In your explanation of how coin-op pool tables return the cue ball after a scratch, you made some glaring errors. While it is true that most tables use a magnetic system to do this, the magnet is in the table, not the ball. Also, there are no sensors, switches, gates, etc., as you stated; a much simpler method is employed. In the last section of the ball return track, a system of rails carry the balls to their final destination, and a strong, fixed, magnet is placed on one side of this track. The cue ball, which has iron imbedded in it, is pulled to the other side of the track than the object balls. Simple. Some “magnetic” cue balls do display the erratic rolling pattern you mention; this is due to variations in manufacturing techniques. Some balls simply have a chunk of iron molded into the ball, and if it is not centered in the ball, an off balanced condition can cause the ball to roll abnormally. Some ways around this include balls made with iron filings mixed into the ball resin, thus making the ball perfectly balanced, but giving it a grey, speckled appearance. Another method uses two iron rings, welded together at a right angle to each other, and molded into the ball.
As you said, size does matter: as well as the magnet, there is an angled aluminum bar which guides oversized balls to the cue ball side. Also, another brand of table uses a heavier cue ball, employing a teeter-totter type of balance beam: the lighter balls go to one side, while the heavier cue ball gets tipped to the other side. Simple is always best.
I’ll do it: Link to the original article.
Well I’m a bit away from some of my materials at the moment, but a quick search backs up from some other online sources what I found out in the article:
From: How does the ball return work on a coin-operated pool table? | HowStuffWorks
Here’s a billard ball supplier.
From: Cue Balls | Ozone Billiards
I can find numerous other statements by other ball suppliers, some of which I did e-mail to confirm prior to publishing the article.
We can also look at some US patents on the devices, such as patents number 4015845 and 4116435, which both use a “metallic core” to trigger a sensor which operates a “kicker solenoid” to send the ball down another rail. A similar system, that does not use a magnet for bulk removal of the ball.
Now it is true that there are also patents where the cue ball is deflected by the magnet itself (such as 3362710), this does not mean that this is actually implemented en masse in the market. I don’t deny that it could be used at all, but I did not encounter anyone who had seen them when I did my research, nor did I find any references to tables in current production which use a magnetic pull to absolutely grab the ball away from the rest as it travels down the rails. In fact, thinking about the speeds and masses involved, I find it a bit hard to believe that a magnet can reliably pull a moving cue ball with the mass that it has down an alternate chute in the time it has to react on it. I’m sure it’s more than possible, but it seems less reliable.
If you want to talk “simple”, the magnetic-triggered gate/switch system is actually very simple. Magentic sensors themselves have no moving parts and don’t really wear out, and the gates and other items are likely good for a few hundred thousand cycles, given my experience using those same items in assembly line design.
If you’re going to come on here and accuse me of making “glaring errors”, then maybe your case would be helped by providing some detailed cites and real-world examples that demonstrate that 1) the system you are putting forward is actually used instead of one with magnetic sensing and separation, or 2) that the magnetic sensing and separation system is not used at all.
I was aware of the weight-based system, but had been told that that system had gone out of favour a very long time ago as it was too unreliable relative to the other systems.
I will admit that “magnet” and “magnetic” shouldn’t really be used interchangeably in describing the material inside the ball, but I have conflicting data on whether or not the material is “magnetic” or a “magnet” or not, and really the differential cost would be almost nothing, while it seems to me the differential benefit would be great. That’s not an assertion, just IMO.
An iron core exposed to magnets a lot will soon become a magnet.
If a table uses a detector and a solenoid to kick the cue ball into a different chute, that solenoid would have to get electrical power from somewhere. Now it’s been about 25 years since I’ve regularly played coin-op tables, but I certainly don’t recall having to plug them in, and an internal battery doesn’t sound that feasible for late-70s equipment. How do these tables with solenoids get their electrical power?
They plug in, and this is actually noted in comparisons I’ve seen as being “damned inconvenient” because you have to locate the table over a floor-mounted outlet, otherwise players/patrons can trip over the cord.
