Ok, I found Jason's earlier reply about the NPT. Here it is as it may have dropped off some people's preferences.
________________________________________________________________
Hi John,
The NPT was a completely unique monster, and unlike anything that we released prior or since. At that point in time, the idea was that particle balls would give you a more consistant roll, yet still carry like reactives. We felt that we could do this with a liquid additive we found overseas, hence the term NPT (non particle technology).
The reaction we received to this ball varied greatly from bowler to bowler, and quickly became a love/hate bowling ball. Those that desired control, and could be consistant with their release and speed loved this ball, while others who were used to just cranking it up and hoping the ball would make up for their mistakes hated it. It didn't have the backend of a reactive, and didn't handle quite as much oil as alot of the particle balls, so I think it confused as many bowlers as it helped. However, I think we got what we were looking for at the time; a control ball that carried like reactives.
Your information on the materials used in equipment is a little bit off. Most if not all polyurethane balls on the market use a 2 part system containing a polyether polyol and an isocyanate. These two compounds react together to form a new chain called a polyurethane (no catalyst is needed, as the reaction is self sustained until completion).
Additives can be anything that range from fillers to liquid compounds that may or may not be involved in the reaction process at all. In the case of the NPT, it was a specialized chain extender from overseas that created the difference in reaction. It allowed the material to maintain a shore D hardness above the legal limit, yet made the bonds more flexible than your typical reactive urethanes (you probably noticed that when sanding the ball, it filled up your sandpaper quicker than normal)
Polyester balls are completely different and use a catalyst, typically an organic peroxide, to start a free radical mechanism in which the polyester chains use a monomer to crosslink themselves. There are no urethane components, and adding a isocyanate would do nothing to a polyester resin (unless it contained an active hydroxyl group, in which case it would make something completely different).
I think your confusion comes in with the fact that there are chemical compositions called polyester polyols, which can be combined with an isocyanate to create polyurethane compounds. However, these typically do not have desirable characteristics for bowling balls (atleast not in anything I've ever tested).
The "oil absorbing cells" are nothing more than microscopic pores. It is true that reactive bowling balls are urethanes, but they contain special plasticizers that allow for the use of polyols that otherwise could not be used to create bowling balls. This is partially what causes reactive bowling balls to be more brittle than the older urethanes and what helps create these pores. As chemists, we are currently pushing the limits of urethane compatibility, and some "reactive urethanes" are stronger than others.
To answer your question, I would say that in bowling terms the NPT is not your typical urethane, reactive, or particle, but instead something completely unique. We tried it on that ball and it only received a luke warm reception, so we canned the coverstock.
Hope this helps explain a little,
Jason Wonders
Visionary Bowling Products
--------------------
________________________________________
I am the SGT Schultz of bowling.
"I know nothing! I see nothing! NOTHING!"
_________________________________________
Before you ask - Please check this:
BR FAQ
