BallReviews
Equipment Boards => 900 Global => Topic started by: Nickonaut on June 05, 2016, 10:02:28 PM
-
All,
Our website contains a link to a pop up .pdf journal article that explains the science and technology behind the Adaptor core featured in our Inception and Truth. Click the link at the bottom of the Inception and Truth web pages. Enjoy!
http://www.900global.com/newglobalshop/?page_id=8440
http://www.900global.com/newglobalshop/?page_id=8461
Thanks
-
Thanks for the info Nick.
With this new design, is there any advantage created for the Adapter/D over the Identity or the Adapter/C over the Tetra?
Or is it just a new shape where with mathematics and science you guys were able to create the same rg and diff values thus becoming a major marketing tool?
-
Wow that's some math and science!
-
Awesome they finally named a ball "Inception." I remember suggesting this name on facebook for a new 900 Global release on a post they had a while back asking for possible name suggestions. Looks like a great ball with new tech, gotta get me one of those when they are released!!
-
Sounds familiar.
How is this idea different than what Ebonite did with the Pursuit and Pursuit S?
-
Sounds familiar.
How is this idea different than what Ebonite did with the Pursuit and Pursuit S?
I believe this was covered in the new releases post.
-
Much bigger difference in the int diff of these compared to the pursuit series.
-
I read the article and don't think that it will make me a better bowler. What exactly is the point???
-
It may be closer to what Track did with the I-Core/I-Core 2.0 and being able to have multiple densities within the same weight block.
-
Sounds familiar.
How is this idea different than what Ebonite did with the Pursuit and Pursuit S?
It is quite different and pretty much the first time this technology has ever happened. When looking at the Pursuit and Pursuit S, both cores were similar in shape, but not the same. Also core numbers were different. The Pursuit had an Int. diff of only .008 which is not enough asymmetry pre-drilled to truly have a mass bias angle change roll. Here are the core numbers for the Pursuit Series: Pursuit: 2.49 RG .054 Diff .008 Int. Diff. Pursuit-S: 2.51 RG .056 Diff .000 Int. Diff. As you can see, core numbers are not the same.
As for 900 Global what Nick and team has done is make the same core shape, same core numbers 2.48 RG .055 diff on both the Inception and Truth. The biggest difference is the Inception has a big int. diff of .024 and the Truth has zero int. diff. So the Inception is truly asymmetric and the Truth is fully symmetric. Same Core Shape, Same Core Numbers. Pretty big step in core technology. Hope this helps.
-
One core mold, multiple uses. The rest is marketing.
-
One core mold, multiple uses. The rest is marketing.
Sort of what I thought. I don't see how any of this will make anyone a better bowler.
-
One core mold, multiple uses. The rest is marketing.
Sort of what I thought. I don't see how any of this will make anyone a better bowler.
No ball makes you a better bowler, practice and experience do.
-
One core mold, multiple uses. The rest is marketing.
Sort of what I thought. I don't see how any of this will make anyone a better bowler.
No ball makes you a better bowler, practice and experience do.
Don't tell people hard truths. That logic will wrap too many minds. Their has to be an easier fix we can buy……
-
Wow that's some math and science!
What I find amusing, is where he talks about "If you make the core more dense" the ball will rev up quicker.
On it's own, that is false.
"The moment of inertia for an object is the ratio of applied torque and the resultant angular acceleration of the object."
That line there is a fundamental truth.
There are a few points he states after that is in conflict with that fundamental truth.
The first day in a physics class, they should make you learn the following quote.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain
-
Density is directly proportional to mass (and inversely proportional to volume). The statement released by Global is pretty accurate if the ratio of mass v. density of the ball decreases the closer you move towards the shell (with respect to its axis of rotation). This determines the core's moment of inertia and ultimately, the core's
Rg range. In my opinion, if I had to choose only one set of numbers (RG, Diff, intermed-diff) in choosing a core design, it would be Rg--hands down. It tells me more about a core's overall dynamics than the other numbers combined (but they too, are important, but not as important as RG).