I guess the tables I remember from my mis-spent youth had the oversize cue ball. I didn’t really think about it back then, but the handful of times I’ve played on coin-op tables since then have definitely had the larger cue ball - I notice because the cue ball’s larger size throws off the angles, and its extra weight throws off how the cue ball responds after contact with the object ball.
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a pool table that was plugged in.
I’ve played on a thousand different coin op tables and never have seen one plugged in either.
Let me clarify one thing: when I did my research, the sort which use a magentic switch and gate-type apparatus were the ones I was told were in use. While I found patents for the solenoid type, I did not encounter any solenoid type models in use. When I speak of “plug in”, I’m referring to the switch-type, not the solenoid type. The switch type I assume would require much less power, based on, IIRC, there was a model that took 8 “D” cell batteries instead of AC power (of course, 8 D cells have a lot of amp-hours in them…). I’m not certain on that; I’d have to check my original notes to see if I have a model number.
While there very well may be patents for all manner of methods of achieving our goal here, some of which function as you describe, they account for a miniscule fraction of the market. The industry leader in this arena, Valley-Dynamo, uses the method I described. No, I don’t work for Valley. I do work in the coin-op business, though, and know a little about it. Possibly a very little, but I think in this case, it is enough. A quick survey of taverns and public houses in your area, or any area in the U.S., will confirm that Valley tables are the predominant brand used in the coin-op business. I’m not including tables meant for private ownership; there are too many brands to consider; but as the original query had to do with coin-op, let’s stick to that. The Dynamo brand was acquired by Valley a few years ago, and phased out as a pool table brand; theirs was the balance beam, heavier cue ball method. You will still find older Dynamo tables in use in many locations; a small kitchen scale will prove to you that the cue ball is heavier than the object balls. At any location using Valley tables, you can verify my assertion as to the cue ball simply by using your own magnet; place it near the cue ball, and the ball will be pulled toward it. Why not place the magnet inside the cue ball, as you assert? Simple. A ball with a magnet inside it will attract any loose ferrous objects to it’s surface. A cue ball with a washer stuck to it will probably not give a good roll. As to the issue of a piece of iron being exposed to a magnet and then becoming a magnet: true. Rub a magnet along the blade of a screwdriver, and sure enough, it will become magnetized. However, a little thing I like to call ‘polarity’ comes into play. A fixed magnet has poles; exposed to the same pole repeatedly, iron will take on that magnetic orientation. If you rubbed one pole of a fixed magnet, and then the other, alternating polarities, on your screwdriver, nothing will happen. As the chances of the cue ball passing the fixed magnet in the table in exactlythe same orientation every single time are pretty much nonexistant, the balls iron core will never acquire any significant magnetic field of it’s own. If it did; and this is another reason for not placing a magnet in the ball; and the ball passed the tables magnet in the wrong orientation, the field could actually repel the ball enough to send it the wrong direction. As to tables being plugged in: actually, some do, but not for the cue balls sake. There have been battery operated tables in use for many years. Most used a six volt lantern battery, and were used to operate a motor which operated what we in the business refer to as the ‘dump’; the metal rack inside the table that flip-flops to dump the balls out. With new battery technology, more efficient motors, and electronics with very low current drain, comes a new era in coin-op: the pool table that takes dollar bills! That’s right, they have bill validators, and a microprocessor which allows for various pricing schemes. Does it plug in? Yes, but only about once a month. It has a very small, lead-acid type battery and a trickle charger inside. I realize this is starting to sound like a sales brochure for Valley, but they really are the coin-bill-op pool table leader in the world. I don’t have marketing figures, but any tables using a system like the one you suggest have to be few and far between.
Hi tkobrutus,
I didn’t mention it back in post #2 - but welcome to the Straight Dope. Round these parts, paragraphs are much appreciated. I did a cursory job of busting up your post in the quote above. You can see how much easier it makes it to read and process your ideas.
Thanks, and again, welcome.
