win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15

Author Topic: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***  (Read 32814 times)

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« on: April 18, 2007, 12:10:11 PM »
The CGNOMADDAH video is up and running on www.brunsnick.com

Enjoy.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Logged
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

 

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #121 on: April 21, 2007, 09:25:12 AM »
quote:
Than why, Steven, afterwards, when the balls had been given enough time to be set up next to each other and have a picture taken did they have identical oil rings? Hmmm....interesting.....


Earlier, Ric explained earlier that the rings were actually identical, but that the first ring(s) on the positive ball had already evaporated.

I went back at stared at the pictures for evidence of an evaporated ring. There is no way anyone can conclude from those pictures that evaporation took place, especially considering how heavy the oil was. Who knows, maybe Ric was there and witnessed the disappearance. Because if the flare rings fit, you must acquit.

I think what I've gotten out of this 6 pages of misery is that Ric/Nic admit that the tests are not close to 100% perfect, and that there are variables they will never be able to control. Their point was to show 'sufficient' evidence of what they already believed -- not conclusive proof that will hold up to scrutiny and change minds. Although if viewers choose not to dig a little deeper, they're happy to let them think these efforts actually amount to a closed case.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Edited on 4/21/2007 9:57 AM
Logged

laufaye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1602
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #122 on: April 21, 2007, 09:33:23 AM »
X Guy,

You believe in or atleast thats what you have seen from your years of experience, static pos/neg has noticiable difference downlane especially when the lane broke down, then why you think the effect of static pos/neg will have less effect on MB ball?  Because MB ball has a mark?  

A drilled ball with or without MB marked on a ball still have a MB, just that the MB diff. is high or low.  High MB diff ball after drilled the MB stays in position, Low MB diff ball, mostly symmetrical, after drilled the MB moves, especially with a x-hole.

If you think static pos/neg has an efect, then it should efect the same on a MB ball.

Lane1bowler, if you think thats the law of physic, it should apply on both type of balls.

Just to clarify, I believe in physic, but the physic you guys talking about are not conclusive, simply we don;t have enough knowledge to take a scientific stand point, however Brunsnick tested it, just that he cannot use a scientific way to explain that, on the contrary, people not holding a PhD in physic just throwing out LAW of physics at him.
--------------------
Laufaye

Edited on 4/21/2007 9:38 AM
Logged

laufaye

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1602
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #123 on: April 21, 2007, 09:45:09 AM »
quote:
Laufeye your assumptions are inaccurate and if you have taken time to actually look at this issue before or research some of it, especially with MB, especially regarding theoretical mass bias' on symmetrical balls I might give you the satisfaction of answering you. But as it stands now, there is no point. I'm sorry dynamic imbalance of an object in motion and the changes it causes on that rotation are physical law.
--------------------
Rev it! Hook it! Rip it! Pipe it! Stroke it! Be a player of the game
"Small Animal Specialist" Petco, lol


I follow this argument from the very beginning, maybe I skipped some of the posts, as far as MB, I did some research on it.  If you want to talk about it start another post.  But post a respond saying I am not accurate and not to address to it?
--------------------
Laufaye
Logged

RevZiLLa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 611
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #124 on: April 21, 2007, 10:40:59 AM »
quote:
Please continue arguing amongst yourselves.
--------------------
Ric Hamlin
Pacific Northwest Product Specialist
Brunswick Bowling


AKA "Rico" and L.I.M.O.M.


Hey, we can do that!
--------------------
ZiLLa=======================
Logged

Steven

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7680
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #125 on: April 21, 2007, 11:13:03 AM »
quote:
To finish my responses on this never ending matter, Steven please DO NOT merely dismiss my beliefs as insufficient or incorrect. There are many intelligent individuals in this industry, especially the 2 that head up our R and D dept and both of them have degrees in Physics.


