high and low throw rubbers

[SchemeSC]

Obviously when people talk about the backspin on the Newgy being unrealistic, they are referring to the combination of spin/forward speed that is produced when you set the robot on top of the table. When you set the robot back about 10-12 feet to normal chopper distance, the ball loses energy and the ball becomes much more realistic. The funny part is that I found an old thread on MyTT where even Pnactwey himself admits this. Hahaha.

Let's be real for a second: if the spin on the Newgy was "unrealistic", none of us here would be able to lift it over the net, regardless of our ratings. Maybe I'll try to take some footage of me rolling against level 25 backspin tomorrow, just to show how little effort it actually takes.

 

[NextLevel]

Hmmm. sweat has been the foundation of my rubber cleaning regimen... Pnchy was on to something there me thinks.

I have a 3 yr old sheet of Aurus, the veryone Carl and NO saw me hit with and I only wipe it on my shirt and shorts, toss it into my bat case and call it a day.

I id use sweat too but the salt is not good for my rubbers so it's purely an emergency thing and I clean the rubbers immediately after the session . My point is how PNut likes to start with the abstract math with little respect for strong factual considerations. The attitude is interesting because it can lead to interesting discussions that fail to address the particular issue (haggisv needs an explanation for why his tacky rubber had issues and you have to guarantee that it wasn't sweat, when the salt in sweat harms rubbers).

Also think that wiping something on your clothes is not the same thing as using sweat to clean it but I digress...

 

[NextLevel]

Obviously when people talk about the backspin on the Newgy being unrealistic, they are referring to the combination of spin/forward speed that is produced when you set the robot on top of the table. When you set the robot back about 10-12 feet to normal chopper distance, the ball loses energy and the ball becomes much more realistic. The funny part is that I found an old thread on MyTT where even Pnactwey himself admits this. Hahaha.

Let's be real for a second: if the spin on the Newgy was "unrealistic", none of us here would be able to lift it over the net, regardless of our ratings. Maybe I'll try to take some footage of me rolling against level 25 backspin tomorrow, just to show how little effort it actually takes.

Please do - PNut is getting a lot of mileage out of this nonsense and it would end that immediately.

 

[Pnachtwey]

Classic PNut - still trying to apply low grade physics to complicated TT problems.

Yes, I am glad you acknowledge that. Low grade physics is for people with low grade understanding. At least I am referencing one of the greats in physics. You seem to be trying to apply mysticism and the the tension and throw fairy.

I remember last year that PNUT was trying to explain to haggisv why he should be able to clean his tacky rubbers with sweat using PNUT logic, even though haggisv had specifically ruined a tacky rubber doing that.

You lie. Find that thread. I have never been a fan of cleaning a rubber with sweat except as a last resort. Don't use sweat to clean rubbers because the acid in sweat will oxidize the rubbers. I use purified water, paddle palace cleaner or paraffin oil to clean rubbers. Paraffin oil seems to work the best for cleaning top sheets.

My company makes electronic devices. When handling brushed aluminum they must use gloves because the sweat from their seemingly dry fingers will still leave finger prints on the brushed aluminum. Sweat is acidic or salty so that what is touched will oxidize.. I suggest that everyone does a websearch on sweat and acid.
For those of you that are to lazy to do the search
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odor

For those too lazy to search
"The main components of human axillary odor are unsaturated or hydroxylated branched fatty acids with E-3M2H (E-3-methyl-2-hexenoic acid) and HMHA (3-hydroxy-3-methyl-hexanoic acid), sulfanylalkanols and particularly 3M3SH (3-methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol), and the odoriferous steroids androstenone (5?-androst-16-en-3-one) and androstenol (5?-androst-16-en-3?-ol).[SUP][4][/SUP] E-3M2H is bound and carried by two apocrine secretion odor-binding proteins, ASOB1 and ASOB2, to the skin surface.[SUP][5]"

Wiping ones hands on the table is gross too.
[/SUP]
BTW, Haggisv is one of the true idiots. I remember looking up his profile when I was a member of OOAK. He claimed to be an engineer. What a disgrace to true engineers. There was a thread about how ball bounce off tables with different floor covers. He made a claim it was my math when I was referencing other formulas to back me up.

I have no idea what HaggisV really doesn't. However, it is very easy to find many articles and posts about what I do in comparison.

