win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Chemical differences in coverstocks  (Read 1454 times)

jensm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
Chemical differences in coverstocks
« on: March 11, 2004, 01:33:39 PM »
I often let a ball soak in warm water for a while before putting it on the spinner. Some reactive coverstocks let go of lots of oily stuff in the warm water. The Extra Length Reactive coverstock of the Revolution Danny Wiseman Signature Ball is the prime example for me. Then there are coverstocks which don't feel oily at all in the warm water. The Brunswick Activator and the Dyno-Thane Soaker don't feel slippery at all. Does this mean that the Extra Length Reactive coverstock is high-maintenance and the Activator and the Soaker are low-maintenance?

--------------------
Regards,

jensm
Logged
Regards,

jensm

 

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Chemical differences in coverstocks
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2004, 07:35:31 AM »
Don't forget that the Activator and the Soaker have additives that are supposed to both make it last longer and absorb less or dissipate the absorbed oil. These additives may make the actual chemical composition different enough to be reflected in what you have observed.

Also, if you remember the great debates here of a short while ago when Ebonite's Hook Again system came out and when there were articles in BTM magazine about what technical reps from the different manufacturing companies said was the bestmethod for restoring balls that lost performance.

Their research was so different that I figured the chemical composition was different enough that the resins reacted differently to different methods.

And life goes on ...
--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

jensm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Chemical differences in coverstocks
« Reply #2 on: March 12, 2004, 12:37:39 PM »
Yup, life goes on. And there is a lot that I don't need to understand. Still I wonder...


--------------------
Regards,

jensm
Logged
Regards,

jensm

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24526
Re: Chemical differences in coverstocks
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2004, 12:42:51 PM »
quote:
Yup, life goes on. And there is a lot that I don't need to understand. Still I wonder...
--------------------
Regards,
jensm


Didn't mean to imply that I did not wonder. I do ... a LOT, and that is part of the problem: questions that cannot or will not be answered by those who do know.
--------------------
"Just because you can do something does not mean you should do it."
Logged
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

jensm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Chemical differences in coverstocks
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2004, 12:48:32 PM »
No worries, mate! I obsess on causality. At best these are well-kept trade secrets. Worst case is that nobody knows (or cares).

--------------------
Regards,

jensm
Logged
Regards,

jensm
Pages: [1]
« previous next »