win a ball from Bowling.com

Author Topic: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method  (Read 10159 times)

jdpodgorny

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 19
Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« on: February 23, 2007, 08:38:33 AM »
Has anyone out there tried both of these and have a preference of one over the other?  I've always used the soaking method.  Recently read about the kitty litter method again which I forgot about.  Didn't know if one had better results than the other.

Also, for those that have used the KL method.....Any particular brand better than another?  I'm assuming that all the ones that resemble Oil Dry are the brands to use and not the types with the aroma crystals.
--------------------
Jeff Podgorny

Schererville, IN, USA

 

star

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 824
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2007, 08:17:15 AM »
Oil Dry in the summerhouse at home in the summer.

I find if I keep the ball in there for the morning and afternoon nothing has worked better.

It gets to about 100-115 degrees F in there. It worked wonders on a Black Cherry bomb that my friend said was completly dead. It worked like new again and the reaction lasted a lot longer than a hot water bath.

Only problem is we only have a short summer time
--------------------
Happy go lucky bowler from the UK.
   Did someone say tough luck
 Want to learn to read lanes then visit:-
      www.thebowlingprofessor44.com/

Edited on 3/1/2007 9:14 AM
Happy go lucky bowler from the UK.
Specs. 430rpm,18mph off hand. 11-12deg Tilt, 50-60 deg Rotation. PAP 5 1/4 by 3/4 up.
                   R.I.P.
Mo Pinel. The Guru.
Larry Matthews “The Bowling Professor”
Sawbones.
Thong Princess.
Thanks for the FUN times.

scotts33

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8452
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #17 on: March 01, 2007, 08:25:14 AM »
Nobody can answer this though----> Isn't kitty litter or oil dry the same type of oil removal system as C300's CRP and Ebonite's Hook Again? How does C300's CRP and Ebonite's Hook Again remove oil other than contact with the ball same as clay based oil dry? Wondering???

Does it work and why does it work with no agent like heat to react with oil to pull to surface???
--------------------
Scott

Scott

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24524
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #18 on: March 01, 2007, 02:10:35 PM »
quote:
Isn't kitty litter or oil dry the same type of oil removal system as C300's CRP and Ebonite's Hook Again?   How does C300's CRP and Ebonite's Hook Again remove oil other than contact with the ball same as clay based oil dry?  Wondering???
--------------------
Scott



I don't how Columbia's CPR works, but it's so fine, I wouldn't be surprised if someone told it it oculd get down into the "pores" of a resin coverstock.

I still would love to know how these get the oil out of the ball. For them to absorb the oil, the powder and the oil somehow have to make contact.


--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

mrbowlingnut

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5727
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #19 on: March 01, 2007, 03:11:23 PM »
Anyone else ever use a hair dryer on medium heat with a microfiber rag??? I used to do this with an amf menace that i still have and the ball never died, the oil comes out if you hold the dryer about 6 inches away from the ball.

The oil would only come out of the track area not from everywhere like you would think if it was plasticizer, just another option is used when i actually only had just a few bowling balls.

Grayson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #20 on: March 01, 2007, 04:14:50 PM »
quote:
Anyone else ever use a hair dryer on medium heat with a microfiber rag??? I used to do this with an amf menace that i still have and the ball never died, the oil comes out if you hold the dryer about 6 inches away from the ball.

The oil would only come out of the track area not from everywhere like you would think if it was plasticizer, just another option is used when i actually only had just a few bowling balls.


another "household"-Method... nice idea...

But the thing with the plasticisers isn't that much of a problem...really... as long as you don't heat the water too much it doesn't have a big effet.. as I have writen before I have used the hot water method on my Tsunami for over a year now... it still hooks very strong
--------------------
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson


Check out my Vid in my profile.. just short clips cut together about how I bowled and how I play today

and by the way... I am a "Fritz" a "Jerry"... I am from Germany! (And please don't call me Kraut! Cause then I call you Dumbarse)

qstick777

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5188
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #21 on: March 01, 2007, 06:20:22 PM »
quote:
quote:
Isn't kitty litter or oil dry the same type of oil removal system as C300's CRP and Ebonite's Hook Again?   How does C300's CRP and Ebonite's Hook Again remove oil other than contact with the ball same as clay based oil dry?  Wondering???
--------------------
Scott



I don't how Columbia's CPR works, but it's so fine, I wouldn't be surprised if someone told it it oculd get down into the "pores" of a resin coverstock.

I still would love to know how these get the oil out of the ball. For them to absorb the oil, the powder and the oil somehow have to make contact.


--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."



Here is a good tech document from Columbia's site about the coverstock and oil absorption: http://www.columbia300.com/innovation/techdocs.cfm?id=22

I haven't seen it myself, but CPR is water based:

quote:
CPR is a patented synthetic polymer suspended in a water base. It is designed and engineered to act as a microscopic sponge. A single particle of the CPR polymer is less than three thousands of an inch in size and on its surface, has millions of microscopic pores and crevasses that absorb the dirt and oil from a “dead” bowling ball. If a single particle, barely visible to the naked eye, could have all of its crevasses “unfolded”, this lone particle would have a surface area equal to three football fields. This large surface area provides maximum places for the entrapment of oil and dirt that has soaked into the “dead” ball. When the oil is absorbed into the CPR particles, it leaves the ball in a “new and fresh” state.