Nextlevel, WTFRU? Nobody. You are just a wannabe and you aren't doing so well. You believe in the tension fairy because other people say it exists. You blindly follow what others say. Future employers will find your posts and see that you aren't engineering material.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

You believe in the tension fairy because other people say it exists. You blindly follow what others say. Future employers will find your posts and see that you aren't engineering material.

Sorry. What does this have to do with anything and why do you keep referencing the tension fairy? How is this anything but a lame and false accusation about nothing?

 

[NextLevel]

Sorry. What does this have to do with anything and why do you keep referencing the tension fairy? How is this anything but a lame and false accusation about nothing?

Oh, PNut calls me wannabe because my first degree is in engineering. And he says I believe in the tension fairy because I agree that speed glue effect rubbers like Tenergy should be correctly called high tension rubbers for trying to replicate the speed glue effect, even if they do not curl up like speed glued or tuned rubber, because the effect is what drives the name first and that it is quite likely there is a form of tension involved, even if it is not the same as obviously curled up rubber.

Of course, this is a debate over nebulous arcane causes but it is the kind of thing that Pnatchwey wanks on. I just love to play good TT while Pnut likes to call people stupid. He is just using me to get his jerk offs. I gotta let the old guy beat himself happy you know, even if it is occasionally at my expense - the dark side of the force is sometimes irresistable.

 

[Der_Echte]

As much as it is utterly pointless to argue over the obvious that he isn't gunna be convinced, it IS good to be able to talk about what we believe in and it helps gives us insight and further strengthening just talking about it in this manner.

 

[Liten]

Well, maby this will help?
Engineer-flowchart 101!

 

[Der_Echte]

UH-Oh, getting Haggisv into the mess isn't gunna be a good thing. Another bear trap move.

 

[Baal]

Yes, I am glad you acknowledge that. Low grade physics is for people with low grade understanding. At least I am referencing one of the greats in physics. You seem to be trying to apply mysticism and the the tension and throw fairy.


You lie. Find that thread. I have never been a fan of cleaning a rubber with sweat except as a last resort. Don't use sweat to clean rubbers because the acid in sweat will oxidize the rubbers. I use purified water, paddle palace cleaner or paraffin oil to clean rubbers. Paraffin oil seems to work the best for cleaning top sheets.

My company makes electronic devices. When handling brushed aluminum they must use gloves because the sweat from their seemingly dry fingers will still leave finger prints on the brushed aluminum. Sweat is acidic or salty so that what is touched will oxidize.. I suggest that everyone does a websearch on sweat and acid.
For those of you that are to lazy to do the search
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odor

For those too lazy to search
"The main components of human axillary odor are unsaturated or hydroxylated branched fatty acids with E-3M2H (E-3-methyl-2-hexenoic acid) and HMHA (3-hydroxy-3-methyl-hexanoic acid), sulfanylalkanols and particularly 3M3SH (3-methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol), and the odoriferous steroids androstenone (5?-androst-16-en-3-one) and androstenol (5?-androst-16-en-3?-ol).[SUP][4][/SUP] E-3M2H is bound and carried by two apocrine secretion odor-binding proteins, ASOB1 and ASOB2, to the skin surface.[SUP][5]"

Wiping ones hands on the table is gross too.
[/SUP]
BTW, Haggisv is one of the true idiots. I remember looking up his profile when I was a member of OOAK. He claimed to be an engineer. What a disgrace to true engineers. There was a thread about how ball bounce off tables with different floor covers. He made a claim it was my math when I was referencing other formulas to back me up.

I have no idea what HaggisV really doesn't. However, it is very easy to find many articles and posts about what I do in comparison.

Nextlevel, WTFRU? Nobody. You are just a wannabe and you aren't doing so well. You believe in the tension fairy because other people say it exists. You blindly follow what others say. Future employers will find your posts and see that you aren't engineering material.

