for an experiment ...
Check Go a ball (preferably not a treasured ball)
Put a small screw into the ball (not on the check go line, and preferably flush with the ball surface)
Check Go the screwed ball

Does the line shift so that it intercepts the screw?

Damn these threads, now I am thinking I am going to have to go out and buy one of these gizmos.

Yup. The screw in the ball would not stay on the check go. However, the hole I drilled became the light side and it did spin.

Blue is the pre drill, Green is drilled. They look perfectly perpendicular to me.

.....If blue is pre drilled how come there's blue inside the hole

[Kilroy]

3 layer ball. There is blue on my drill bit too.

[Kilroy]

Throw the drilled ball into the salt solution?

No need for a pic. The hole is at the top of the ball floating in the epsom salts.

Interesting thing. If you put the drilled ball in the CGo with the hole down, it stays on the bottom, and the green equator lines up. If you put it in oriented with the hole above the tropic of capricorn (closer south hemisphere) then the hole always comes up to the top.

[ironmaster15213]

I think I have a head ache

[Kilroy]

Yah, me too. I'm waiting for Adam and Jamie to email me and tell me how we screwed up the testing.

So have we reached a definative conclusion as to what the heck all of this is telling us about the best way to mark a ball for an un-wobbly putt?

[ironmaster15213]

The best way to mark a ball for putting is still with the salt bath, so you putt end over end.

[Kilroy]

If that is the case then the check-go is more than just poor for putting, it's 90 degrees off - the maximum possible. It is after all sold as a balancer to be used for putting and tee shots.

So, Check go for tee shots with a high rate of spin. You can't align the ball again until the green. Then use the Epsom salt mark for the putt.

Bummer. To have to do both would make a really marked up ball and would take a fair amount of time to prepare balls for play. I can't really see doing that over long term. Especially since after a few holes you have probably re-arranged the shape and balance of the ball anyway.

[Started2k3]

I'm sold. Epsom salt is the way to go.
Thanks, Dan.

I'm going to go an lie down now.
Charles