win a ball from Bowling.com
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: A new theory about POLISHES???  (Read 2488 times)

Ric Clint

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
A new theory about POLISHES???
« on: March 19, 2004, 10:43:43 AM »
I read the following in a post a while back:

"Polish as a verb means to wear something smoother/shinier. In order to accomplish this, polishes contain abrasives and chemicals."


Think about what that says... "Polish as a verb means to wear something smoother/shinier." So if some of the polishes out there contains abrasives that help make the ball's surface smoother... doesn't that mean that it smoothes down the PARTICLE's on a particle ball?

Does that make sense?

If all a polish does, is "smooth" a surface which makes the ball appear to be shiny... then that means that the polish is rubbing down the actual particle's and smoothing down the small individual POINTS of each little particle - and that will lead to the ball losing it's hooking ability and backend reaction!!! Correct???

Maybe all these polishes that contain abrasives (with the exception of Black Magic, which doesn't contain any abrasives) that people are using on there PARTICLE balls are what is killing the balls and making them die in a short amount of time!

Maybe this is a big part of the reason for "particle death" from some people?


Oppinions???





Logged

 

NoNeed4Revs

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: A new theory about POLISHES???
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2004, 03:03:27 AM »
You’re forgetting that the additives in particle balls are usually harder material than the actual coverstock. Therefore, the ball will seem “polished” long before you could possibly take a serious bite out of the particles. I remember the first time I resurfaced my Reaction Ricochet with the mica particles. You could actually feel each and every one in the cover afterward, because the resurface only took down the coverstock… couldn’t even make a dent in the mica.

As for Black Magic… I have no idea how they can claim there are no abrasives. Without them, it’d be impossible to “polish” the ball. The only other way to add “shine” would be to clog the ball’s pours, which would certainly be undesirable. That’s the reason you never want to use something like Turtle Wax, it fills the pours of any proactive ball, kills the reaction, and is almost impossible to get out.

--------------------
Shizzam!
Logged

Ric Clint

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: A new theory about POLISHES???
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2004, 03:23:03 AM »
If my theory has any truthful meaning... then it seems that it would mean that Black Magic (and maybe that "Sure Shot" polish that I mentioned in my other post yesterday) would basically be the ONLY polish that would be safe for particle balls because it supposedly doesn't have any abrasives that would smooth the ball's surface... correct???

Just curious if there's anybody out there that has had any particular particle balls that they only used Black Magic on, and no other polish on that particular ball, and did that ball last longer than some of your other particle balls?

Any Black Magic users have any comments???




Logged

Ubik

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
Re: A new theory about POLISHES???
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2004, 03:26:04 AM »
Who makes black magic?

--------------------
A bad craftsman always blames his tools. So it cant hurt to have the best tools.
Logged

Ric Clint

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: A new theory about POLISHES???
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2004, 03:50:27 AM »
quote:
Who makes black magic?


Ultimate Bowling


...I think???




Logged

Ric Clint

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: A new theory about POLISHES???
« Reply #5 on: March 21, 2004, 11:46:12 PM »
And for some reason, Black Magic is recommended (by all the PRO's and Regional guys) over all of the other polishes on the market!

It clearly says that in Black Magic's description on some of the websites like bolwersparadise.com, as well as others...



Logged

da Shiv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: A new theory about POLISHES???
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2004, 01:22:07 PM »
I'd like to compliment Plus40 for his contribution here and in other posts about polishes and polishing.  Plus40's comments here and elsewhere have always been clear and informative, and I must also say that I like them because they reinforce what my experience has taught me about polishes.

 
quote:
One ball company, I think Ebonite, states that particle death occurs because with use, the particles become broken and crushed into the track of the ball. Resurfacing will make the ball even again, but will actually break more particles. They recommend polishing after resurfacing because the friction properties of polish will remove broken particles that are clogging the ball surface.


I read that somewhere too, and I also don't remember if it was Ebonite, but this procedure is exactly what I do with particle balls and it seems to me to work exactly as stated.  I think the polishing after resurfacing (or not even necessarily resurfacing, but using any kind of abrasive on a particle ball--such as my favorite, the now defunct Ebonite Powerhouse Quicksand) removes broken particles from the surface and leaves fresh ones exposed.  Of course, I haven't looked under a microscope to prove that, but all the empirical evidence I've gathered adds up to that.

I'd like to raise another question about polishes, and I think it's appropriate to this discussion and does not constitute a hijack of this thread.

In reading posts about polishes on this board, I've picked up that the general consensus seems to be that after polishing a ball and then removing excess polish with a clean terry towel as a final step, that the ball then does not have any polish on it.  The theory seems to be that the polish has shined up the ball and that you have removed the last of it with the clean towel.  I'm not so sure about that and I'd like to hear some other opinions.

It seems to me that in at least some cases, polish remains on the ball, kind of "burnt in" to the surface.  (I'm not talking here about polishes that are specifically meant to stay on the ball as slipping agents, like Control-It.)  I wonder about this because of what happens if I go over a freshly polished ball with even a few light passes of Hook-It.  Hook-It seems quite thin and does not appear to have any abrasives in it.  That is reinforced by the fact that it is permitted DURING ABC play.  Yet, even a few light passes with some Hook-It dulls the surface of the ball a noticeable amount.  I have always felt that what is happening is that the Hook-It is not changing the surface texture of the ball, but is just dissolving off the polish left on the surface of the ball, exposing a surface that is unchanged but for having the last of the polish removed from it.  Does this make sense?

I wouldn't think that in any case (other than stuff like the aforementioned Control-It) polish would remain to clog the pores of the ball.  If polish got inside the pores of a bowling ball, I don't think that going over the ball with a clean towel would suck the polish out of the pores.  For that reason, I think that bowling ball specific polishes wouldn't clog the ball's pores.

To reiterate, what I'm curious about is this:  Do polishes (at least some of them) burn in to the ball's surface and remain until a certain amount of lane play wears them off; or does the last of the polish actually come off when the ball is spun under a clean towel after polishing?

Shiv
--------------------
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top
Logged
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top

da Shiv

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1118
Re: A new theory about POLISHES???
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2004, 03:42:52 PM »
Very interesting.  Thanks, Plus40!

Shiv
--------------------
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top
Logged
Listening to the monotonous staccato of rain on my desk top
Pages: [1]
« previous next »