It is pretty interesting how knowledge of physics and math does not always lead to knowledge of chemistry (or how to evaluate the human mechanics of a table tennis stroke). Substances that cause oxidation of metals are in the vast majority of cases not going to cause oxidation of rubber and other organic polymers, especially since the acids in sweat (mostly lactate) are very very weak.This is why, for storage tanks, tank trailers and tank cars, natural rubber lining on steel has predominantly been used for hydrochloric acid (HCl) containment. The main components of sweat are sodium ions, potassium ions, chloride ions, calcium ions and magnesium ions. The presence of ions does not necessarily mean that a substance that will come in contact will immediately be oxidized (rubber is nothing like metal, this is CHEM 101). The salts in sweat can produce a deposit on the surface of the rubber that can degrade performance until it is washed off, but they are not going to covalently modify the rubber. If it is left in place, deposits can penetrate inside the pores of the outer sheet and then become much harder to remove, and in this way degrade performance. Sweat also contains traces of urea and lactate. Not all sweat glands produce the same things. There are actually two kinds of histologically distinct sweat glands in mammals, eppine and apocrine (well actually there are three but for our purposes two suffice). In humans, eccrine glands are overhwhelmingly more numerous and the sweat someone would use to try to clean dust off the rubber in the heat of a match comes from eccrine glands (on face, outer surface of arms, etc.). Thermoregulation is primarily by eccrine glands. Apocrine glands are different, in humans they are the dominant glands in axilla (arm pits) and anal-genital areas, and inside the ear (and pretty much nowhere else). The organic components PNathcway mentions (notable because they are the smelly ones) are not going to be present in the sweat people usually put on their paddle (unless they wipe their blade on their a$$ or on their underarm), and even in those more gross secretions are only present in trace quantities that will be chemically irrelevant for rubber. I guess nobody is an expert on everything, even when they think they are. None of this has anything much to do with whether he hits a loop or whether T25 is a good rubber, but somehow it came up and pretty much everything he wrote about sweat and rubber needed to be shot down since there is a clear pattern of calling people idiots.

 

[passifid]

Also how has he not realised you can dampen a force by applying static friction like err break pads in the car. They don't fly around in the opposite direction to the wheel at 70mph they just touch the spinning wheel and it slows. Which interestingly would happen for milliseconds on a euro rubber on the ball? I mean if the only way to break was to have something fly the opposite way around breaks would be a lot more expensive to repair

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

One of the funniest things about this whole farcical presentation is the extreme determination to ignore the actual visual evidence from the video and the information presented again and again that shows why his shots could only be said to have very mild topspin.

Ignoring the video evidence that he has made himself, Punchy the PNut has tried to create a pseudo scientific argument to prove he can't be hitting dead balls and therefore they must have heavy topspin and be loops!

"The tangential speed of my racket matches the speed of the spin so I put the ball back with the same spin that came in."

The racket speed itself looks too slow for this to be the case. But the fact is that, if this was true his shots would have much MUCH more topspin on them and we would all have said it was a good demonstration of physics at work in table tennis.

"My stroke goes from low to high."

IT DOES NOT. If his stroke in the video went from low to high, his backswing would exit the bottom of the video screen but it exits the left side of the screen and re-enters on the left side of the screen and is going mostly horizontal till it contacts the ball at almost the same height as where it entered the screen. But the contact point is almost the point where the racket enters the screen since someone is hiding in the video. The only part of the stroke that goes up more than forward is the part of the follow through after the ball has left the racket. And that seems completely normal for a stroke that is mostly forward.

"How can I be killing the spin if I am not hitting down on the ball?"

Our fearless argumenteur would have us believe that the only way to make the ball dead would be to hit down on it. And he wants us to explain how he could have possibly killed or even dampened the spin if his stroke does not go down.

Well, actually, we don't really need to prove by intellectual argumentation that his shots have very mild topspin. His video proves that without need of our aid. Anyone can see that his shots have VERY LITTLE TOPSPIN.

They certainly don't have even half as much spin as the ball he is hitting.

Here is a formula: incoming ball has lots of spin + outgoing shot has very little spin = the contact caused the ball to have less spin than it had before the contact.

When Punchy made this video, he did not have much trouble making it. He has resisted the requests of many for him to make a video where we can see his stroke! My guess: he is still hiding something. He has also been asked to make a video where he is trying to get the ball from the robot on the table with a contact point below the net so that the ball would need to have the ARC and SPIN of a loop. That also has not happened yet.

I won't hold my breath. But those two videos could actually end the discussion.

All we really have from PNut is a bunch of bold statements that in a different context would be decent information and simply do not fit in with the circumstances and the reality that we all can see in the video.

The incoming ball has lots of spin. The outgoing ball has way less spin. End of story.

I have a friend named Wally Green. He has a shot he likes to call heavy NO SPIN. It is a darn good shot. He can do it facing a loop or a chop. It is a Faux Loop. It looks like a loop. The motion, the action looks just like a loop. The flight of the ball until the bounce even looks like a loop. But the ball is fairly dead. There is very little spin. The reason it has arc is because it is slow. But it doesn't kick after. When someone is not expecting it, it can be pretty effective. A no spin "loop".