The physics describing rotational motion and its components is quite complex. As a physics major, this is a subject that in my experience, created the most headaches
for a lot of students. Global, in my opinion, made a great attempt at trying "simplify" the key concepts involved in deriving their new core.
-
Density is directly proportional to mass (and inversely proportional to volume). The statement released by Global is pretty accurate if the ratio of mass v. density of the ball decreases the closer you move towards the shell (with respect to its axis of rotation). This determines the core's moment of inertia and ultimately, the core's
Rg range. In my opinion, if I had to choose only one set of numbers (RG, Diff, intermed-diff) in choosing a core design, it would be Rg--hands down. It tells me more about a core's overall dynamics than the other numbers combined (but they too, are important, but not as important as RG).
The physics describing rotational motion and its components is quite complex. As a physics major, this is a subject that in my experience, created the most headaches
for a lot of students. Global, in my opinion, made a great attempt at trying "simplify" the key concepts involved in deriving their new core.
The problem with the statement, "if you increase the density of the core, the ball revs up quicker" is that you're comparing apples and oranges.
As you increase the density of the core, the moment of inertia increases, and the Radius of Gyration most likely decreases.
Torque = moment of inertia multiplied by angular acceleration.
For a fixed amount of torque, as moment of inertia is increased, angular acceleration is decreased.
A 16 lb ball with a 2.50 RG will require more torque to accelerate the rev rate, than a 15 lb ball with the same 2.50 RG.
The RG value itself is not a factor in how much torque is required to rev up the ball.
What is missing in the statement is that to maintain the same overall mass, as the density of the core is increased, somewhere else farther from the axis must see a decrease in density.
That decrease in density is was lowers the moment of inertia by a larger amount than the increased density raised the moment of inertia, resulting in an increase in angular acceleration for a given torque.
-
In my opinion, if I had to choose only one set of numbers (RG, Diff, intermed-diff) in choosing a core design, it would be Rg--hands down. It tells me more about a core's overall dynamics than the other numbers combined (but they too, are important, but not as important as RG).
Watch out if your talking about the undrilled balls RG, That can cause a big argument! Don't fall into that quagmire.
It happened over on another forum,
Because:
The USBC Ball carry study say's surface and coverstock means more so RG means little to nothing
only the RG of the bowlers pap matters.
we don't roll undrilled balls so the undrilled numbers don't mean anything
when you drill a ball those undrilled numbers change so are meaningless
A Blueprint simulation shows undrilled RG doesn't really matter.
And if you think RG matters then you don't know anything about modern ball motion and that you and 99% of the ball Mfg. Ball reps. PBA players, PSO's don't either and are still using outdated information.
and if you want cutting edge technology see Radical, if they & Mo didn't invent it, they improved it and made it work right. ;)
woops too late
-
In my opinion, if I had to choose only one set of numbers (RG, Diff, intermed-diff) in choosing a core design, it would be Rg--hands down. It tells me more about a core's overall dynamics than the other numbers combined (but they too, are important, but not as important as RG).
Watch out if your talking about the undrilled balls RG, That can cause a big argument! Don't fall into that quagmire.
It happened over on another forum,
Because:
The USBC Ball carry study say's surface and coverstock means more so RG means little to nothing
only the RG of the bowlers pap matters.
we don't roll undrilled balls so the undrilled numbers don't mean anything
when you drill a ball those undrilled numbers change so are meaningless
A Blueprint simulation shows undrilled RG doesn't really matter.
And if you think RG matters then you don't know anything about modern ball motion and that you and 99% of the ball Mfg. Ball reps. PBA players, PSO's don't either and are still using outdated information.
and if you want cutting edge technology see Radical, if they & Mo didn't invent it, they improved it and made it work right. ;)
woops too late
The USBC ball motion study is a joke.
