Author Topic: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE (Read 10727 times)

BrunsNick · « **on:** October 19, 2006, 10:23:34 AM »

www.brunsnick.com/xholedemo.jpg

Coming soon!

edit: www.brunsnick.com/cgdemo1.jpg

www.brunsnick.com

All finished!

Also, check out the FAQ for a new Exactacation How-To.

--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-06
http://www.BrunsNick.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

Edited on 10/22/2006 7:27 PM

Edited on 10/23/2006 2:18 PM

BrunsNick · « **Reply #46 on:** October 25, 2006, 02:29:32 AM »

Don't hate.

--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-06
http://www.BrunsNick.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

T-GOD · « **Reply #47 on:** October 25, 2006, 10:31:40 PM »

quote:
Just for reference, here are your ending static weights.

Flare Increasing X-Hole
2 1/2oz Negative Side
1/2oz Thumb

Flare Decreasing X-Hole
1 3/4oz Negative Side
1oz Thumb

X-Hole Down VAL
2 1/2oz Negative Side
0 Thumb

X-Hole Up VAL
2 1/8oz Negative Side
5/8oz Thumb

You know nothing about statics and what they can do, because you don't even include TOP WEIGHT..!! NOt only that, the X-Hole up will end with more thumb weight than a flare decreasing hole. So your ending statics aren't what you say they are, JFYI.

All Brunswick is doing is GENERALIZING...with thier hole placement statements, and that's fine and dandy. But what really is happening is this...

Flare reducing hole (takes away top weight), flare increasing hole (adds top weight) ect... Every time you place a hole in the ball, the ending center of gravity(heavy spot) changes.

This is THE MAIN REASON why the ball reacts differently when a hole is placed in the ball. You can believe all the Brunswick BS you want, but this is what's really happening..!!

If you don't care to learn anything, then that's fine. But if you'r going to keep your eyes and ears closed to learing, then keep your mouth closed too..!!

BTW Nick, it's still a great video. =:^D

Edited on 10/25/2006 10:33 PM

fins4ever88 · « **Reply #48 on:** October 25, 2006, 10:36:56 PM »

quote:
quote:
Just for reference, here are your ending static weights.

Flare Increasing X-Hole
2 1/2oz Negative Side
1/2oz Thumb

Flare Decreasing X-Hole
1 3/4oz Negative Side
1oz Thumb

X-Hole Down VAL
2 1/2oz Negative Side
0 Thumb

X-Hole Up VAL
2 1/8oz Negative Side
5/8oz Thumb
You know nothing about statics and what they can do, because you don't even include TOP WEIGHT..!! NOt only that, the X-Hole up will end with more thumb weight than a flare decreasing hole. So your ending statics aren't what you say they are, JFYI.

All Brunswick is doing is GENERALIZING...with thier hole placement statements, and that's fine and dandy. But what really is happening is this...

Flare reducing hole (takes away top weight), flare increasing hole (adds top weight) ect... Every time you place a hole in the ball, the ending center of gravity(heavy spot) changes.

This is THE MAIN REASON why the ball reacts differently when a hole is placed in the ball. You can believe all the Brunswick BS you want, but this is what's really happening..!!

If you don't care to learn anything, then that's fine. But if you'r going to keep your eyes and ears closed to learing, then keep your mouth shut too..!! =:^D

So you take another ball and do it for yourself to prove him wrong.

BrunsNick · « **Reply #49 on:** October 25, 2006, 10:56:24 PM »

You're silly, and I'll tell you why...

Let's take the FLARE REDUCING & FLARE INCREASING for example. You are saying that I added top weight with the INCREASING and removed it with the DECREASING, which I agree with...

So by your logic (and your logic alone it seems), the DECREASING should hook earlier because it has less top weight, correct? More TW = More Length. And also, there is 1/2 ounce MORE thumb weight in the FLARE DECREASING than the INCREASING... More Thumb = earlier roll and hook.

Odd, because thousands of viewers are seeing the opposite effect on the video.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-06
http://www.BrunsNick.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

T-GOD · « **Reply #50 on:** October 26, 2006, 09:11:28 AM »

Nick, earlier roll = less hook at the end. If you'd listen a little bit, you'd learn a little more and understand this.

You're a good young kid Nick, but there's a little more to learn about statics and how they affect ball reaction than you currently know.

If I were you and/or want to be more knowledgeable, I'd want to learn everything I could..!! Don't ignore the heavy spot of the bowling ball. =:^D

BackToBasics · « **Reply #51 on:** October 26, 2006, 09:17:49 AM »

As usual, T-GOD you completely ignore

quote:
Then why have the countless experiments I've done, including having 2 balls with same pin positions and identical ending static weights but one was achieved with a weighthole react entirely different? Nah, couldn't be the affect of a huge mass displacement.

I guess it makes you feel superior to attempt to belittle those that you think know less than you.

purduepaul · « **Reply #52 on:** October 26, 2006, 10:03:47 AM »

Brunsnick,
Question from Traumatize:
How do you know they are the same weight as what you have taking out of the actual drilled ball there Nicholas??