A good chopper can make the chop dead, light or heavy all with the same motion. All with a motion that looks like it should create heavy backspin. This can be done with pips but it can also be done with smooth rubbers.

And here is Punchy trying to insist that the only way to hit the ball dead while facing a chop is to swing down on it and he says he is swinging up. Well neither point actually holds much water.

First, he is swinging mostly forward not up or down. And second, how the topsheet contacts the ball is what would make it dead, heavy or somewhere in between.

So Pnachtwey's real job here is still the same. He needs to figure out how, if he is doing what he is doing or instead what he says he is doing, WHERE DID THE SPIN ON HIS SHOTS IN THE VIDEO GO.

That is the real question. Because he is not putting back a ball that has as much spin as what came to him.


Sent from MesozoicEra via TroubleMakerTimeWarp

 

[Kaizoku]

Yes, I am glad you acknowledge that. Low grade physics is for people with low grade understanding. At least I am referencing one of the greats in physics. You seem to be trying to apply mysticism and the the tension and throw fairy.


You lie. Find that thread. I have never been a fan of cleaning a rubber with sweat except as a last resort. Don't use sweat to clean rubbers because the acid in sweat will oxidize the rubbers. I use purified water, paddle palace cleaner or paraffin oil to clean rubbers. Paraffin oil seems to work the best for cleaning top sheets.

My company makes electronic devices. When handling brushed aluminum they must use gloves because the sweat from their seemingly dry fingers will still leave finger prints on the brushed aluminum. Sweat is acidic or salty so that what is touched will oxidize.. I suggest that everyone does a websearch on sweat and acid.
For those of you that are to lazy to do the search
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_odor

For those too lazy to search
"The main components of human axillary odor are unsaturated or hydroxylated branched fatty acids with E-3M2H (E-3-methyl-2-hexenoic acid) and HMHA (3-hydroxy-3-methyl-hexanoic acid), sulfanylalkanols and particularly 3M3SH (3-methyl-3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol), and the odoriferous steroids androstenone (5?-androst-16-en-3-one) and androstenol (5?-androst-16-en-3?-ol).[SUP][4][/SUP] E-3M2H is bound and carried by two apocrine secretion odor-binding proteins, ASOB1 and ASOB2, to the skin surface.[SUP][5]"

Wiping ones hands on the table is gross too.
[/SUP]
BTW, Haggisv is one of the true idiots. I remember looking up his profile when I was a member of OOAK. He claimed to be an engineer. What a disgrace to true engineers. There was a thread about how ball bounce off tables with different floor covers. He made a claim it was my math when I was referencing other formulas to back me up.

I have no idea what HaggisV really doesn't. However, it is very easy to find many articles and posts about what I do in comparison.

Nextlevel, WTFRU? Nobody. You are just a wannabe and you aren't doing so well. You believe in the tension fairy because other people say it exists. You blindly follow what others say. Future employers will find your posts and see that you aren't engineering material.

 

[Pnachtwey]

Ignoring the video evidence that he has made himself, Punchy the PNut has tried to create a pseudo scientific argument to prove he can't be hitting dead balls and therefore they must have heavy topspin and be loops!

That isn't what I said liar.

"The tangential speed of my racket matches the speed of the spin so I put the ball back with the same spin that came in."

The racket speed itself looks too slow for this to be the case.

Did you measure the speed of the stroke?

But the fact is that, if this was true his shots would have much MUCH more topspin on them and we would all have said it was a good demonstration of physics at work in table tennis.

How much more? The ball already is spinning quite fast! If I let the ball fall to the floor it would roll 10 ft behind me then spin back under the table on carpet!

"My stroke goes from low to high."

IT DOES NOT.

it does liar.

"How can I be killing the spin if I am not hitting down on the ball?"

Our fearless argumenteur would have us believe that the only way to make the ball dead would be to hit down on it.

Again you lie. All I need to do is absorb the rotational energy. I dont have to hit down on it.

And he wants us to explain how he could have possibly killed or even dampened the spin if his stroke does not go down.

Yes and you can't.

Well, actually, we don't really need to prove by intellectual argumentation that his shots have very mild topspin. His video proves that without need of our aid. Anyone can see that his shots have VERY LITTLE TOPSPIN.

The camera isn't fast enough to see the spin.

They certainly don't have even half as much spin as the ball he is hitting.

but you can't explain how I reduced the spin without the ball going down into the net.