- Peter Wiggen
Thank you, Mr Wiggen,
As you might discern from my ‘Guest’ membership status, I am new to this forum. Being new to this forum, I am unfamiliar with the ‘intimate’ workings thereof. In many other forums I am compelled to write my thoughts within the confines of a small box, and the total number of characters I was allowed to type was strictly limited. Spaces count as characters, and so I tend to run my sentences, and paragraphs, into one another. Sorry. I’ll try to mend my ways on such a generous site as this. It appears much like the forums with limited space for responses.
As I reread my last post, I find that I’ve made a few grammatical errors, which might actually alter the context of the message. The worst reads, "Most used a six volt lantern battery, and were used to operate a motor which operated what we in the business refer to as the ‘dump’; it should have read: "Most used a six volt lantern battery, which was used to operate a motor, etc. In my haste to educate, I failed to elucidate.
I can believe that. I said I hadn’t encountered at least two types…
These here are very good points, both of them. Thank you for that information. I will say that my sources nearly all referred to them as being a “magnet”, and I was told by one that a “very small rare earth magnet like an NIB is placed inside, because it won’t impact the weight and balance much”, and I suppose if it’s small enough it would still trigger a magnetic sensor and not pick up ferrous items. However, It seems like one would just use metal in the manner you suggest preferentially.
I emailed one of your ‘sources’. Here’s the response:
Ozone Billiards wrote:
>Not sure. Just know if your table uses a magnetic cue ball for the return
>instead of the oversized then this will work.
>
>Thanks
>
>
>Robyn Lyn Gutierrez
>866-481-7665
><mailto:info@ozonebilliards> info@ozonebilliards.com
><mailto:info@ozonebilliards.com>
This was in answer to my query:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jerry
>Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 12:01 AM
>To: info@ozonebilliards.com
>Subject: mag cue balls
>
>
>Is the magnet in the ball, or in the table? I believe ‘magnetic’ cue
>balls have an iron core, and the magnet is in the table. T/F?
This is one of your sources quoted in your answer.
Robyn sounds like a real expert in her field. Just what her field is, we may never know.
A Google search for “magnetic cue balls”, turns up a site called “How Stuff Works”. The first reference you give happens to be the same one. And the only one.
Is it the practice of S.D. staffers to Google a query, and then paraphrase the first article that comes up? Do a little more research, and you’ll find numerous sites listing “magnetic” cue balls for sale; the description of which is, and here I paste from a real website: Magnetic Cue Ball
[STBBMQ] $13.20
Magnetic Cue Ball
Click to enlarge
The magnetic cue ball is used on many pool tables that feature an automatic ball return. The ball has a ferrous core that trips the magnetic sensor in these tables, returning the cue ball to the end of the table instead of capturing it after a scratch. The ball is “A grade” quality, and is regulation size (2-1/4" in diameter), and is regulation weight.
Yes, it does say “sensor”. This is marketing hype for: ‘magnet’.
Any system using sensors, solenoids, etc., as you assert, will require a power source, as many other readers have pointed out. They just aren’t out there.
A person asking “What is a Pizza?” could be given the answer: " Bread dough, spread flat, formed into a circle, spread with tomato sauce, and covered with cheese and anchovies." This would not technically be a wrong answer; however, it would not be a fully accurate answer, either. Given the larger context of the question, a much more accurate answer could, and should, be given. In this matter, trivial though it may be, I believe you owe your readers a more accurate answer.
While tables using the systems you suggest may exist, they are not in common use. While some ball makers might indeed place the magnet in the ball, as you suggest; it is a practice most uncommon. The wording of promotional materials notwithstanding, facts should be verified before being put forward as facts.
The first hit on a Google search may not always be the most accurate; go a little further in your research.
Why am I so obsessed by this? Are pool tables and pool table trivia so important to me? No, not at all.