The first paragraph talks about how scoring is threatening the integrity of the sport due to all of the high scores.
Then they turn around and use an oil pattern that is 53' and flat.
That isn't the kind of oil pattern being used to create all of those integrity threatening high scores.
The result of the study was to tell you what balls did on a condition that nobody uses.
Do the study on a THS, and you will find the ball follows a significantly different path, and the of the ball with contribute towards ball motion in different proportions than found in the study.
USBC clearly has no intention of solving the integrity problem, because in doing so, they risk the wrath of the BPAA.
Proprietors want happy bowlers, and the mass of bowlers seem to want easy oil patterns.
USBC should grow a backbone and relegate all bowling on a THS to a recreational division where there is no recognition based on scores.
-
Interesting to see Hammer use a symmetrical core in their high performance ball for a few releases now. Curious how many other brands will follow.
More user friendly, and more driller friendly…… smart thinking.
-
The USBC ball motion study is a joke.
The first paragraph talks about how scoring is threatening the integrity of the sport due to all of the high scores.
Then they turn around and use an oil pattern that is 53' and flat.
That isn't the kind of oil pattern being used to create all of those integrity threatening high scores.
The result of the study was to tell you what balls did on a condition that nobody uses.
Do the study on a THS, and you will find the ball follows a significantly different path, and the of the ball with contribute towards ball motion in different proportions than found in the study.
USBC clearly has no intention of solving the integrity problem, because in doing so, they risk the wrath of the BPAA.
Proprietors want happy bowlers, and the mass of bowlers seem to want easy oil patterns.
USBC should grow a backbone and relegate all bowling on a THS to a recreational division where there is no recognition based on scores.
The ball motion study was conducted with Harry the throwbot. The ease or difficulty of the lane pattern with left to right ratios was totally irrelevant. The throwbot repeated every shot identically, as to have a control factor.
Besides, short lane patterns will help guide a balls path. The objective of the study was to determine what factors most in the bowling balls motion as it pertains to the bowling ball, not an oil patterns effect on ball motion.
-
Interesting to see Hammer use a symmetrical core in their high performance ball for a few releases now. Curious how many other brands will follow.
More user friendly, and more driller friendly…… smart thinking.
I like it. I've always gotten more use out of symmetric cores, however, it's hard to beat an asymmetric when you're locked in. (Not a Storm pun)
-
Interesting to see Hammer use a symmetrical core in their high performance ball for a few releases now. Curious how many other brands will follow.
More user friendly, and more driller friendly…… smart thinking.
I like it. I've always gotten more use out of symmetric cores, however, it's hard to beat an asymmetric when you're locked in. (Not a Storm pun)
I'm having lackluster success with assyms especially newer ones lately.
I'm ok with this movement lol
-
I typically prefer symmetrical equipment on sport patterns and asymmetrical equipment on THS patterns.
-
In my opinion, if I had to choose only one set of numbers (RG, Diff, intermed-diff) in choosing a core design, it would be Rg--hands down. It tells me more about a core's overall dynamics than the other numbers combined (but they too, are important, but not as important as RG).
Watch out if your talking about the undrilled balls RG, That can cause a big argument! Don't fall into that quagmire.
It happened over on another forum,
Because:
The USBC Ball carry study say's surface and coverstock means more so RG means little to nothing
only the RG of the bowlers pap matters.
we don't roll undrilled balls so the undrilled numbers don't mean anything
when you drill a ball those undrilled numbers change so are meaningless
A Blueprint simulation shows undrilled RG doesn't really matter.
And if you think RG matters then you don't know anything about modern ball motion and that you and 99% of the ball Mfg. Ball reps. PBA players, PSO's don't either and are still using outdated information.
and if you want cutting edge technology see Radical, if they & Mo didn't invent it, they improved it and made it work right. ;)
woops too late
The USBC ball motion study is a joke.
The first paragraph talks about how scoring is threatening the integrity of the sport due to all of the high scores.
