BallReviews

Equipment Boards => Storm => Topic started by: chitown on February 04, 2009, 03:36:58 AM

Title: Mica?
Post by: chitown on February 04, 2009, 03:36:58 AM: I'm starting to see the word "MICA" being used a lot more. I was under the assumption that most balls had some form of Mica in their coverstocks? If not, did Storm figure out that old technology still seems to work good on today's oil.

The old Faball Hammer 3-D high rev offset violet ball had Mica in the coverstock. It was a great ball. Is Mica considered particle?
Title: Re: Mica?
Post by: Oskuposer on February 04, 2009, 11:40:19 AM: any of these microscopic type particles of different formulas have different properties. Mica creates friction because of the sharper type of particles and less oil absorbing ones.
--------------------
Kiall Hill
Visionary test staff
Title: Re: Mica?
Post by: OddBalls on February 04, 2009, 11:44:07 AM: Mica is the additive use to make a solid into a pearl in the curing process.

I suppose they could use it as a particle additive as well, but there are a lot better choices that are harder..
--------------------
Inverted 1 and Dead Flush are my Evil Twins...
Title: Re: Mica?
Post by: al_g on February 04, 2009, 01:02:32 PM: Kind of dated and a long read but a good one regarding particle technology. They did a good job of explaining how mica and other particles work and what you should do to resurface based on particle type.

http://hsmproducts.com/BTMArticle.aspx

They didn't mention rubber as a particle in this article and I'm not sure why. When I purchased my X-It years ago my pro shop guy said rubber was the particle load in it.

Just like different resins/covers produce different reactions I'd assume different particle types and sizes also affect a balls reaction shape. This could be a reason to use a mica particle instead of using something harder like ceramic or glass? Just a thought.
Title: Re: Mica?
Post by: charlest on February 04, 2009, 01:25:13 PM: Years ago (1998, 2000?) Storm used larger "chunks" of mica to give a couple of balls more traction.

Smaller tiny pieces of mica are used to pearlize some solid resins.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
Title: Re: Mica?
Post by: chitown on February 04, 2009, 07:45:06 PM: Thanks for the info guys. The topic is interesting to me.
Title: Re: Mica?
Post by: tburky on February 04, 2009, 08:32:23 PM: The la nina and x it I believe used rubber beads for the loading.
Title: Re: Mica?
Post by: chitown on February 05, 2009, 07:05:14 AM: quote:
The la nina and x it I believe used rubber beads for the loading.

Were they reactive covers?
Title: Re: Mica?
Post by: al_g on February 05, 2009, 08:06:05 AM: The La Nina and X-It are particle reactives.

I still keep an X-It in my tournament bag 10 years later. IMO at the time it came out it hooked 5-10 boards more than anything else on the market. Compared to today's equipment I'd say it's similar to a Copperhead and Special Agent. So it's still a pretty strong ball.

Edited on 2/5/2009 9:07 AM
Title: Re: Mica?
Post by: dizzyfugu on February 05, 2009, 08:24:29 AM: quote:
quote:
The la nina and x it I believe used rubber beads for the loading.

Were they reactive covers?

AKAIK, yes, reactive base with added rubber particles that work through a larger footprint, not through mechanical traction like ceramic, glass or carbide particles. Pro-Thane was such a family, based on Accu-Tread. Not so much traction in the front part of the lane, but smoother in the midlane and back end than a reactive.
--------------------
DizzyFugu (http://"http://www.putfile.com/dizzyfugu/") - Reporting from Germany

Confused by bowling?
Check out BR.com's vault of wisdom: the unofficial FAQ section (http://"http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5")