Here’s the rub, bub: I’ve always looked to S.D. for the answers to questions both profound and trivial; and I’ve always taken for granted the veracity of the information found therein. An example such as this not only gives a black mark to the credit of the author/staff responsible for the incomplete and inaccurate info, but casts doubt on the entire operation, as Cecil cannot possibly research each and every query to it’s fullest extent without help from the aforementioned staff. If something as trivial as this can be as badly misrepresented, and an honest response to it disparaged and disputed such as mine has, how are we then to believe anything we read here? Subjects more difficult to check would be that much more easy to obfuscate. Those unfamiliar with a particular subject would not question your answer, but would most likely qoute it; if not bet on it. One betting on how a pool table works, if they got their info from you, would be quickly proved wrong in almost any barroom in the country.
I stand by my “Glaring Errors” assertion. And then some.
“Sensor” to me sounds like it means “sensor.” In my Googling, all the web sites I can find talk about the cue ball as if it has a magnet, and not simply that it’s ferrous.
However, for a few reasons I agree with your explanation instead. First, there’s the problem of picking up paper clips, staples, and washers. Then there’s the issue (not discussed yet) of the difficulty in detecting a moving, rolling magnet. If the magnet were always pointed the same direction, it would be easy to detect, but rolling by at any orientation it would be more difficult.
Then there’s another clue: at the Valley/Dynamo web site, they describe their tables that use the magnetic cue ball as having no moving parts. A sensor/solenoid would be moving parts. It just seems to me that it would be easier and simpler to have a ferrous cue ball, and a powerful honkin’ magnet fixed inside the table to change its course to move it to another chute.
This should be easy to test - find a place with coin-op (or bill-op) tables with 2.25" cue balls. Bring a powerful magnet along with you and test the cue ball. If your magnet is attracted to it evenly all the way around the ball, it’s a ferrous ball so the magnet must be in the table. If the ball is magnetic instead, your magnet will be either attracted or repulsed depending on which side of the cue ball you try.
Unless they use one of those special magnets in the cue ball, with the south pole at the center and the north pole all around it! 
Nah, just get rid of the south pole entirely. It works so much better that way.
As for a no-moving-parts magnetic system, though, I suspect that it’s not so much that the cue ball is deflected by the magnet, as that all the other balls are deflected by gravity. That is to say, have all of the balls rolling down a ramp, and have the ramp tilted slightly to one side, with the magnet on the other. The nonmagnetic object balls would then fall off the side of the ramp, while the cue ball would be held on the ramp by the magnet. The reason I suspect this is that magnetic forces, especially on an object which is not already magnetized, fall off very quickly with distance. To actually deflect the cue ball into a sufficently different path would require that it start off close to a full diameter away from the magnet, and when you’ve got a magnet that strong, you generally don’t allow anyone with a pacemaker in the same room. With the tilted track method I describe, though, the cue ball would be right up against the magnet, for the entire relevant part of the track, so the magnet could be much weaker (though still pretty honkin’ strong).
OK, so you’re going to be combative about this then. Fine.
The only source quoted in my article was this.
The links I put in this thread were not necessarily sources for the article.
If I phone and mail the people who make the balls and who use the tables, and they tell me that magnetic systems work one way, should I just assume that they’re all incorrect or lying? Is there sort of a mass delusion in the industry? I guess there could be. I didn’t go to my local hall and start taking a table apart to see what was in one. As it stands I didn’t even want to crawl under the table to try to look, as it 1) was incredibly filthy and 2) I imagine there was a bottom cover anyhow.
OK, but I understand – you have experience with pool tables, and you have a beef with the article. That’s great – through discussion, example, analysis, and experiment the facts can be shown. Unfortunately, you also are not presenting any evidence to say that the article is wrong, only anecdote that the article is incomplete. This could have been presented much better.
But then, you get personal and nasty here:
That’s a serious fucking allegation you make there. You’re implying plagiarism, and you’d better have some fucking more proof, or at least evidence, than that. Anyone that actually reads my articles and claims to be as familiar with the Straight Dope as you later do knows god damn well that’s not true. The fact that you’re saying it means you’re looking for a fight, and that this isn’t just a noble quest for the truth as you cast it.
