Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Will it burn: Various TT Ball Halves Ignited
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Will it burn: Various TT Ball Halves Ignited

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Will it burn: Various TT Ball Halves Ignited
    Posted: 11/23/2014 at 5:42pm
The subject pretty much says it.  I set four different ball halves on fire.  The four balls were:

1) Standard 40mm celluloid (Gambler Platinum 3*)
2) Nittaku SHA 40+ (seemed poly ball made in China - presumably by DHS)
3) I-pong seamless polyball (presumably a first generation from XuShaoFu.)
4) Nittaku Premium 40+ (made in Japan)

While cutting the balls in half I noticed something very interesting about the Nittaku Premium 40+.  Nittaku is doing something different with the seam on this ball.  Classic celluloid balls have extra thickness at the seam.  Inside the ball, there is overlapping material at the seam line.  So the ball is actually significantly thicker and stiffer at the seam The NP 40+, however, is almost perfectly smooth along the seam on the inside.  The thickness at the seam is almost identical to the thickness for the rest of the ball.  This may be a factor in this ball's more uniform performance.  This would not only make the ball better balanced, but might help it to bounce more uniformly as well.






Edited by wturber - 11/23/2014 at 5:44pm
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 14335
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/23/2014 at 7:25pm
It seems like these are four non-identical materials.  NP40+ and XSF certainly bounce higher and I don't think the presence or absence of the seam explains that.  (Otherwise celluoloid would bounce lower).  I think it is the material they are using is better than NSHA. I think until the people who make NSHA make modifications in their material they will never have a decent ball.

XSF can be distinguished from NP40+ by smell of broken ball.  Strong solvent smell in NP40+ (not camphor), and no such smell in XSF.  The XSF is also a brighter white and the way it breaks (and certainly the frequency!) is different.  I also suspect that the material in an ITTF approved XSF is not identical to what is in Ipong ball based on sound when they bounce but is probably not far from it.
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/23/2014 at 7:46pm
Keep in mind that they made a big deal about the ability to alter the internal ball pressure of seamless balls.  That may provide them the ability to tune their balls a bit.

I think the minimal seam of the NP 40+ and the XSF contribute to a truer bounce, but not a higher one.
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/24/2014 at 1:11am
> The thickness at the seam is almost identical to the thickness for the rest of the ball.  This may be a factor in this ball's more uniform performance. 

Interesting observation. But Debater at OOAK did a series of tests replicating the ITTF battery (and then some), and the part on drop testing showed significantly less variance with the DHS plastic than I believe DHS-made celluloid. I recall many were dropped on their edges.

http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=26817

After ponder the results a bit I suspect the main source of purported non-uniformity might be in (patchy) surface friction, if only because it's the only possibility remaining. The balls can be slightly more eccentric than cell but not enough to account for "weird" bounces since only a few out of batch will be. The ITTF doesn't test for friction at all, nevermind friction uniformity.


Edited by AgentHEX - 11/24/2014 at 1:12am
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/24/2014 at 2:59am
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

> The thickness at the seam is almost identical to the thickness for the rest of the ball.  This may be a factor in this ball's more uniform performance. 

Interesting observation. But Debater at OOAK did a series of tests replicating the ITTF battery (and then some), and the part on drop testing showed significantly less variance with the DHS plastic than I believe DHS-made celluloid. I recall many were dropped on their edges.

http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=26817

After ponder the results a bit I suspect the main source of purported non-uniformity might be in (patchy) surface friction, if only because it's the only possibility remaining. The balls can be slightly more eccentric than cell but not enough to account for "weird" bounces since only a few out of batch will be. The ITTF doesn't test for friction at all, nevermind friction uniformity.


The problem with the ITTF test is that it has very little in common with a typical ball bounce during play.  I think Debater made a point of mentioning that.

Further, Debater didn't test NP 40+ balls.

It could easily be that a more forceful impact with the table is required before significant bounce problems are revealed. 


Edited by wturber - 11/24/2014 at 3:01am
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/24/2014 at 3:23am
> Further, Debater didn't test NP 40+ balls.

It wouldn't have mattered unless NP are supposed to be worse. There is no conceivable improvement in precision in that test.

> It could easily be that a more forceful impact with the table is required before significant bounce problems are revealed.

Possibly, viscoelastic properties were the other aspect raised in the thread.


Edited by AgentHEX - 11/24/2014 at 3:37am
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/24/2014 at 3:50am
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

> Further, Debater didn't test NP 40+ balls.

It wouldn't have mattered unless NP are supposed to be worse. There is no conceivable improvement in precision in that test.

I recall a range in bounce height.  That range could be narrower for another ball.

