Difference between revisions of "User:Darkhorse/Sandbox"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The general consensus is that ball plug will not have a significant affect to the mass properties of the ball. If you have access to a DeTerminator, you can verify the PSA of the plugged ball. If you have access to an RG Swing, you can determine if the low/ high RG value has shifted, but none of us have access to that particular machine, so we do the best we can with what we have. | The general consensus is that ball plug will not have a significant affect to the mass properties of the ball. If you have access to a DeTerminator, you can verify the PSA of the plugged ball. If you have access to an RG Swing, you can determine if the low/ high RG value has shifted, but none of us have access to that particular machine, so we do the best we can with what we have. | ||
| − | Per MathIsTruth: | + | Per MathIsTruth [http://forum.bowlingchat.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3767 |
| + | ]: | ||
After finishing some work this evening, I decided to investigate the idea TOP5 had about drilling a balance hole and then plugging it to change core dynamics. I took an asymmetrical ball and drilled it with a 65x4"x30 layout, then drilled a 3.5" deep 1.25" P4 Double Thumb balance hole, then I plugged the balance hole with material at a density of 1.1 g/cm3. I believe this to be close to the density of common plug material, correct me if I am wrong. The Low RG value remained virtually unchanged so I will only report the mass, and int diff/total diff of the ball. I would still suggest drilling the finger holes deeper and keeping the balance hole. Hope this helps... | After finishing some work this evening, I decided to investigate the idea TOP5 had about drilling a balance hole and then plugging it to change core dynamics. I took an asymmetrical ball and drilled it with a 65x4"x30 layout, then drilled a 3.5" deep 1.25" P4 Double Thumb balance hole, then I plugged the balance hole with material at a density of 1.1 g/cm3. I believe this to be close to the density of common plug material, correct me if I am wrong. The Low RG value remained virtually unchanged so I will only report the mass, and int diff/total diff of the ball. I would still suggest drilling the finger holes deeper and keeping the balance hole. Hope this helps... | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
P4 BAL Hole 15.55# 0.035/0.069 | P4 BAL Hole 15.55# 0.035/0.069 | ||
Plugged BAL Hole 15.72# 0.021/0.055 | Plugged BAL Hole 15.72# 0.021/0.055 | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 22:00, 30 May 2015
Oftentimes the question of ball plug potentially affecting the mass properties of a bowling ball arises.
The general consensus is that ball plug will not have a significant affect to the mass properties of the ball. If you have access to a DeTerminator, you can verify the PSA of the plugged ball. If you have access to an RG Swing, you can determine if the low/ high RG value has shifted, but none of us have access to that particular machine, so we do the best we can with what we have.
Per MathIsTruth [http://forum.bowlingchat.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3767 ]:
After finishing some work this evening, I decided to investigate the idea TOP5 had about drilling a balance hole and then plugging it to change core dynamics. I took an asymmetrical ball and drilled it with a 65x4"x30 layout, then drilled a 3.5" deep 1.25" P4 Double Thumb balance hole, then I plugged the balance hole with material at a density of 1.1 g/cm3. I believe this to be close to the density of common plug material, correct me if I am wrong. The Low RG value remained virtually unchanged so I will only report the mass, and int diff/total diff of the ball. I would still suggest drilling the finger holes deeper and keeping the balance hole. Hope this helps...
Undrilled 16.06# 0.012/0.052 No BAL Hole 15.81# 0.022/0.055 P4 BAL Hole 15.55# 0.035/0.069 Plugged BAL Hole 15.72# 0.021/0.055
