Questions About The New 40+ Balls

> His rating used to be in his posts. I believe it was 1579 if I remember correctly.


Sure, same as bogeyhunter's was 1578.

wturber wrote: AgentHEX wrote: This newfound interest in observable evidence is remarkably refreshing. Yes.  Welcome aboard.

Speaking of which this tidbit on test heights came to mind. If the ball is hitting the table in the vertical direct from equivalent of 1m, then the rebound in same direction will be similar (the spin is a transfer of rotational energy to *fwd* momentum, not up/down). I don't see many loop/drives come ~1m up off the table or returning them would be a lot easier.

AgentHEX wrote: Speaking of which this tidbit on test heights came to mind. If the ball is hitting the table in the vertical direct from equivalent of 1m, then the rebound in same direction will be similar (the spin is a transfer of rotational energy to *fwd* momentum, not up/down). I don't see many loop/drives come ~1m up off the table or returning them would be a lot easier.

So, since it is beyond any reasonable debate that the seamed 40+ balls play differently, has anyone found some methods to speed up the process of adapting to them?  I mentioned my suggestion for people transition from celluloid to seamed polyball is to use seamless balls as an intermediate (and maybe just stop there). 

AgentHEX wrote: wturber wrote: AgentHEX wrote: Speaking of which this tidbit on test heights came to mind. If the ball is hitting the table in the vertical direct from equivalent of 1m, then the rebound in same direction will be similar (the spin is a transfer of rotational energy to *fwd* momentum, not up/down). I don't see many loop/drives come ~1m up off the table or returning them would be a lot easier. I already addressed this point when mentioning the aerodynamic effects of topspin that drives the ball downward in addition to gravity. Component parts of velocity or whatever doesn't matter; only relevant factor is their sum at impact.

> Please note, that AgentHEX claims to be Chinese.  Claiming something does not automatically make it so.

I've only claimed that I speak native mandarin. This is evident enough from the pronunciation nuances in that thread referenced which has unfortunately been mostly deleted. I also wasn't the only native speaker in that thread who made the same assessments.

> for example, his expertise on 40+ balls - he has not conducted any substantive tests other than "occasionally" playing with one.

The statements I've made square with the physical reality of the ball and what tests which have been done. It's akin to saying the moon has so and so mass inferred from various physical factors, and naysayers objecting nobody's ever weighed it.

I also did some rudimentary sanity tests for consistency before Debater's more thorough ones and found nothing like what was being claimed.

AgentHEX wrote: I've only claimed that I speak native mandarin.

Most of the craps you have ever claimed are lies from a coward who's hiding behind a keyboard.  Let's start by telling me what's your name so I know exactly who am I talking to... Do you have a name by birth?  Why the mystery?  I know most members here by their name so I assume you have one too AgentHEX? 











Edited by roundrobin - 03/18/2015 at 7:27pm

"I am a native Mandarin speaker."  NO you are not.  Just another lie from AgentHEX lol
I have enough of this troll.

> I send chops (underspin) many yards to deliver wayward balls back to players and observe that they can rise against gravity. 

Do they? I've looked at high level chops from the side and recently started using higher reversal LPs and the trajectory looks flattish (on higher speed chops) to me at best, though it's not something I've studied in detail at every point. I recall pnachtwey did some calcs on this and should be able to provide a more definitive answer.

> , I'm not at all sure that a grippy table would result in a higher vertical bounce than a more slick table surface. 

That's my point here. More fwd velocity implies lower height at similar vertical plane of interception.

> It all depends on where you locate that plane.   So once again, your assertion is not correct.

Making that argument is really worse for your position since the it's only often lower but possibly not, ie even more "inconsistent" depending on the table and shot which is the point.

> And you are once again diverting attention from the point that your previous statement(s) were wrong also.

It's difficult for anything to be wrong when there's no definitive evidence either way.



Edited by AgentHEX - 03/18/2015 at 9:31pm

> The pros won't do this because the result is a high ball that stands up ripe for smashing.

Pros like Joo chop with much more spin than amateurs. Anyone who can deliver Ma Lin forehands into the net has insane contact speed.

> I don't think a higher friction table will make much difference in practice. 

I'm surprised you can chop with such spin yet don't notice the difference between higher and low grip tables (table friction isn't even strictly regulated). That and bounce quality have marginal effect certainly on par with plastic ball bounce/etc, but it's not a mystery why one gets all the attention.

> I don't know exactly what you are trying to say here.

If you're standing at spot reasonably close to the table, the lower exit angle of the same topspin shot on a higher friction table means it will arrive at your position w/ lower height.

> Exactly.  The injection of the issue of a vertical plane of interception is an attempt to change the context of the original statement. That statement did not involve the question of when a player would intercept the ball.  That seems to be part of the game that AgentHex is playing.

A vertical plane is where a real life player stands to hit the ball and thus measure height against. If you can think of any other way of conceptualizing this please illustrate it.

> What followed have been (IMO) mostly attempts to divert attention from his failure to consider the magnus effect in the original statemnet.

Also, just to put the point of contention into perspective, it's only over whether the  bounce diff is closer to 3% or 5%. Notice this is a ratio of the actual rebound height, which is maybe some inches for a shot where the magnus effect reigns. Ie. a difference of a few mm at most (similarly for the 3-5% diff itself) or well less than the potential bounce/friction diff between tables. That's also a generous estimate since shots will slide between that 0-2% depending on how they're struck.

IOW, the problem with arguing for magnus effect (ie strong topspin shots) is the system tends to "self-correct" in that shots w/ more spin rise less and thus differ less anyway. To argue for greater differences, you'll want to consider shots that rise much as possible.


Edited by AgentHEX - 03/19/2015 at 2:14pm