Here is a formula: incoming ball has lots of spin + outgoing shot has very little spin = the contact caused the ball to have less spin than it had before the contact.

That again, it takes a tangential force to slow the spin down stupid.

When Punchy made this video, he did not have much trouble making it. He has resisted the requests of many for him to make a video where we can see his stroke! My guess: he is still hiding something.

I am hiding nothing. The video serves its purpose. The balls are going back over the net using T25, a so called "low throw" rubber, even though the incoming ball has lots of back spin. Other have claimed this is difficult. I made it even harder by using maximum back spin from the newgy.

He has also been asked to make a video where he is trying to get the ball from the robot on the table with a contact point below the net so that the ball would need to have the ARC and SPIN of a loop. That also has not happened yet.

Why should for you ass holes? The video made my point.

I won't hold my breath. But those two videos could actually end the discussion.

No they wouldn't. You would only see what you want to see.

All we really have from PNut is a bunch of bold statements that in a different context would be decent information and simply do not fit in with the circumstances and the reality that we all can see in the video.

We? You mean you.

The incoming ball has lots of spin. The outgoing ball has way less spin. End of story.

Pea brain still can't answer how I kill or slow the spin without applying a downwards force on the ball that would send the ball into the net.

And here is Punchy trying to insist that the only way to hit the ball dead while facing a chop is to swing down on it and he says he is swinging up. Well neither point actually holds much water.

Again you are showing your ignorance and lack of understanding of Newton's 3 laws of motion. The one that applies here is the 3rd. The ball and paddle will apply equal and opposite forces tangential to the ball if there is a difference in tangential speed of the ball. In other words, one can apply a downwards force on the back spin ball by not matching the spin with an upwards stroke that is too slow. Wrap your pea brain around that one. You haven't seemed to grasp this concept throughout the whole thread.

First, he is swinging mostly forward not up or down. And second, how the topsheet contacts the ball is what would make it dead, heavy or somewhere in between.

And first you lie and then you lie again. If I am flat hitting the ball my swing would need to start much higher. You can see my paddle is starting from below the table. The paddle ends up about where you can see my head when I start the stroke.

So Pnachtwey's real job here is still the same. He needs to figure out how, if he is doing what he is doing or instead what he says he is doing, WHERE DID THE SPIN ON HIS SHOTS IN THE VIDEO GO.

The spin is about the same outgoing as incoming. You must prove otherwise and explain how it can be done without exerting a downwards tangential force on the ball. You haven't. It is clear you can't. It is clear you don't grasp Newton's 3rd law of motion.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Hahahaha. More hot air from the PNut Factory. LOL. I must confess he is too funny.

The only person who can't see that there is very little spin on his shots is PunchandJudy. Hahaha.

You can keep on blowing all the hot air you like but those balls have very little spin. And again, I recommend you just read the posts by Killerspintt.

You should also watch that video of Marcos Freitas while your are at it.

So funny how he is hiding in his video because he doesn't want anyone to see how bad his stroke is.

Very light topspin at best.


Sent from MesozoicEra via TroubleMakerTimeWarp

 

[SchemeSC]

Be quiet, peabrain. Lol.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

That isn't what I said liar.

The man who has said that he used speed 25 and then said he used speed 30 in the video is calling someone else a liar.

Did you measure the speed of the stroke?

I don't need to measure it. You left most of the stroke out and it is still clearly much slower than the racket speed of someone who loops decently. You say the backspin from the Newgy is 30 and you also say it is 25. Probably it is 15 or 20 which is still faster than that slow azzed racket speed.

How much more? The ball already is spinning quite fast! If I let the ball fall to the floor it would roll 10 ft behind me then spin back under the table on carpet!

Hahaha. You are way too funny. Those balls are bouncing lazily around after they pass the table. One or two have slightly more than almost nothing. The rest have the topspin that a recreational player gets with a sandpaper paddle.

Again you lie. All I need to do is absorb the rotational energy. I dont have to hit down on it.

Cool. So you have finally said yourself how you dampen the spin. Which is what has been said over and over.

The camera isn't fast enough to see the spin.

Hahahahaha. Wow. That is as good as it gets. We all can see that your balls have very little spin. What a silly old wind bag you are.

Why don't you say something interesting or even new. Those would be called dead balls by any decent player because they have so little spin the spin isn't worth mentioning. Many would ask to see your rubber after a shot like that to see if it is anti-spin or how dead it is.

but you can't explain how I reduced the spin without the ball going down into the net.