Ah, so your “cite” actually backs up my article saying that there is a “sensor”, but you dismiss it offhand as “marketing hype”? What kind of supporting evidence is that? Sensor is marketing hype for magnet? Even in this limited case, cite? The quote may or may not be true, but why is your assertion that sensor == magnet on any sounder basis?
You read way too much into my report as an assertion of absolute, immutable, word of God “facts”. Let’s try reading the original article again.
I didn’t say “all pool tables use these methods”, I didn’t even say “a majority”. That’s certainly implied, yes, I admit that openly, but you’re taking me to task over your claim that I presented this as absolute “fact” when I did nothing of the sort. I presented it as two methods by which they can work. One method you have not yet disputed as being accurate, nor have you admitted is correct either, so I assume since you carefully omitted that point you have a problem with it as well. I’ll be waiting for that thread – don’t disappoint me here. The other method is the one in dispute.
And if you truly had been following the articles posted on the Straight Dope website, you would have known that we don’t write articles based on Google searches or plagiarize them either.
You would also, if you truly “always looked to S.D. for the answers to questions” would have noted that several articles by Cecil himself are corrected and amended as new facts come in, or as mistakes are pointed out. The same goes for Staff Reports as well. Such as a gaffe I made (the Scroll Lock article), where I relied on the firsthand knowledge of idiots without checking facts in detail. I freely admitted I was wrong, and that the article wasn’t good. I still do to this day. And I said at the time that what mattered was the “facts”, not being right. That fact that you are somehow ignorant that Cecil’s Columns, as well as several Staff Reports have been corrected, amended, or changed, is very odd.
You coming on here to allege that I’m purposefully or sloppily Googling articles, coupled with your snide insinuations that I’m not interested in the facts, is therefore very suspicious.
Yes, because everyone knows one missed fact, one assumption wrong, or one disputed sub-point means you can’t believe anything that anyone says anymore. Any omission or mistake, no matter how minor, will bring the entire Straight Dope infrastructure crashing down in flames. Holy dogshit, Cecil’s going to be out of work by tomorrow! And with Christmas so near!
You saw through the clever charade! You’re right, it’s lies, all lies. Don’t ever believe anything you read on here.
And how exactly was your response here “disparaged and disputed”? Well it was “disputed”, because that’s how a discussion over fact goes. And I can’t believe that mere “dispute” has hurt your feelings so, otherwise I doubt you would be disputing items yourself.
Let’s see how I “disparaged” you:
I asked you for some evidence of your assertion, and also admitted a problem with assuming “magnetic” meant “magnet”. I didn’t accuse you of being sloppy, Googling for fun and profit, plagiarizing, and other things. Boy, I ripped into you there. Now let’s see later on:
Here I said I believed you, and also that you made good points. I also wondered about how a magnet would ever work, and passed on another anecdote in response. You call that disparagement, and yet making implications of plagiarism, sloppiness, and Googling for answers for articles is…what now?
Hey, you want to nitpick all the other 25 or so Reports I’ve written, go nuts. I haven’t seen you bring any of them up as being truthful, so I’m guessing you have a dispute with every last one of them. After all, you can’t believe anything on the Straight Dope any more, right?
Somehow, I don’t give a rat’s ass about whether or not some idiot misquotes my article or makes too many assumptions based on my article, or even relies on information which may not be complete or correct in my article to lose a bet. If they say that some tables use oversized balls and some use magnetic sensors, will they be factually right, or factually wrong? They’d be factually right at the places I visited. Or if they say “that table right there absolutely uses this system” then they’re probably wrong anyhow unless they know the brand or inspected the tables personally.
You have not presented a single cite, including the alleged e-mail to and from someone, that there are no pool tables which use a magnetic sensor to divert the ball. Re-read that last sentence carefully. You have not presented a single cite that says magnets are not in the ball. But I agreed with you that having an iron core made more sense and that term “magnetic” was used loosely; you call that “disparagement” while disparaging me in a way that’s not even internally consistent, let alone externally.
You go too far and you’re being a jerk.
