win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Phase II motion study  (Read 5285 times)

Moon57

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Phase II motion study
« on: December 05, 2008, 09:33:40 PM »
Has anybody looked over the Phase II Motion Study on bowl.com? Some interesting results about what affects a balls motion the most. Maybe static weights do matter a little.
--------------------
Moon
--------------------
So many questions, so little time but I''m having fun.

 

jensm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Phase II motion study
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2008, 07:36:40 AM »
By all means. Just telling it the way I see it.

Btw, purduepaul. Will the manufacturers themselves set up the same testing equipment as the USBC will use for the new ball specs?

And, will the USBC disclose data from the new tests other than to say if a ball is approved or not? I'm thinking of differences between different balls and differences between different batches of the same ball.

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

jensm
Regards,

jensm

SKIDSNAP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
Re: Phase II motion study
« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2008, 08:11:06 AM »
I attended a couple of Paul and Neil's seminars at Bowl Expo this year.  They are proceeding with work that has never been done before in this industry. (and so far the results are well worth the time and expense)

One of the issues that they kept on stressing is that they are trying very very hard to protect the integrity of the results.  They only let the manufacturers see the specific data for that conpamies balls and not everyone elses. They are also keeping the exact ball to ball data away from us which I think is a good thing because the data truly belongs to the manufacturers.  If the manufacturer chooses to make the data public that is their own issue.

Keep on hitting it hard Paul!!!!!

jensm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Phase II motion study
« Reply #18 on: December 08, 2008, 08:32:25 AM »
I agree that the test data rightly belongs to the manufaturer. That's why I would want to set up my own testing equipment if I was running a ball company.

In theory, I imagine that BTM or BJI also could set up their own testing equipment and test new balls according to the new spec. To supplement their ball reviews. But that's probably only in theory. The integrity of the testing environment has to be maintained, or the ball manufacturers would perhaps not be willing to submit new balls for review. Maintaining a profilometer is probably not core business for the trade press.


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

jensm

Edited on 12/8/2008 9:39 AM
Regards,

jensm

purduepaul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
Re: Phase II motion study
« Reply #19 on: December 08, 2008, 08:32:47 AM »
jensm, To answer your question most of the manufacturers have set up profilometers to measure surface roughness the exact same way we do. In fact, in the last two months, I have been to a ball plant to help with their setup and another manufacturer came here to see how we do it.

Unfortunatly, since we charge the manufacturer's to approve their new bowling balls, it is their data and it is up to them if they would like to share it with the general public.  

Hopefully this answers your questions.

Paul
--------------------
"Oops, Looks like we are going to need another timmy."  -Dr Lizard, "Dinosaurs"
"Oops, Looks like we are going to need another timmy."  -Dr Lizard, "Dinosaurs"

jensm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Phase II motion study
« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2008, 03:45:21 AM »
Paul,

Just out of curiousity. What's the going price for the kind of profilometer that you use for ball surface testing at the USBC?

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

jensm
Regards,

jensm

purduepaul

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 474
Re: Phase II motion study
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2008, 07:14:55 AM »
About $2000 USD.
--------------------
"Oops, Looks like we are going to need another timmy."  -Dr Lizard, "Dinosaurs"
"Oops, Looks like we are going to need another timmy."  -Dr Lizard, "Dinosaurs"

jensm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 644
Re: Phase II motion study
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2008, 08:56:15 AM »
Thanks Paul!

There must be several other ways to use a profilometer in the service of bowling. Before-after resurface. NIB Ra and RS measurements. That's two.


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

jensm
Regards,

jensm

Nickonaut

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
Re: Phase II motion study
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2008, 10:49:41 AM »
As I was reading the posts in this section I couldn't help but to write in and offer support for the Ball Motion Study.  The ball motion study has produced valuable results to not only bowlers who take the time to understand and ask questions but also to the entire industry.  The results of the study show true analysis of scientific data and help sort through what really matters in the controlling factors of ball motion.  In a sense, the everyday bowler can use this information when looking for new products and sorting through the many marketing campaigns from several ball companies.  From an industry standpoint this research allows USBC to direct detailed attention to certain areas that could influence factors in ball motion and help provide a balance between player skill and technology.
--------------------
Nick Siefers
900 Global
Senior Design Engineer
Nicks@900global.com
Nick Siefers
Director of Operations/Chemical Engineer
900 Global
San Antonio, Texas