Then they turn around and use an oil pattern that is 53' and flat.
That isn't the kind of oil pattern being used to create all of those integrity threatening high scores.
The result of the study was to tell you what balls did on a condition that nobody uses.
Do the study on a THS, and you will find the ball follows a significantly different path, and the of the ball with contribute towards ball motion in different proportions than found in the study.
USBC clearly has no intention of solving the integrity problem, because in doing so, they risk the wrath of the BPAA.
Proprietors want happy bowlers, and the mass of bowlers seem to want easy oil patterns.
USBC should grow a backbone and relegate all bowling on a THS to a recreational division where there is no recognition based on scores.
USBC shouldnt relegate bowling on THS where there is no recognition. Most bowlers these days just bowl leagues and use it as a night out. I understand scores are higher but for the majority of league bowlers, they wont see an honor score in their careers so the honor score thing is mute. Even with them limiting 1 honor score per lifetime i guess isnt good enough for some people.
-
Interesting to see Hammer use a symmetrical core in their high performance ball for a few releases now. Curious how many other brands will follow.
More user friendly, and more driller friendly…… smart thinking.
I like it. I've always gotten more use out of symmetric cores, however, it's hard to beat an asymmetric when you're locked in. (Not a Storm pun)
It's hard to beat any ball when you're locked in. The pins don't know the difference…… maybe something to that
-
I've always been a science geek, but all this technology is starting to lose even people like me.
Bowling is supposed to be fun, not a science lesson. Most people actually buying a new ball are going to be getting beginner level plastic, or something very basic like a Cyclone or the new Rhino. 99% of bowlers wont care about all this tech, and less than half of the 1% that that will care will be able to understand what it even means.
At some point, it all starts to sound like "blah blah blah, blahblahblah blah, blah blah", and loses the effect that the manufacturer hoped to have.
900Global may have created something nobody else has, but it may have also created something nobody else cares about either.
Balls became far too powerful over a decade ago. The largest segment of the market, the recreational sector, has very little interest in highly technologically advanced bowling balls, so I wonder what is the big driving force behind the technology that only a small handfull of people who bowl would even care about in the first place.
-
The technology hasn't change. If you accept that the rest gets even easier. The technology behind the scenes is always there, more information is made available in a way to try and win bowlers to their products. Sales gimmick.
All cores must fit in the specs of USBC guidelines. This means no matter the shape the ball core is limited to those guidelines.
Notice how many bowling cores, symmetric and asymmetric, look like look like previous cores that have been recycled for years? It's not magic
-
And if you think RG matters then you don't know anything about modern ball motion and that you and 99% of the ball Mfg. Ball reps. PBA players, PSO's don't either and are still using outdated information.
So how often do you compete on tour, or on conditions beyond THS (that are designed to make most bowling balls seem similar)?
If you competed at some of the highest levels, you would know that ball motion as it pertains to the core, becomes a factor, when bowling on more demanding conditions, and just "adjusting the cover stock" isn't always the answer.
House conditions are designed to give the widest variation of players, releases, and equipment a fair shot at hitting the pocket and striking. Ball science becomes marginalized. When on tour, it becomes MUCH more important.
-
People can believe what they want to believe, it's America, and in this country, you are supposed to have that right. But what people tend to forget, is whether you decide to pay any credence to the ball motion study or not, the cover stock surface grit, and cover stock composition makes up about roughly 70%-75% of ball motion. That still leaves, 25%-30% of factors that will dictate ball motion. That's still a lot, in it's totality. Of those remaining factors, Rg was said to have the highest percentage of the remaining factors. Take it for what you will. the USBC had no dog in the fight, when conducting the ball motion study. They weren't going to win or loose anything. The idea and intent was to purely provide information, and have some basis for why a bowling ball does what it does. People can believe the study or not, it's their prerogative.