And to repeat what I’ve said innumerable times, I don’t care that much whether or not I’m right except in the sense of whether or not I tried to do a good job; I do care that the facts are presented as well as possible within the limits of the article. If the article is wrong, then when shown proof or strong evidence that it is so, I will agree that that is the case. But at this point, given your insinuations and your hand waving about not being able to trust anything again, your attitude is not conducive towards discussion, so maybe someone else can find something and present it in a positive fact-finding manner that doesn’t involve slurring people and making ridiculous grandiose statements.
Um, Una, I suggest backing down, both in tone and in content. He may be wrong, but he starts out with more knowledge and possibly better sources. The fact that he has been, um, shall we say, less than polite about it doesn’t make it ok to respond in kind.
If you’ve got something to say about how you researched the article you wrote, I suggest stepping back and calmly detailing the steps you took in writing it, including listing all the people you contacted and the sources you consulted. If there are issues raised by the OP which suggest re-examining the answer you recieved and then gave in the article, I recommend contacting appropriate authority to see what the “Straight Dope” on the subject is. But don’t get dragged publically down into the Pit because your dander is up at his personality, or his accusations. 
Yeah, you’re right; I have been a jerk, and went way to far. I apologize for that. Not only that, but I didn’t present my case very well, either, as you also point out.
Obviously, I do not write for a living. You do, and if you didn’t do it well, you wouldn’t be here in the first place. I am sorry for jumping to such rash conclusions. The two references you cited in your reply, not the original article, where also the first two articles returned in a Google search of the subject, and I wrongly jumped to the conclusion that this was all the research you had done.
As to believing that if one thing is incorrect, then everything is incorrect, isn’t what I meant. It’s just that if you believe an answer to be innaccurate or poorly researched, then you don’t know if it could happen again, or when.
Again, when you say I got off subject and made it about your research habits, you are correct; I did, and shouldn’t have. Sorry.
As to not citing a single source to back up my claim, you are again correct. The following is a portion of an email, the last part of which I leave out for the sake of space, as it deals entirely with a detailed description of how the new cue ball is manufactured, and also because they request that it not be disclosed.
Dave Courington
Promotions Director
Valley-Dynamo
This e-mail message may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the message and any attachments and notify the sender by return e-mail. You should not retain, distribute, disclose, or use any of the information on this message.
----- Forwarded by Dave Courington/RCH/BIRG on 12/05/2005 05:09 PM -----
Dave Courington/RCH/BIRG
12/05/2005 05:02 PM
To
tkobtutus
cc
Subject
cue balls
Hey maybe this will help some. I have attached a picture of the new Saluc cue ball we currently use, we have called it the PR for its perfect roll. It also separates very nicely as well. You were correct in your description of how coin op tables work. Now let me preface that by saying there are tables out there that have a different systems. Some use optics that kick the white ball out with a solenoid, some use an oversized ball, others use the heavy cue ball as well {you mentioned both of these in our reply}. However since the patten ran out on the system that Valley invented, most every table now uses a magnet to separate the cue balls. I do not believe any cue ball has ever had a magnet in the ball, only metal which a magnet built into the table caught as the ball rolled by.
The ball below is, in my opinion, by far the best cue ever manufactured for magnetic coin op tables. In years past we were forced to use balls that had the cage system that you described, and also a spring looking device both when not placed just right could cause the ball to roll off. Sometimes they did not separate very well either.
He restates the point I was really trying to make in the first place, i.e., that while other systems may exist, they are certainly not common. I’ve honestly never seen or heard of a brand that works as you described. Indeed, I could not find any reference to any such system in any parts catalogs or industry literature, nor had anyone else I spoke to in the amusement businesses I deal with.
One of the most uncommon of systems ever employed, and then put forward as one of the main systems discussed, (the only magnetic system discussed), and even defended when challenged, didn’t seem like a very good answer to me. People will read such things in a response such as yours, and really take it as gospel, whether you think they should or not.
I never meant to cause such anger over such a nonconsequential subject as how a pool table works. Had I stayed strictly on that subject, of course, I wouldn’t have. Sorry.
