What is the better option for non polished equipment? Are there other options?

Clean and Dull is better if you want to clean the ball deeply and if you don't want to change the surface.

Reacta Skuff is probably suitable if you also need to change the surface to whatever grit level Storm says this will do. It is an abrasive. I don't see the grit level on Buddies web site nor on Storm's web site

A user over on bowlingchat did a test with a laser scanner.

When used on a ball sanded at 4000 grit, Reacta Skuff changed the surface to 3500, 10 ra

Quote from: charlest on March 30, 2016, 07:02:53 PM

Clean and Dull is better if you want to clean the ball deeply and if you don't want to change the surface.

Reacta Skuff is probably suitable if you also need to change the surface to whatever grit level Storm says this will do. It is an abrasive. I don't see the grit level on Buddies web site nor on Storm's web site

A user over on bowlingchat did a test with a laser scanner.

When used on a ball sanded at 4000 grit, Reacta Skuff changed the surface to 3500, 10 ra

Did he say what happened when it was applied to a ball at 1000 grit or 2000 grit?

Did he say what happened when it was applied to a ball at 1000 grit or 2000 grit?

this is all he posted of what he tried, he said he was going to do more but I never saw anymore posted by him on it.
(note this is from 2013, oh & notice that lmb cleaner result)

preliminary test results on a solid, pearl and particle reactive cover. all sanded with a new 4000 pad. i am using a PAI laser scanner for testing:

hook it 4300 grit, 4 ra

renew it 3500, 9 ra

lmb cleaner 3000, 11 ra

clean n dull 3700, 8 ra

storm reacta clean 5000, 2.5 ra

storm reacta scuff 3500, 10 ra

liquid sandpaper 2200, 21 ra

i tac 3700, 7.5 ra

all balls were wiped after use with a clean damp cloth, then dried with another clean cloth


all testing was done by hand. a spinner would result in much higher grit readings

Quote from: charlest on March 30, 2016, 08:40:38 PM

Did he say what happened when it was applied to a ball at 1000 grit or 2000 grit?

this is all he posted of what he tried, he said he was going to do more but I never saw anymore posted by him on it.
(note this is from 2013, oh & notice that lmb cleaner result)

Quote

preliminary test results on a solid, pearl and particle reactive cover. all sanded with a new 4000 pad. i am using a PAI laser scanner for testing:

hook it 4300 grit, 4 ra

renew it 3500, 9 ra

lmb cleaner 3000, 11 ra

clean n dull 3700, 8 ra

storm reacta clean 5000, 2.5 ra

storm reacta scuff 3500, 10 ra

liquid sandpaper 2200, 21 ra

i tac 3700, 7.5 ra

all balls were wiped after use with a clean damp cloth, then dried with another clean cloth


all testing was done by hand. a spinner would result in much higher grit readings

I did notice the LMB results.
And now I remember this post. I think the LMB results were what made me ignore his post because I did not believe his results to be valid. I do not believe the LMB cleaner would have changed the surface of the ball. Based on the age of the post, I believe it was the old LMB cleaner; still I believe that neither the old one nor the new Extreme, approved by the USBC, did and does not change the surface of the ball. If it did, then the USBC would never have approved it for use DURING bowling.

To my mind that calls into doubt his entire testing regimen.

I do not believe the LMB cleaner would have changed the surface of the ball. Based on the age of the post, I believe it was the old LMB cleaner.......

To my mind that calls into doubt his entire testing regimen.

Yes, It would have been helpful to know the exact testing regimen.

Like if the balls were scanned after sanding with the 4000 before the testing of the product, what type of surface change did the applicator by itself make etc. (I know what I would do anyway to test)

As for the LMB cleaner after thinking about it, There could be away to get that reading. this could apply to all cleaners also

1-If the ball wasn't scanned just before the test, it could have been a little courser than 4k to begin with.

2-If after sanding with the 4000, if there were any sanding leavings/residue left still down in the "valleys" and then the ball was scanned, the ball could show smoother than it actually was and then when the lmb cleaner was used.

The valleys got "cleaned out" and when scanned again, they'd show deeper thus a courser grit. The cleaner didn't actually change the ball, it just cleaned the residue out that skewed the reading.

With the exception of the liquid sand paper reading, to me personally those changes are not that different (4000 +/- about 1-2 µ) and in a real world situation that little of a difference would be unnoticeable to virtually everyone.


storm reacta clean   5000,   2.5   ra (this one is suspect also)

hook it   4300   4   ra
i tac   3700,   7.5   ra
clean n dull   3700,   8   ra
renew it   3500,   9   ra
storm reacta scuff   3500,   10   ra
lmb cleaner   3000,   11   ra
liquid sandpaper   2200,   21   ra

I have the Motiv gel scuff already and I'm guessing it is very similar to the Storm reacta skuff? Sounds like the clean n dull might be what I'm looking for since I don't need an abrasive cleaner. 

So, now, I wonder if I/we should take that value, 3500 grit, for Reacta SKuff, my original query, at face value?

We don't have to take it at face valve, the main thing it shows is that Reacta Skuff changes the surface by only a minor amount. (and if you watch the Reacta Skuff video, you can barely see the change on the ball

And as you said above, unless the bowler wants or needs to have his ball surface changed, he/she should use a good, abrasive-free cleaner.

And if they do want to change surface, there better ways than using reacta skuff

I'm sorry we seem to have stolen the original poster's thread. Apologies.

We have, it happens the train of thought can take many routes to the station.