It's really simple. Don't you think that a ball company would make a whole lot more money if they just stuck pancake weight blocks in balls with different cover materials??? No need for an R&D department other than to come up with different cover formulas, which could be outsourced easily, no need for the expense of marketing, no need to pay people to sell their product. The ball companies could run at a considerably lower over head rate, and MAKE MORE MONEY. But reality says, just throwing a pancake weight block in a ball, isn't going to strike as much as what these creative cores, that dictate ball motion can.
You can take Storm's NRG cover, and wrap it around a pancake weight block with high Rg and low differential, and it just isn't going to perform the way the Marvel S or Virtual Gravity Nano performs.
-
And if you think RG matters then you don't know anything about modern ball motion and that you and 99% of the ball Mfg. Ball reps. PBA players, PSO's don't either and are still using outdated information.
So how often do you compete on tour, or on conditions beyond THS (that are designed to make most bowling balls seem similar)?
If you competed at some of the highest levels, you would know that ball motion as it pertains to the core, becomes a factor, when bowling on more demanding conditions, and just "adjusting the cover stock" isn't always the answer.
House conditions are designed to give the widest variation of players, releases, and equipment a fair shot at hitting the pocket and striking. Ball science becomes marginalized. When on tour, it becomes MUCH more important.
Just so you know, I didn't say that stuff . That's just what I was told when bringing up talk about a balls RG and was just sharing.
-
AloarJR- I believe you completely missed my point . I stated that when looking a CORE
designs, I place most of my emphasis on RG values. I fully understand that surface composition and (surface) preparation play a huge role in determining ball motion .
I am also aware that the Rg values listed are for undrilled balls. However, an undrilled ball with say, an Rg value of 2.28 will react quite differently than a ball with an undrilled Rg value of 2.58, all other things being the same. The undrilled numbers are quite important. Not considering undrilled Rg values is like saying that there is
no difference between a higher performance car and a "regular" car. It depends on whose foot is on the pedal.
ICDeadmoney- You are correct when you state that if you increase a core's density its moment of inertia (I) increases-- I=mr^2 where m= mass of the imbalance & r= its distance from the center of rotation.
In addition, Rg= the square root of I/M . (M= total mass of the object) , so this shows that increasing a core's density ( mass is the more correct value to use but since mass is directly proportional to density, but it's acceptable to use "density" (D) as long as the object's volume doesn't change -- (D=m/v.) will also increase the Rg value
since increasing the core's mass will also result in an increase in the overall mass of the object in question (in our case a bowling ball).
Now when it comes to "torque" (T= I x angular acceleration), one is now adding
an external variable into the mix. This hidden variable is the amount of "force"(torque)
that a bowler is able to apply with his/her hand, but torque and Rg are independent of one another ( there is no provision for it in the formula for calculating Rg values).
Rg is an important quantity because it gives us the ratio between the core's mass and that of the ball's overall mass. Rg values would be irrelevent if we were just rolling cores down the lane. But we are not just rolling cores down the lane.Torque ---the amount of force that is actually being applied by the bowler, is also irrelevent to Rg values. However, Rg tells us a lot. It tells us how hard (or easy) it will be to rotate a particular bowling ball about its axis.
(actually, it's more complicated than this, since there are different values in physics for Rg, depending on whether you wish to calculate "area RG" , etc. ).
It would have been more accurate to say that by changing the DISTANCE of the core's mass from its axis of rotation, it will affect Rg and moment of inertia values.
However, I felt that their overall synopsis of their new core was darned good. It's obvious that somebody over at Global knows their physics. (by the way, I have never owned a Global product, but I appreciate their attempt to explain in detail,
this new core design).
-
AloarJR- I believe you completely missed my point . I stated that when looking a CORE
designs, I place most of my emphasis on RG values. I fully understand that surface composition and (surface) preparation play a huge role in determining ball motion .
I am also aware that the Rg values listed are for undrilled balls. However, an undrilled ball with say, an Rg value of 2.28 will react quite differently than a ball with an undrilled Rg value of 2.58, all other things being the same. The undrilled numbers are quite important. Not considering undrilled Rg values is like saying that there is
no difference between a higher performance car and a "regular" car. It depends on whose foot is on the pedal.