> It could easily be that a more forceful impact with the table is required before significant bounce problems are revealed.
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:


Possibly, viscoelastic properties were the other aspect raised in the thread.


You can press on the sides of balls and find softer and harder areas.  This is true of celluloid and the Nittaku SHA.  Presumably it is true for the Joola balls.  But as I recall, Debater observed that the seam was smaller for the Joola plastic than for the Joola celluloid.  So maybe that helps explain the Joola's greater consistency in the bounce test.  I didn't notice the Nittaku SHA seam being any smaller than my comparison celluloid ball though.
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/24/2014 at 4:01am
> I recall a range in bounce height.  That range could be narrower for another ball.

It was very narrow for the DHS/Joola, to the point that better would be irrelevant.

Frankly I don't see much "inconsistency" myself, so I asked around and nobody can seem to point to a particular shot where this occurs more frequently so it can be replicated.

Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/24/2014 at 8:58am
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

> I recall a range in bounce height.  That range could be narrower for another ball.

It was very narrow for the DHS/Joola, to the point that better would be irrelevant.

Frankly I don't see much "inconsistency" myself, so I asked around and nobody can seem to point to a particular shot where this occurs more frequently so it can be replicated.


You don't know how relevant those differences are since this test is so far removed from regular play.

And yes, really bad bounces tend to be pretty random.  But my guess is that sorta bad bounces happen all the time and result in players making shots that are slightly off.  My main metric for saying the ball flies and bounces true is observing how long moderately difficult hitting drills last.  With better balls, drills tend to last longer.


Edited by wturber - 11/24/2014 at 9:01am
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Offline
Points: 14335
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/24/2014 at 9:08am
AgentHex is right.  In a static bounce test, Joola40+ is very consistent, lower coefficient of variation than their celluloid.  But consistently low, and would not meet the ITTF standards coming in 2016 for static bounce height (based on Debater's fairly careful test with the caveat that he dropped onto a glass plate instead of steel) or weight (his and my measurements).  Probably not for roundness either.  Weight is particularly easy to measure.  But I think the static bounce test is quite relevant to how the balls play. 

To me, playing with Chinese seamed balls in their current form is like playing in very very humid conditions, the kind where it seems like they are is thin monolayer of water all over the top of the table (including the occasional random inconsistency that just about everybody reports, consistent with AgentHEX' idea).   XSF and NP40+ don't have that problem for whatever reason.  They are less spinny and slower but they much easier to adjust to.  Bounce height matters a lot and there is a reason ITTF includes that in their specs. 
Back to Top
JacekGM View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/17/2013
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2356
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JacekGM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/24/2014 at 4:08pm
Great job, wturber. Thanks. This needed to be done.
All of the balls burn (no surprise there); The "plastic" ones burn more slowly, which may mean they are safer.
The "plastic" ones leave ash residue (could be from an inorganic component in the material) and generate a lot of soot (indicative of benzene, naphthalene, and /or anthracene rings being either a part of the polymer, or of any modifiers added). Further in-depth chemical analysis is possible... However, that is not what we are doing here, right? We* want to find an exemplary commercial 'new' ball, and have the other ones approach the best quality, best they can. We just look into the performance and consistency of the balls we are using. The price, obviously, is of immediate interest as well.
* We stands for the TT players, I guess...

(1) Juic SBA (Fl, 85 g) with Bluefire JP3 (red max) on FH and 0.6 mm DR N Desperado on BH; (2) Yinhe T7 (Fl, 87 g) with Bluefire M3 (red 2.0) on FH and 0.6 mm 755 on BH.
Back to Top
BH-Man View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/05/2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5039
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BH-Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/24/2014 at 4:37pm
Baal, methinks playing with a Joola 40+ ball is like playing a TT match where the BALL is drunken.

Jacek, a slower burning ball looks safer, but there are certainly a boatload of smoke and chems from the burning plastic, the celluloid balls appear to burn a lot "cleaner" :) How is the killa BH coming along?
Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club
Search for us on Facebook: koreaforeignttc
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 5:00am
Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:


You don't know how relevant those differences are since this test is so far removed from regular play.



Of course no test is 100%. But we can also make other deductions from observation.

One is that players report weird bounces, but not weird shots (mainly of their own). If this is correct, it makes viscoelastic inconsistency less likely since force is greater against the racket than table due to the angle of impact.
Back to Top
roundrobin View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/02/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4708
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote roundrobin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 10:02am
I played with NP+ for the last 12 matches this past weekend...zero weird bounce, unlike Joola, DHS and SHA balls.  The ball did what I expect it to do and I was able to play my game very efficiently.  With the other 3 balls there were always some random bounces that either did not even bounce half the height of what it supposes to do (as compared to a celluloid ball), or jump straight up instead of sideways when loaded with sidespin.  Every player at our weekly tournaments has reported a similar story about such weird bounces with Joola, DHS and SHA balls.



Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986.
Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association.
My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red

Back to Top
NextLevel View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 12/15/2011
Location: Somewhere Good
Status: Offline
Points: 14822
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NextLevel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 11:53am
Joola, DHS and SHA are the same ball.
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon
FH/BH: H3P 41D.
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train...
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 12:46pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

Originally posted by wturber wturber wrote:


You don't know how relevant those differences are since this test is so far removed from regular play.



Of course no test is 100%. But we can also make other deductions from observation.

One is that players report weird bounces, but not weird shots (mainly of their own). If this is correct, it makes viscoelastic inconsistency less likely since force is greater against the racket than table due to the angle of impact.

Depends on the stroke.  But you forget that the racket has two to four millimeters of cushioning sponge that makes that collision quite different than the collision with the table.

And players report weird shots all the time in my experience.  How many times have you seen a player look at his racket after missing a shot?  I see that all the time. That's an indication that the shot didn't work the way the player expected ... for whatever reason.

Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 12:47pm
Originally posted by roundrobin roundrobin wrote:

I played with NP+ for the last 12 matches this past weekend...zero weird bounce, unlike Joola, DHS and SHA balls.  The ball did what I expect it to do and I was able to play my game very efficiently.  With the other 3 balls there were always some random bounces that either did not even bounce half the height of what it supposes to do (as compared to a celluloid ball), or jump straight up instead of sideways when loaded with sidespin.  Every player at our weekly tournaments has reported a similar story about such weird bounces with Joola, DHS and SHA balls.


Time and more player experiences will prove this out.  This is where the NP 40+ is superior to celluloid balls.  If it had a bit more bounce and a reasonable price, I'd be pretty happy with it.



Edited by wturber - 11/25/2014 at 12:48pm
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 3:36pm
> But you forget that the racket has two to four millimeters of cushioning sponge that makes that collision quite different than the collision with the table.

I considered it but didn't think it was significant. It's worth pointing out that contrary to popular perception it's mostly the ball doing the rebounding in TT interactions. The viscoelastic time-variable properties of rubber are far greater. IOW, the ball is in a similar state before bouncing off either. So some due diligence was done, but it's possible there's something else I'm not seeing.

> And players report weird shots all the time in my experience. 

I've thought about this to some length roundabouts here: http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=285955#p285955. IMO "weird" as commonly used is not synonymous with "inconsistent".
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 5:28pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

> But you forget that the racket has two to four millimeters of cushioning sponge that makes that collision quite different than the collision with the table.

I considered it but didn't think it was significant. It's worth pointing out that contrary to popular perception it's mostly the ball doing the rebounding in TT interactions. The viscoelastic time-variable properties of rubber are far greater. IOW, the ball is in a similar state before bouncing off either. So some due diligence was done, but it's possible there's something else I'm not seeing.

> And players report weird shots all the time in my experience. 

I've thought about this to some length roundabouts here: http://ooakforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=285955#p285955. IMO "weird" as commonly used is not synonymous with "inconsistent".

You were pointing out that the racket would be more likely to create "weird" results.  Given the surface differences I'm simply saying that isn't necessarily so.

As for "weird" I took that as meaning unexpected and hence inconsistent from the beginning.  So in my mind we've always been discussing consistency.  Anyway, my point is that I believe players observe "weird" results all the time and that this could very well be an indication of inconsistent ball performance.  I don't think we can conclude that we are not experiencing and seeing inconsistent ball rebounds from rackets.


Edited by wturber - 11/25/2014 at 5:31pm
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 5:37pm
> Given the surface differences I'm simply saying that isn't necessarily so.

That's possible, but I did explained why I didn't think so. Not only is the racket more likely to create such results but nobody seems to attribute their source to any racket impact.

> As for "weird", you introduced the term when we were discussing inconsistencies.  So I took the presence or absence of "weird" shots to be a maker for inconsistent ball performance. 

That's how I was using it, but not how others subsequently did. I'm not going to quibble over semantics but it's worth pointing out the difference so everyone can be understood.

Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 5:41pm
> Anyway, my point is that I believe players observe "weird" results all the time and that this could very well be an indication of inconsistent ball performance.  I don't think we can conclude that we are not experiencing and seeing inconsistent ball rebounds from rackets.