Silly boy! This has been explained over and over. Just go read Killerspintt's posts. But you said already in this post how you did it.

That again, it takes a tangential force to slow the spin down stupid.

You like using words like, stupid, assholes and idiots, don't you. The fool here is the man calling the names. You have successfully taken a ball with decent backspin and turned it into a dead-ball. You may think you should know how. I personally have no care or reason to help you out there. But that doesn't change the obvious fact that the ball comes in decently loaded and goes out quite dead. Feel free to sort out what you already explained and what other people have explained.

The fact is, the ball comes at you heavy and after your racket has worked that magic that comes from your compete lack of touch and feel, the ball goes out dead.

I am hiding nothing.

Except yourself and your stroke in the video. Hahahaha. Every so often your beak appears in the video though and that is pretty funny.

The video serves its purpose. The balls are going back over the net using T25, a so called "low throw" rubber, even though the incoming ball has lots of back spin. Other have claimed this is difficult. I made it even harder by using maximum back spin from the newgy.

Interesting how SchemaSC said he did this and it was quite easy. You also should go back and read Killerspintt's explanation of what you are doing. Anyone could do this. Even someone who is at as low a skill level as you are.

Why should for you ass holes? The video made my point.

Actually, it didn't or we wouldn't all be having so much fun and entertainment at your expense. For such a smart guy in so many ways, it is amazing how thick headed and downright unintelligent you really can be. But man you are keeping everyone entertained.

And first you lie and then you lie again. If I am flat hitting the ball my swing would need to start much higher. You can see my paddle is starting from below the table. The paddle ends up about where you can see my head when I start the stroke.

What I can see is that your racket enters the video from the left side of the screen and moves almost perfectly horizontal until after you make contact and then on the follow through the racket goes up after the ball is off the racket. I can also see your racket is open as it goes forward. And you even said the racket is open.

The spin is about the same outgoing as incoming. You must prove otherwise and explain how it can be done without exerting a downwards tangential force on the ball. You haven't. It is clear you can't. It is clear you don't grasp Newton's 3rd law of motion.

Well, actually, the video proves that the ball has very little spin after you have hit it. You have already said yourself how you did it. Killerspintt said how you did it.

But the proof is in the video. Your shots have no arc. They have no kick when they bounce. And when they hit the net or land on the floor beyond the table they bounce around lazily with very little spin. How did they get so little spin. It must have been Punchy the PNut doing the famous new dance. What was that called: THE SLAPPADELIC!!!!!


Sent from MesozoicEra via TroubleMakerTimeWarp

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Punchy the PNut doing the SLAPPADELIC!

Sent from MesozoicEra via TroubleMakerTimeWarp

 

[Pnachtwey]

The man who has said that he used speed 25 and then said he used speed 30 in the video is calling someone else a liar.

Ass hole, the speed is 30 and the rubber is T25. Get your facts straight.
You still haven't explained how I killed the spin without the ball going into the net.
The balls are going over the net. That is no delusion.
As far as my swing being too slow. My swing took how many frames? You don't know do you? You are just grasping at straws.

 

[UpSideDownCarl]

Ass hole, the speed is 30 and the rubber is T25. Get your facts straight.

Again, here is your quote from MyTT:

"This is a video I made today. I am looping back back spin balls thrown by my Newgy 2050 from about 12 feet behind the table. The Newgy 2050 is set to throw back spins at a speed of 25."

Here is the link:

http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=71221&KW=high+throw&PN=2&title=all-about-tenergy-bty-science-infomercial

That post was made on 4/28/15. Back then you clearly state that you just made the video. You clearly state that the speed was set to 25.

Which is it. You are first quoted as saying 25. Now you insist it is 30. Did you lie and purposely tell everyone it was set lower than it really was? hahahaha.

My money says that if you are lying and inflating 25 to 30 now, you were probably already exaggerating the spin you were willing to set the robot to back then. So, which was it: 20 or 15?

But it is okay, even if it actually was 30, SchemaSC said it was easy with the robot 12 feet back from the table to imitate your stroke and put dead balls back on the table.

It is not a loop. It is only going on the table because your contact point is much higher than the net. Your contact is direct. There is no tangential to your contact. And that is why you hear the snap of the wood and not the sound of the rubber on your contact.

And it is easy to make dead balls off of backspin. I do it all the time. I make flips, dead, under and top and I make them all look pretty much the same.

But all we need is your historical video with your beak hidden except for prime moment's when it accidentally peaks out from hiding.