Ric: As I've said before, I respect your bowling credentials. And I know there are a lot of smart R&D people at Brunswick. But there are a lot of smart (and credentialed) people on the other side who believe different. For instance, there is research from Dr. Howard on the Lane#1 site that concludes that the shape of a core matters, and that Lane#1's diamond provides advantages. Add to that Lane#1's position that CG does matter, then who do you believe? The point is that you are never going to settle this by counting who has most degrees mounted on the wall.

That's probably why all the emphasis on videos. After all, seeing is believing. Without rehashing everything, I've pointed out 2 areas that are inconclusive to anyone willing to admit it. Yes, you and Nic gave possible explanations, but not conclusive by any stretch. Overall, the efforts were nice and they provided enough evidence for the CGNOMADDAH crowd to get a rise, but that was about it.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

Edited on 4/21/2007 11:12 AM
Logged

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #126 on: April 21, 2007, 11:28:13 AM »
Lane1Bowler,

To clarify a few things in your post since you obviously didn't take the time to read any of mine:

1) I wasn't bowling on a high volume shot, this shot was no different than any other shot I've filmed videos on. My next video will show a 15 year old ball peeling off the breakpoint, which was filmed right after the CGNOMADDAH testing.

2) The layout I used is not "weak" for me. My PAP is 4 1/4 x 1/2 up, which makes the Pin to PAP 4 1/2. If you took account of the flare separation, this layout was no dog. Typical C300 cover maybe, but the layout was not weak.
--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Logged
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

T-GOD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2141
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #127 on: April 21, 2007, 11:29:37 AM »
quote:
And T-God No I do not agree that in regards to older 3-piece bowling balls static weights and CG mattered. But that is another discussion.
Did they ever matter..?

Why don't you or Brunswick get a petition going to the USBC stating that static weights don't matter. Therefore, they should get get rid of the 1oz. side, finger and 3oz. top static weight rules and allow whatever statics we want to use..?

That would sure make things much easier in the ball manufacturing and ball drilling industry, wouldn't it..? =:^D
Logged

GTX

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #128 on: April 21, 2007, 11:29:58 AM »
just few questions .. I am not really asking for answers .. more like the way I look at this issue :

- why both vidoes hide which ball is thrown ?  why not label each ball so the viewer can know which ball is which and do a second clip ??

- why BigB used a "test" ball that only exists in their lab ?  why not use a ball that they sell and anyone can buy ?

- why both videos shows oily condition ?  why not use meduim and dry condition ?

- why neither video used a heavy oil ball with sanded surface ?

as some have said already ... these videos are really far away from making a general statement.

and I am really surprised that someone like BigB wants to use this few seconds video to proof their idea .. and they know to proof any theory you have to cover all different possibilities regarding ball type and lane condition
--------------------
Member of F.O.S.
Logged

BrunsNick

  • Brunswick Rep
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7306
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #129 on: April 21, 2007, 11:39:35 AM »
Wow, T-GOD with a good idea. Somebody pinch me...


--------------------
Nick Smith ... A.K.A. Les Badderâ„¢
Brunswick -=- PBA 03-07
http://www.BrunsNick.com
http://www.BigBapparel.com
¡Viva la nación de Brunswick!
Logged
Nick Smith
Digital Media Manager - Brunswick Bowling
http://www.brunswickbowling.com
http://www.youtube.com/c/brunsnick

MegaMav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3409
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #130 on: April 21, 2007, 11:51:39 AM »
quote:
Wow, T-GOD with a good idea. Somebody pinch me...


I was going to say the same, you just beat me to it.

quote:
Why don't you or Brunswick get a petition going to the USBC stating that static weights don't matter.


I'd be all for that amendment, and I've been thinking that for years now.
Logged

jgreenwd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #131 on: April 21, 2007, 11:55:22 AM »
quote:
just few questions .. I am not really asking for answers .. more like the way I look at this issue :

- why both vidoes hide which ball is thrown ?  why not label each ball so the viewer can know which ball is which and do a second clip ??