That is reasonable, which is why I asked for more specific details to isolate the effect. Hopefully you can help remedy the current dearth of feedback.
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 6:12pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:



That is reasonable, which is why I asked for more specific details to isolate the effect. Hopefully you can help remedy the current dearth of feedback.

Those details will be hard to come by. But getting back to the beginning, I'm merely suggesting the possibility that the NP 40+ seam construction could be contributing to what many people are reporting as a truer and more consistent bounce.  It seems like a reasonable hypothesis to me and I haven't found your counterpoints to be very persuasive.  

That said, the hypothesis is far from being demonstrated as true. Heck, right now we can't even objectively say that the bounce is actually more true. Though it certainly seems to be.

Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/25/2014 at 6:29pm
The celluloid ball also had the fat seam and it seemed ok.

Sometimes we tend to place too much faith in generalizations from sparse data. Remember when seamed-type plastic balls were considered a dead end? And the opposing seamless ones before that? Yeah, good times.
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/26/2014 at 1:30pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

The celluloid ball also had the fat seam and it seemed ok.

Sometimes we tend to place too much faith in generalizations from sparse data. Remember when seamed-type plastic balls were considered a dead end? And the opposing seamless ones before that? Yeah, good times.

No, as far as I'm concerned all celluloid brands that I've played with will exhibit bad bounces from time to time.  

Sometimes we do lots of things.  But I'm not putting too much faith in any generalization here.  I'm simply making an observation that one ball has a better than normal bounce consistency than normal (celluloid) and that maybe the ball's relatively consistent seam thickness is contributing the reason for (or at least part of the reason for) that consistency. I didn't say it was the cause.  I supposed that it might be.

BTW, this consistency of bounce was something observed by Sean O'Neil many months ago and is one of the reasons he gave for looking at this ball as a "game changer."    From his post:


"...
2) The Double Fish ball 40+ plays relatively similar to the DHS 3 star celluloid balls I use in my basement. Less spin and speed but flight path isn't that far off. I believe this is what others felt when trying the latest versions with passed ITTF muster. 

3) The Nittaku Premium 40+. Two words - "Game Changer." (Edits: When I say Game Changer I mean that Nittaku has figured out how to make a ball that play very similar if not better than the current celluloid balls. Yes, better than the current celluloid balls. A truer bounce a more stable flight path and a cooler matt finish. 
...."
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/26/2014 at 4:39pm
I've explained why I didn't think it was case. If you found it unconvincing, that's fine, but do note that ITTF's 30cm drop contacts at ~2.5m/s and a good 10m/s hit at 15deg is also ~2.5m/s on the table at contact. Empirical evidence shows the DHS bounces more consistently regardless of edge or not. This is why I ask about the specific shots it supposedly affects for clues of where the elusive "weirdness" lies.

It also seems different "experts" have differing opinions (such as on the DF vs cell, etc) and I'm not a fan of coincidental statistical consensus given its history of reliability.
Back to Top
AgentHEX View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/14/2004
Location: Yo Mama
Status: Offline
Points: 1641
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AgentHEX Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/26/2014 at 4:45pm
I'll also point out that just like with blades it's easy to have the similar misconception here that only the touching bits of the ball are active in the interaction, when really it's the structure as a whole that creates the rebounding. Observe for example that cracked balls bounce like crap even though it's usually the non-cracked areas making contact. That isn't to say the bits right around the impact have no more effect than those on the other end, just much less than a naive view would imagine.


Also, from just above what you quoted:

>I believe the third ball (AP) is made by XuShaoFa. I don't have anything on pricing but I can say:

>1) The AP ball without a seam sounds really plasticy and it makes it tough to almost take it seriously. The ball loss quite a bit of spin on each bounce.

Damn those balls with no seam at all really are hopeless, huh?
Back to Top
igorponger View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/29/2006
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 3252
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote igorponger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/26/2014 at 6:14pm
LOOKING FOR A BETTER PLASTIC? THEN YOU SHOULD TAKE TO THE NOVELTY BRANDS......

No more modification/improvement to the existing plastic is expected.
REASON (1) Players will not accept any further amendments to the current ball, for not liking to repeatedly readjust their playmode to a ball over and over again.

(2) Similarly, the major china manufacs will not going to re-pay the heavy approval fees so many times. Not they !!

The current plastic balls we have now got on market are most likely to stay just the same for a most prolonged time.   
It is the newly listed ball brands that will sure vary their perfomance and material composition.

So, if you want to have a different (better?) ball you always need to try a fresh ball brand.