Answer from Brunsnick:

You know, they probably aren't, but that is besides the point in this demo.

This question is part of the study of the holes, because you did not fill in with the exact weight that you took out of the weight holes, you are changing the moment of inertia of the ball itself which plays on the RG of the ball. So in turn you have changed the dynamics of the bowling ball by taking out all 4 holes.

The way you have done it you have shown trends of weight holes (such as the flare reducing hole, obviously reducing flare). and I thank you for showing us the video and showing "generally" what will happen. However the magnitude of reduction or increase of your holes is not correct due to the weight issue.

I think you have done a great job, but I just don't want someone saying,"If I drill this hole just like he did here, it will reduce my overall hook by three boards"
--------------------
Famous Words said to me:"I may be a magician of carrying but I'm still beating you" "GO TO YOUR HOME WHY DON'T YOU LIKE YOUR HOME"--said towards a solid 8 pin

purduepaul · « **Reply #53 on:** October 26, 2006, 12:15:13 PM »

This is a classic qualitative versus quantitative debate:

Qualitative experiments are done to reach a general conclusion, even though measumrements are taken (in this case the position of the weight holes and affects on the bowtie) only general conclusions can be infered due to a variety of reasons.

Quantitative experiments are done to reach scientific data. Basically somewhat like a system of equations to produce a final answer.

Qualiatative experiments are usually higher in statistical error than quantitative experiments are.

Due to a human throwing the ball which is literally ten or so different variables that can cause error in this experiment. The density differences between the plug and the material taken out of the bowling ball itself. There is a significant amount of error in this experiment. So saying that your bowtie will elevate 2" every time you place the same hole in a bowling ball at the same depth is not correct. There is an inheriant error in that statement. I think the difference may be only a quarter of an inch but still.

The videos significance is to show bowlers how adding the holes can change the reaction of the ball itself generally, not saying if you put this size weight hole here it will change your overall reaction by 2 boards. Use it as a qualitative experiment not a quantitative experiment.

PS Couldn't brunswick do the same experiments using the Finite Element Analysis software used in their Solidworks design package? Using current CAD software you can measure the Moment of Inertia of the entire ball with the simulated holes added to more accuratly model the effect of RG/diff on bowling balls today.
--------------------
Famous Words said to me:"I may be a magician of carrying but I'm still beating you" "GO TO YOUR HOME WHY DON'T YOU LIKE YOUR HOME"--said towards a solid 8 pin

BrunsNick · « **Reply #54 on:** October 26, 2006, 12:58:27 PM »

I thought generalized, error ridden testing would best show the reality of bowling!

--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-06
http://www.BrunsNick.com
Â¡Viva la naciÃ³n de Brunswick!

Jeff Ussery · « **Reply #55 on:** October 26, 2006, 01:02:30 PM »

This discussion has almost become comical. I applaud the original effort, and support it's findings. Nice job again Nick.
--------------------
Jeff Ussery
Powerhouse Training Clinics
www.proshoptraining.com

purduepaul · « **Reply #56 on:** October 26, 2006, 01:02:53 PM »

True, I'm hoping to change that though.

"Say something smart"-Strong Bad
"Science"-Homestar
"Say something smarter"-Strong Bad
"Two......Hundred"-Homestar
--------------------
Famous Words said to me:"I may be a magician of carrying but I'm still beating you" "GO TO YOUR HOME WHY DON'T YOU LIKE YOUR HOME"--said towards a solid 8 pin

T-GOD · « **Reply #57 on:** October 26, 2006, 02:49:02 PM »

Thanks Tony.

BrunsNick/Rich,

To end this debate, maybe we can just agree that weight hole placement and statics both play an equal/important part in ball reaction..? Both are related and/or are a cause and effect of each other. I can live with that.

Nick, as I said before, great video. Keep up the good work. =:^D

Strapper_Squared · « **Reply #58 on:** October 26, 2006, 03:14:09 PM »

Have either of you ever actually held a "real" bowling ball core in your hand? If not, they are heavy... Our shop has a diamond core from a buzzsaw (granted it not the same as what's used in a Wizard)... and I have played around with it quite a bit. I have never actually weighed it, but it must be 5, 6, maybe 7lbs..deceptively heavy. 6lb = 96 oz. So a shift in static weight of 1 oz (or roughly 1% of the total core mass) is going to produce the difference in results? It doesn't seem very reasonable to me...

S^2
--------------------
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

-Was Chris Berman trying to grow a moustache on MNF, or was that pine tar?

Author Topic: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE (Read 10727 times)

BrunsNick

The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

BrunsNick

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

T-GOD

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

fins4ever88

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

BrunsNick

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

T-GOD

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

BackToBasics

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

purduepaul

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

purduepaul

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

BrunsNick

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

Jeff Ussery

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

purduepaul

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

T-GOD

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

Strapper_Squared

Re: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE

Author Topic: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com *it's DONE* (Read 10727 times)

Author Topic: The X-Hole Demo Video for www.BrunsNick.com it's DONE (Read 10727 times)