win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: particle vs solid reactive  (Read 1194 times)

no300yet

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
particle vs solid reactive
« on: January 09, 2008, 01:47:19 PM »
Is it true that particles balls are "usually" more consistant?

 

DON DRAPER

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5576
Re: particle vs solid reactive
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2008, 09:55:16 PM »
as a particle ball tends to use a little energy as it goes down the lane it's reaction is a little more even arcing----more like what urethane balls used to look like. this is in comparison to the skid/snap reaction that reactive balls can have.

shelley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9655
Re: particle vs solid reactive
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2008, 10:09:10 PM »
I don't know what "more consistent" means, but it's usually true that adding particles to a reactive ball tends to smooth out the reaction.  Given two otherwise-similar balls, one with, say, a PK18 cover and the other with PK18 plus particles, the particle version will be earlier, smoother, handle more oil, and be less susceptible to carrydown.

That's not to say you couldn't have a really angular particle ball (my Yeah Baby, most people would say the old Phenom Unleashed was pretty angular) or a really smooth reactive ball (solid Ogre, Frankie May).  But all other factors being equal, and they rarely are, adding particles smoothes out the reaction.

SH

  • Guest
Re: particle vs solid reactive
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2008, 09:04:43 AM »
Greg and shelley are correct.

Particles create friction earlier on the lane, thus smoothing out the reaction.  Many of today's particle balls have a lower load of particle additive so they can still finish strong, especially pearl-particle balls.


--------------------
Lane Carter, Strike Zone Pro Shops - Salt Lake City, Utah
Brunswick Amateur Staff

dizzyfugu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7606
Re: particle vs solid reactive
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2008, 09:13:43 AM »
...and some assumed pure recatives have a (very) light particle load in the coverstock that the manufacturers do not mention or market - like the original Paradigm, to make the overall reaction more consistent, esp. for polished/pearl balls.
--------------------
DizzyFugu - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section
Xmas special: a handy Java online score calculator

DizzyFugu ~ Reporting from Germany

themachine300

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1410
Re: particle vs solid reactive
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2008, 06:28:38 PM »
I heard the Total Inferno had a light load of particle not mentioned on the drill sheet
--------------------
www.bowlingsolutions.com

Move left, hook it more.....

Tommy Jones is a Gamecock fan...are you???

We shall now refer a 4-bagger as a hambone...Mark it down the revolution has started!
Philipp Hudak
Ebonite Amateur Staff
Bowl To Win!
#TeamEBI

no300yet

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
Re: particle vs solid reactive
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2008, 07:36:17 PM »
Thank you guys! I also "see" a little bit of "particles" in my Blue Vibe......   but not specified.


charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24524
Re: particle vs solid reactive
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2008, 10:16:10 PM »
quote:
Thank you guys! I also "see" a little bit of "particles" in my Blue Vibe......   but not specified.




Those are not tehnically the particles in "particle balls" but are part of the "pearlization" process.  They are usually small bit of mica, very shiny minerals. When they are large as they had been on some older Storm balls, they were used for traction purposes as particles are generally used for. Pearlization particles help make the surface less elastic and allow the ball to get more length.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Unofficial Ballreviews.com FAQ
"None are so blind as those who will not see."