I didn't miss your point, I understood you, I agree with what you just said here.
I was just warning you that is a hot button topic, on certain forums. And those were examples of what those that will disagree with your view will throw at someone that brings it up.
-
Mr. Bergman,
Assuming what you have stated is based on what you actually know (which I believe it is) I admire your knowledge about the physics involved in bowling ball design.
And I appreciate your acknowledgement of Nick Siefer's work/design article.
I'm just not at your guys level on this subject, and all I want to do is bowl. But, again, hats off to you and Nick.
-
However, an undrilled ball with say, an Rg value of 2.28 will react quite differently than a ball with an undrilled Rg value of 2.58, all other things being the same.
First off, an undrilled ball with say, an Rg value of 2.28 would be considered illegal, so I guess it would perform similar to one of those illegal Motiv balls. i.e. Sit nice and pretty on the shelf.
ICDeadmoney- You are correct when you state that if you increase a core's density its moment of inertia (I) increases-- I=mr^2 where m= mass of the imbalance & r= its distance from the center of rotation.
In addition, Rg= the square root of I/M . (M= total mass of the object) , so this shows that increasing a core's density ( mass is the more correct value to use but since mass is directly proportional to density, but it's acceptable to use "density" (D) as long as the object's volume doesn't change -- (D=m/v.) will also increase the Rg value since increasing the core's mass will also result in an increase in the overall mass of the object in question (in our case a bowling ball).
Increasing the density of the core doesn't increase the Rg value.
Lets use a simple bicycle wheel analogy to make the math very simple.
We design a hub shape that has an RG of 1".
We define a rim shape that has an RG of 10".
When we manufacture the hub, and rim out of aluminum, both pieces have a mass of 1 unit. (not sure how big that unit is in reality, but it will be constant so we don't need to know exactly).
We also manufacture the hub and rim out of gold.. In this case both pieces have a mass of 7 units.
Gold is approximately 7 times as dense as aluminum.
Lets assume we make the spokes out of carbon nano tubes so they represent negligible mass... again to make the math easier to follow.
When we use an aluminum hub, and an aluminum rim the math works as follows.
I = 1u * 1" + 1u * 10"^2 = 101
M = 1u + 1u = 2u
Rg = sqrt(101/2) = 7.11"
When we swap the aluminum hub for the gold hub (i.e. increase the density of the core)
I = 7u * 1" + 1u * 10"^2 = 107
M = 7u + 1u = 8u
Rg = sqrt(107/8) = 3.66"
As you see, the moment of inertia increased, while the Rg decreased.
Because moment of inertia and Rg are not directly proportional, it's bad science to say what Nick wrote in the pdf file.
"Thus, in simple terms, the radius of gyration determines how easy it is for the bowling ball of particular weight to rotate about a given axis"
The part that is missing, is as you increase the density of the core, you need to decrease the density elsewhere to maintain the same overall mass.
If we start with an aluminum hub, and a gold rim.
I = 1u * 1" + 7u * 10"^2 = 701
M = 1u + 7u = 8u
Rg = sqrt(701 / 8) = 9.36"
Increase the hub to gold, while decreasing the rim to aluminum we get:
I = 7u * 1" + 1u * 10"^2 = 107
M = 7u + 1u = 8u
Rg = sqrt(107/8) = 3.66"
In this case we get the expected decrease in moment of inertia as well as decrease in Rg.
One quick thing to note about Rg.
It's about the design of the pieces, not what they are made out of.
It's not until you combine pieces of different density that RG changes to values other than the original design.