- why BigB used a "test" ball that only exists in their lab ?  why not use a ball that they sell and anyone can buy ?

- why both videos shows oily condition ?  why not use meduim and dry condition ?

- why neither video used a heavy oil ball with sanded surface ?

as some have said already ... these videos are really far away from making a general statement.

and I am really surprised that someone like BigB wants to use this few seconds video to proof their idea .. and they know to proof any theory you have to cover all different possibilities regarding ball type and lane condition

1. I don't believe either video hid the ball. Nick rather prominently displayed which ball he was using. The Brunswick video appeared to be using an Absolute that was pulled before the engraving was done. (I guess, why spend money engraving a ball that you won't be able to sell.)

2. See above.

3. I think they were both thrown on a THS. This style of shot and its variations seem to be the most commonly used. Why go with something uncommon?

4. I think pearl reactives are widely regarded as handling the THS better than sanded solids, since the idea is to get the ball to react to the dry on the outside.

5. I'm pretty sure that the limited selection of shots that we saw were FAR from being the entirety of the testing process.

Not referencing the above so much, but I'm astounded at the number of people in this thread that have PASSIONATE opinions about this that continue to attempt to participate in this thread without actually.... reading the thread. That's kinda funny, but not very conducive to a productive dialogue.
Logged

jgreenwd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #132 on: April 21, 2007, 12:27:26 PM »
Oops. I just went back to watch the video. It wasn't an Absolute. It was likely some variation of the Command Zone Arc core with PK18 cover. At any rate, it's a cover/core-shape combination that is/was readily obtainable, in some form or another.
Logged

GTX

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #133 on: April 21, 2007, 12:45:05 PM »
quote:
4. I think pearl reactives are widely regarded as handling the THS better than sanded solids, since the idea is to get the ball to react to the dry on the outside.


when you want to proof a theory .. you can't be selective .. that reply by itself weaken the theory to the point it will be ignored.  you can't just choose the conditions that suits your need and ignore others .. you have to cover all conditions, styles .. etc  

this is like throwing any ball for 1 frame only and then start talking how bad this ball is and how bad its company is ..
--------------------
Member of F.O.S.
Logged

jgreenwd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 42
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #134 on: April 21, 2007, 01:28:04 PM »
quote:
quote:
4. I think pearl reactives are widely regarded as handling the THS better than sanded solids, since the idea is to get the ball to react to the dry on the outside.


when you want to proof a theory .. you can't be selective .. that reply by itself weaken the theory to the point it will be ignored.  you can't just choose the conditions that suits your need and ignore others .. you have to cover all conditions, styles .. etc  

this is like throwing any ball for 1 frame only and then start talking how bad this ball is and how bad its company is ..

You honestly think it weakens the argument that much? Granted, displaying a large cross-section of the balls produced on multiple conditions would be the best approach. You're absolutely correct there. However, there's significant time and money involved. If one were going to produce a 6 minute video that describes the issue, provides examples, and discusses theory and methodology behind the argument, it would not be unheard of to stick with one condition or ball. This would hold doubly true if you had already done the experiment on a large scale and simply wanted to depict your results in a shortened time frame.

I think maybe a lot of folks assumed that what we saw in the video was the only bit of testing Brunswick ever did on the issue. Considering the date of the video's production and the fact that they've been teaching this methodology since 1991, we can infer otherwise.
Logged

GTX

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
Re: CG NOMADDAH ***VIDEO***
« Reply #135 on: April 21, 2007, 04:37:58 PM »
I am not arguing the theory itself .. CG does or doesn't matter

I am only arguing the method that is being used to show their proof.  

if it takes time and money to do it, then so be it .. no pain no gain

otherwise Universities will award students Ph.D. degrees within 1 month of their enrollment .. have a theory, one example, now you can generalize it .. Ph.D.  
--------------------
Member of F.O.S.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11 ... 15
« previous next »