OK. Let me start here with some non-confrontational background on what I did with this article.
Those few who read my Reports may note that most of them have extensive cites. My deviled eggs one has 14 cites, IIRC. But some don’t have extensive cites. Why not? Because in those cases I rely upon mails, phone calls, direct contacts, etc. Or else personal experience which is relevant and to the point.
For this article, I had no textbooks. I called the libraries near me, and looked on the interlibrary system, and saw nothing that appeared like it would contain the answer. I consulted the encyclopedias at work, including the technical ones, and found nothing. I had my assistant run a patent search and came up with a few items, some of which I posted earlier here. I did not visit the Engineering Library nearby, nor Linda Hall, as I figured that this topic might not be likely to appear in them. I had no journals or magazines available. I know there are magazines in the industry and sport of pool/billiards, however, noplace that I knew of near me kept any in stock nor had an archives. The Community College nearby, which typically has a large magazine archive set on CDs/DVDs, did not have anything.
So at that point, what was I to do? I contacted a two manufacturers of pool tables via phone, who told me how they worked in general. My notes refer to a “magnetic switch” but do not say that the ball itself was “magnetic” - that came from me viewing the balls for sale for magnetic pool tables, and writing a ball manufacturer. I only spoke to two people, I admit, because I did not feel that there was enough difference in their stories to ask a wider sampling. I did Search online - who doesn’t? - to see if I could find things, such as “how things work”, other information sites. Sometimes I search just so I can make sure that an article does not look “too similar” to another. Sometimes I throw away Staff Reports because I think another site has answered the question well enough that there’s no need to do any further work that would just be a repeat.
I also phoned directly three local establishments which had a lot of pool tables, and asked them how they worked. One was “Amini’s Galleria”, the other “Watsons”. I also phoned a large pool hall nearby. At one, I spoke to an alleged “old timer” who claimed to have decades of experience repairing tables. How old and experienced is obviously up for grabs.
I could find no manuals detailing how they worked. I could find no detailed schematics. I found no replacement parts catalogues which listed the parts needed. What can I do at that point, other than take a table apart myself? Buy a couple of them? For a short report on a website that’s not a peer-reviewed research paper? I rely on what people tell me who reputedly know what they’re talking about. Since I screwed up an earlier article, I no longer will take one person’s, or even two person’s word for it. But when enough people seem to walk the walk and talk the talk, and there aren’t really enough concrete ways to proceed, the options are limited for what to choose.
Why state this? Because I want to show what I did to try to come up with what I did. I did try to find resources, I did phone and ask, and I did do some legwork. We try, all of us do. I spent more time digging into this than the question seemed to merit, and evidently it’s possible it was not answered as fully as it should have been.
~
I think we can bury the hatchet and move on looking for the facts.
Now as to your points: I have been doing some of my own looking into this, evidently in parallel with you, and I believe at this time that you (tkobrutus) are and were 100% correct, that it is highly unlikely that any cue ball actually contained a magnet within it. I am not convinced totally about the fact that a magnetic gate assembly is not used, or has not been used, solely because I do remember finding one “disassembly view” in a patent description which used the sensor-gate mechanism that I (and evidently others) talked about. I cannot locate that so I hope it’s not a false memory from looking over too many patent applications, but I do not think it is. I am uncertain, however, if such a system had widespread use, or if it in fact was a niche thing for one line, or if it was ever put into production at all. It could be that the two systems which use magnetism have been coinflated in people’s memories and in documentation, and that is why there is confusion. In the same way that the terms “magnetic” and “magnetism” have been in descriptive text.
In short, your position looks very strong on your behalf for your case. I’m not convinced that there were no tables using the method I said, but that does not mean that you are not more correct than I am. I still would like to see a schematic or exploded view of the system with the large permanent magnet to pull the ball over, but I won’t hold you to that since I’m not providing a schematic of the system I have in mind either.
Is that fair? I believe that so far you are more correct on the subject of the magnetic separation, but I am not ready to give up yet and say that the sensor/gate tables were not used at one time