Hopefully,, Mr, Baal is the very person to do all the job for us. He is strongly required to collect all the plastic novelties to come up on market onwards and to make a thorough instrumental examination on each one new brand. Hopefully ...
Back to Top
JacekGM View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02/17/2013
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2356
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JacekGM Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/26/2014 at 6:21pm
In the meantime, our game has become... a little different, e.g. this: http://www.laola1.tv/en-int/video/r4-daniel-habesohn-robert-gardos/260048.html. Looks to me like if the ball was made from sponge.
(1) Juic SBA (Fl, 85 g) with Bluefire JP3 (red max) on FH and 0.6 mm DR N Desperado on BH; (2) Yinhe T7 (Fl, 87 g) with Bluefire M3 (red 2.0) on FH and 0.6 mm 755 on BH.
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/28/2014 at 6:59pm
I've explained why I didn't think it was case. If you found it unconvincing, that's fine, but do note that ITTF's 30cm drop contacts at ~2.5m/s and a good 10m/s hit at 15deg is also ~2.5m/s on the table at contact. Empirical evidence shows the DHS bounces more consistently regardless of edge or not. This is why I ask about the specific shots it supposedly affects for clues of where the elusive "weirdness" lies. [/QUOTE]

305mm is about twice the net height.  So a ball dropped from 305mm (as in the ITTF test) hits at about the same velocity as would a ball in a typical pushing drill.  The forces involved are much less that we typically see in even a low level match. 

10m/s is not a very high velocity for a table tennis shot.  Even club amateurs will routinely hit at twice that speed.  Further, such balls are  usually hit with topspin.  We learn to hit with topspin early on as a way to keep the ball on the table.  The topspin accelerates the ball downward and toward the table.  The greater the horizontal speed and speed of the spin, the greater the force as the ball is driven into the table. Furthermore, gravity is acting on the ball.  So that's adding to the balls velocity.  In short, any topspun ball that traveled more than one foot above the table before striking it surely strikes it at a greater vertical velocity than tested in per the ITTF T3 pamphlet. 

Given that loop drives can surely be 40mph (nearly 20m/s)or more, clearing the net by well more than six inches (150mm) and loaded with topspin, its seems to me that we can easily expect balls to hit the table at twice the t3 test velocity or more.  My bet is that it is sometimes much more.  Twice the velocity equates to four times the force.

So, like I said before.  The t3 test is suspect as a test for consistency of bounce in play - on the velocity of impact alone.

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:


It also seems different "experts" have differing opinions (such as on the DF vs cell, etc) and I'm not a fan of coincidental statistical consensus given its history of reliability.

Sure.  I understand the hesitation.  But then, I'm not calling for conclusions. Also, I'm observing the consistency of bounce independently.

As far as the specific shots where the inconsistency shows up, I see the errant bounces in my chopping drills against loops and forehand drives.  I don't recall seeing them in over-the-table low velocity play. 
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
wturber View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/28/2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3899
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wturber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11/28/2014 at 7:10pm
Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

I'll also point out that just like with blades it's easy to have the similar misconception here that only the touching bits of the ball are active in the interaction, when really it's the structure as a whole that creates the rebounding.


All the more reason to think that a ball with a more consistent structure might produce a more consistent bounce. 

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:

Observe for example that cracked balls bounce like crap even though it's usually the non-cracked areas making contact. That isn't to say the bits right around the impact have no more effect than those on the other end, just much less than a naive view would imagine.


The problem is that isn't entirely consistent with my personal experience.  Small cracks can have very minor (essentially not noticeable in play) affect on the bounce. I've watched players with poor hearing happily play on with a cracked ball that seems to play fine until and unless it lands on the crack.  When it does that, it makes a much more noticeable noise and is more likely to show a poor bounce.

Originally posted by AgentHEX AgentHEX wrote:


Also, from just above what you quoted:

>I believe the third ball (AP) is made by XuShaoFa. I don't have anything on pricing but I can say:

>1) The AP ball without a seam sounds really plasticy and it makes it tough to almost take it seriously. The ball loss quite a bit of spin on each bounce.

Damn those balls with no seam at all really are hopeless, huh?


Players seem to be very much prejudiced by the sound that a ball makes.  Possibly this is from being conditioned to certain sounds indicating a defective (broken) ball.   As Sean said, it was hard for him to take the ball seriously due to the noise.  So my take is that he did just that.  Balls that make high pitched sounds when they bounce probably are hopeless - regardless of their other playing characteristics.  And if not actually hopeless, they face a tough uphill battle in the marketplace.


Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.391 seconds.

Become a Fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Web Wiz News
Forum Home | Go to the Forums | Forum Help | Disclaimer

MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd.

Copyright ©2003-2024 Alex Table Tennis Ltd. All rights reserved.