Why is CPR your choice for restoring the “life” to your bowling ball? The adsorption process starts with several phases. First, keep in mind that due to CPR’s extremely small size and huge surface area on each particle, there are millions of particles present at all times each with surface area equal to three football fields. Initially, oil and dirt want to move onto the CPR particle and just get into the gaps in between CPR particles. This could be considered Absorption at this point. This is similar to putting sand down in your garage to catch oil drips. The oil doesn’t go into the sand but gets stuck in the gaps between sand particles. But that is where the similarity ends. In the next stage, because of its chemical attraction, the oil/dirt actually moves (diffuses) on to the CPR particle itself. They are attracted to CPR and want to “leave” your bowling ball’s pores. This is the initial Adsorption stage. And finally, due to its massive number of cracks, crevices, nooks and crannies, the oil/ dirt goes deep into the surface of each CPR particle to complete the final process of Absorption.



I thought Ebonite had a technical document on their website about the Hook Again system, but I can't seem to find it.
--------------------
FAQ:http://www.ballreviews.com/Forum/Replies.asp?TopicID=74110&ForumID=16&CategoryID=5

Search Ballreviews entire database here: http://www.bowling-info.com/Search.html

scotts33

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8452
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2007, 08:36:25 PM »
quote:
Here is a good tech document from Columbia's site about the coverstock and oil absorption: http://www.columbia300.com/innovation/techdocs.cfm?id=22


gstick777,

Good explanation of C300's cover's which will be no more but nothing about why or how a CPR system works.  To this date I have never seen any study or explanation of how or why dry oil absorbing media works or how it works.  

Everybody will just say it does.
--------------------
Scott

Scott

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24524
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2007, 04:07:20 AM »
quote:
quote:
Here is a good tech document from Columbia's site about the coverstock and oil absorption: http://www.columbia300.com/innovation/techdocs.cfm?id=22


gstick777,

Good explanation of C300's cover's which will be no more but nothing about why or how a CPR system works.  To this date I have never seen any study or explanation of how or why dry oil absorbing media works or how it works.  

Everybody will just say it does.
--------------------
Scott




Scott,

I was interested in why also. No one is chemist enough to answer my question.

I do know CPR works; I have used it a bunch of times. Wonder if I should stock a bunch of it, like I did the Track cleaners and compounds? I have a feeling that once again, like several other balls and compounds, as far as Ebonite is concerned, once they're gone, they're gone FOREVER.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

scotts33

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8452
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2007, 07:24:13 AM »
quote:
Scott,

I was interested in why also. No one is chemist enough to answer my question.

I do know CPR works; I have used it a bunch of times. Wonder if I should stock a bunch of it, like I did the Track cleaners and compounds? I have a feeling that once again, like several other balls and compounds, as far as Ebonite is concerned, once they're gone, they're gone FOREVER.


Jeff,

Have you used Ebonite's Hook Again system?  Is C300's CPR better?  CPR is certainly cheaper.  

Thanks!
--------------------
Scott

Scott

RealBowler

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 722
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2007, 12:42:41 PM »
quote:
quote:
Here is a good tech document from Columbia's site about the coverstock and oil absorption: http://www.columbia300.com/innovation/techdocs.cfm?id=22


gstick777,

Good explanation of C300's cover's which will be no more but nothing about why or how a CPR system works.  To this date I have never seen any study or explanation of how or why dry oil absorbing media works or how it works.  

Everybody will just say it does.
--------------------
Scott




I thought the other quote he provided explained it:

quote:
First, keep in mind that due to CPR’s extremely small size and huge surface area on each particle, there are millions of particles present at all times each with surface area equal to three football fields. Initially, oil and dirt want to move onto the CPR particle and just get into the gaps in between CPR particles. This could be considered Absorption at this point. This is similar to putting sand down in your garage to catch oil drips. The oil doesn’t go into the sand but gets stuck in the gaps between sand particles. But that is where the similarity ends. In the next stage, because of its chemical attraction, the oil/dirt actually moves (diffuses) on to the CPR particle itself. They are attracted to CPR and want to “leave” your bowling ball’s pores. This is the initial Adsorption stage. And finally, due to its massive number of cracks, crevices, nooks and crannies, the oil/ dirt goes deep into the surface of each CPR particle to complete the final process of Absorption.



If the Columbia site ever comes back up, you can check out this and see if it helps explain:
quote:

Columbia 300: eClub
I use Columbia CPR about every 40-50 games and it brings it back. ... dull and try that cause thats what i use and it works so thats what i would do first ...
www.columbia300.com/eclub/topics.cfm?forum=6&topic=1360



Of course, in simple terms, I would think that CPR and Hook Again would have some sort of chemical attraction that allows it to pull the oil out of the ball.