Let compare aluminum hub, aluminum rim to gold hub, gold rim.
aluminum
I = 1u * 1" + 1u * 10"^2 = 101
M = 1u + 1u = 2u
Rg = sqrt(101/2) = 7.11"
Gold
I = 7u * 1" + 7u * 10"^2 = 707
M = 7u + 7u = 14u
Rg = sqrt(707/14) = 7.11"
Same Rg, but significantly different moment of inertia.
The overall mass of an object has a lot to do with how easy it will "rev up"
Where torque come in is the friction between the ball and the lane.
In bowling terms, if you want to increase the rate the ball will rev up, you can sand the surface to increase the torque, or select a ball of the same weight with a lower Rg.
If you select a ball with a higher weight but lower Rg, you may end up with a ball that revs up slower.
You can weigh a ball to find it's mass, but not many have an Rg swing to know what the RG is of the PAP.
So you have to get out there and throw the ball for yourself and determine if the results match what you expect when selecting based off the published numbers.
Nick shouldn't say things like increasing the core density makes the ball rev up quicker, decreasing the core density makes the ball rev up slower, and the Rg determines how easily the ball will rev up.
Next thing you know, someone is going to start quoting that bad science as gospel.
-
Lot's of discussion. Glad this article has created some conversation.
I'm not a scientist or a physics major, but I'm fairly certain that a lower RG core will rev up quicker than a high RG core. Think a figure skater spinning. Arms out, spins or revolves slower = high RG. Conversely, arms tucked in spins quicker = low RG. RGs are measure from the center of the core out to the edge. I believe USBC has a video of this on YouTube demonstrating how RGs are measured. From what I understand, this process takes several hours per ball and it is done a few times to get precise measurements. USBC Bowling Academy has another one explaining RGs as well. So the long and the short is yes the RG will determine how easily a ball will rev up. Of course these numbers on the tech sheet are on undrilled equipment and after drilling, the RG and Diff will be different. I hope everyone has a great weekend!
-
Lot's of discussion. Glad this article has created some conversation.
I'm not a scientist or a physics major, but I'm fairly certain that a lower RG core will rev up quicker than a high RG core.
Ok you're not a scientist, or a physics major, then why are you fairly certain? Because someone told you?
Think a figure skater spinning. Arms out, spins or revolves slower = high RG. Conversely, arms tucked in spins quicker = low RG. RGs are measure from the center of the core out to the edge.
No, RGs are measured by taking timings in a device that works like a horizontal pendulum. Based on the how long it takes for the ball to swing one way, then back, the moment of inertia can be calculated. By measuring the weight of the ball, the Rg can also be calculated.
I believe USBC has a video of this on YouTube demonstrating how RGs are measured. From what I understand, this process takes several hours per ball and it is done a few times to get precise measurements. USBC Bowling Academy has another one explaining RGs as well. So the long and the short is yes the RG will determine how easily a ball will rev up.
You've gone from fairly certain to absolutely sure, by watching a USBC video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2wKCSRw3WA), which you clearly didn't understand, because at most it takes 20 minutes to complete all of the repetitions.
-
Lot's of discussion. Glad this article has created some conversation.
I'm not a scientist or a physics major, but I'm fairly certain that a lower RG core will rev up quicker than a high RG core.
Ok you're not a scientist, or a physics major, then why are you fairly certain? Because someone told you?
Think a figure skater spinning. Arms out, spins or revolves slower = high RG. Conversely, arms tucked in spins quicker = low RG. RGs are measure from the center of the core out to the edge.
No, RGs are measured by taking timings in a device that works like a horizontal pendulum. Based on the how long it takes for the ball to swing one way, then back, the moment of inertia can be calculated. By measuring the weight of the ball, the Rg can also be calculated.
I believe USBC has a video of this on YouTube demonstrating how RGs are measured. From what I understand, this process takes several hours per ball and it is done a few times to get precise measurements. USBC Bowling Academy has another one explaining RGs as well. So the long and the short is yes the RG will determine how easily a ball will rev up.
You've gone from fairly certain to absolutely sure, by watching a USBC video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2wKCSRw3WA), which you clearly didn't understand, because at most it takes 20 minutes to complete all of the repetitions.