Also keep in mind that Ebonite has said that "ball death" is not caused by oil absorption, but rather through the concentration of plasticizers to the surface of the ball.  

It almost sounds like the more oil is absorbed, the more it pushes the plasticizers to the surface.  However, Ebonite also seems to say that plasticizers are pulled to the surface due to friction on the lanes.

It's all very confusing when you read their technical documents, and some of them seem to be contradictory.

As other people have pointed out, different companies use different chemical companies for their coverstocks, so it's entirely possible that the recommended products will not work very well with other company's products.


--------------------
Haywood

**************************
I don't need a stupid
signature. This is enough.
**************************

Edited on 3/3/2007 2:03 PM

charlest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24524
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2007, 03:39:34 PM »
quote:
quote:
Scott,

I was interested in why also. No one is chemist enough to answer my question.

I do know CPR works; I have used it a bunch of times. Wonder if I should stock a bunch of it, like I did the Track cleaners and compounds? I have a feeling that once again, like several other balls and compounds, as far as Ebonite is concerned, once they're gone, they're gone FOREVER.


Jeff,

Have you used Ebonite's Hook Again system?  Is C300's CPR better?  CPR is certainly cheaper.  

Thanks!
--------------------
Scott



I haven't tried it myself, but a very trusted friend told me it worked with balls other than Eboonite and I believe him. You know I rarely use one ball enough to get it oil soaked. The ones I have used a lot have responded well to CPR. FYI I alway sand them to at least 400 grit and leave them in it for at least 24 hours vs the recommended 2 hours.
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."
"None are so blind as those who will not see."

McCormack

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2007, 06:58:02 PM »
I've got an old Ebonite Tornado that was losing it's hook, so I tried the hot water method with it but it didn't seem to make much difference. So just for yucks I wet sanded the ball thoroughly with 400 grit sandpaper and then tried the hot water method again, and I could see and smell the oil coming out of the ball. I'm guessing that over time the surface of my Tornado become hardened and sealed from the all the pounding and abuse it takes out on the lanes, and the sanding removed that hardened surface and let the oil release out of the ball.
After soaking the ball in hot water I dried it off and then cleaned the oil off the surface with alcohol, and then I went down to the local center and threw a couple of dollars in their Brunswick polishing machine and polished the ball up. The Tornado now looks like new, and tomorrow I'm going to give it a few flings down the lanes and see if sanding the ball before soaking it is the way to go.

chitown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5876
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #28 on: March 05, 2007, 01:14:00 PM »
quote:
AGAIN, how does it get the oil to the surface of the ball to be absorbed????

Inquiring minds want to know!
--------------------
"None are so blind as those who will not see."



I bet it doesn't work like hot water bath does.  I can't see how there's any way it can draw the oil out of the cover.  I just don't see it.  The Hot Water Bath is effective and works great.  You can see the oil coming out of the cover.
--------------------
HAMMER NO MERCY is Un-freaking real!  Using this ball is like cheating!

Edited on 3/5/2007 2:14 PM

Grayson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1411
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #29 on: March 05, 2007, 01:57:56 PM »
you can explain it by "molecular movement" within the coverstock... just lets say there will always be a bit of oil on the outside.. you might not feel it but there will be some.

once that is drawn of the surface other oil migrates to the surface... you can make this effect even stronger if something else is getting into the coverstock and I bet that is how the Ebonite "hook again" thing works... the oil is pushed out by something else and that should be plasticisers...



--------------------
"Have fun and bowl well!" - Grayson


Check out my Vid in my profile.. just short clips cut together about how I bowled and how I play today

and by the way... I am a "Fritz" a "Jerry"... I am from Germany! (And please don't call me Kraut! Cause then I call you Dumbarse)

azguy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8364
Re: Soak/Bath vs. Kitty Litter Method
« Reply #30 on: March 05, 2007, 02:41:01 PM »
I have used CPR, can't tell you how it works, just that it does. Here's what Columbia says about how it works:


"Our patented synthetic polymer formula acts like a microscopic sponge on reactive and particle balls. It absorbs dirt and oil from the ball's millions of pores. When the CPR particles have done their job, your ball is new and fresh, with a revitalized hook." Taken from the website.

I leave it in the bag for about 2-3 hours, usually in the sun on the table or floor, if I have room. I've done my Hawg Wild, Hot Rod Hybrid, No Mercy, Toxic, my wife's V2 Sanded, No mercy and No Limit with it. Sold several to customers who swear by it. I normally use the sun method to extract the oil on my personal stuff, or CPR and the sun. Not sure which is better CPR alone or the sun but together I have no problems at all.

--------------------
az guy aka: R & L Bowlers Pro
rlbowlerspro@cox.net
www.rlbowlerspro.com


Looking for treasures ? Take a look at my wife's ebay store http://www.ebaystores.com/Pitas-Place?refid=store