Maybe you can answer this maybe not. Just curious, if we take the Truths core for a 15lb ball with a rg 2.48 and a diff 0.055 and then a different brands core with the same specs and a different shape and put them in the same global coverstock with the same drilling and surface finish and have a throwbot throw both will we see a noticeable difference?
Assuming both have different shapes and likely different densities.
-
Maybe you can answer this maybe not. Just curious, if we take the Truths core for a 15lb ball with a rg 2.48 and a diff 0.055 and then a different brands core with the same specs and a different shape and put them in the same global coverstock with the same drilling and surface finish and have a throwbot throw both will we see a noticeable difference?
Assuming both have different shapes and likely different densities.
A quick note. The core doesn't have an Rg of 2.48, and a diff of 0.055.
It's not until you wrap the filler and coverstock around the core do you end up with those specs.
If you take the core from different companies ball that has the specs 2.48 and 0.55, and use G-900 filler and coverstock, you're likely to end up with a ball that has different specs, because the density of the filler and coverstock is different.
But if you were able to find a different companies core than when wrapped with G-900 filler and coverstock, that resulted in the same specs as the Truth, there is no reason to expect different results.
-
Maybe you can answer this maybe not. Just curious, if we take the Truths core for a 15lb ball with a rg 2.48 and a diff 0.055 and then a different brands core with the same specs and a different shape and put them in the same global coverstock with the same drilling and surface finish and have a throwbot throw both will we see a noticeable difference?
Assuming both have different shapes and likely different densities.
A quick note. The core doesn't have an Rg of 2.48, and a diff of 0.055.
It's not until you wrap the filler and coverstock around the core do you end up with those specs.
If you take the core from different companies ball that has the specs 2.48 and 0.55, and use G-900 filler and coverstock, you're likely to end up with a ball that has different specs, because the density of the filler and coverstock is different.
But if you were able to find a different companies core than when wrapped with G-900 filler and coverstock, that resulted in the same specs as the Truth, there is no reason to expect different results.
I understand what you are saying ICD, but why wouldn't shape matter? If you could make a sphere shaped core have an rg and diff of say 2.50 and .50, and a diamond (not comparing to Lane 1) with the same numbers by way of densities. Would the diamond not create a different roll than a sphere shaped core?
-
Maybe you can answer this maybe not. Just curious, if we take the Truths core for a 15lb ball with a rg 2.48 and a diff 0.055 and then a different brands core with the same specs and a different shape and put them in the same global coverstock with the same drilling and surface finish and have a throwbot throw both will we see a noticeable difference?
Assuming both have different shapes and likely different densities.
A quick note. The core doesn't have an Rg of 2.48, and a diff of 0.055.
It's not until you wrap the filler and coverstock around the core do you end up with those specs.
If you take the core from different companies ball that has the specs 2.48 and 0.55, and use G-900 filler and coverstock, you're likely to end up with a ball that has different specs, because the density of the filler and coverstock is different.
But if you were able to find a different companies core than when wrapped with G-900 filler and coverstock, that resulted in the same specs as the Truth, there is no reason to expect different results.
I understand what you are saying ICD, but why wouldn't shape matter? If you could make a sphere shaped core have an rg and diff of say 2.50 and .50, and a diamond (not comparing to Lane 1) with the same numbers by way of densities. Would the diamond not create a different roll than a sphere shaped core?
I need to add a minor point to be more complete.
I'm assuming when the other core is wrapped by a G-900 filler and coverstock the ball will have the same specs.
However once the ball is drilled with the same layout, the density of the material removed may be different, causing a final ball with different specs.
In the drilling stage, the shape of the core can make a difference because if you drill into the core of one ball, the same depth and location may not drill into the core of another shape core.
If the drilling instead only penetrates the coverstock, and filler in both the pure G-900, and the G-900/other ball hybrid, the final specs should be identical.