|
|
paddle mass and speed |
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Author | ||||||||||
davidzou
Super Member Joined: 11/21/2006 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 199 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
lawl at infinite loops one post *screencap*
|
||||||||||
Sponsored Links | ||||||||||
Krantz
Super Member Joined: 05/14/2009 Location: Poland Status: Offline Points: 276 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
Isnt it
that in the past heavier blades simply WERE faster - just because the
construction of a "fast" blade required using heavier, thicker woods?
Looks to me that this observation was indeed true by just coincidence and now
become obsolete with the rise of light composite materials. edit: and that it is the “correlation does not imply causation” kind of problem. Edited by Krantz - 10/28/2010 at 7:17pm |
||||||||||
Hookshot
Gold Member Joined: 07/24/2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1797 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
Here is a thing that I saw in person. No guessing. My partner had two of the same blades. One weighed 99gm, one 103. Both played like OFF+. One was for a spare. He wanted a third and asked Paddla Palace to pick the lightest one they had in stock. They sent one that was 74. The first two played very much the same as each other. This one was like a defensive blade. All three looked the same and the same kind of wood. Same rubber on all three. The light one obviously had less dense wood to make it so light.
|
||||||||||
BH-Man
Premier Member Joined: 02/05/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5042 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
If you get along with such light blades and bat weights, moar power to you my man. I recently had a TBS that felt under 90 grams, so I agreed to mail it off oversees to another forum mmeber for his heavier TBS. I add grip tape and heavy Tenergy and Chinese rubber max thick. I don't have a scale, but I would not be surprised if the weight of the bat is over 200 grams. Yet, it feels so balanced, it doesn't feel all that heavy at all. Zero issues with the weight. In fact, when I was using Lissom, a blade at least 10 grams lighter, I really missed the solidness, but Lissom taught me to value setting up shots for higher percentage finish. Now I have the TBS back in the fight, I am better for the experience and can do more. I don't regret using the setup that was easily under 180 grams, but I feel very well using my HEAVY as brick TBS setup and am happy as a kid with sliced cheese for teh first time.
|
||||||||||
Korea Foreign Table Tennis Club
Search for us on Facebook: koreaforeignttc |
||||||||||
nicefrog
Platinum Member Joined: 06/12/2008 Status: Offline Points: 2398 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
I think this is a accurate statement :), pretty hard to make a blade faster from the same tree unless you use a denser and heavier selection of wood. But that all goes out the window with super hard non wood materials BH-man I can see how a heavier blade might make a more consistant shot just because once it's moving it's less likely to move and probably accelerates in a more consistant way but being able to vary the angle on the blade just before you hit the ball and while you are hitting the ball is a nice thing also. In the end everyone should play with what makes them play the best. But I just don't like the idea that there are people out there missing out on a good thing so I'm trying to share the theory that light blades are good, for the people that haven't realised it yet, that's all :)
|
||||||||||
pnachtwey
Platinum Member Joined: 03/09/2010 Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Offline Points: 2035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
as
Edited by pnachtwey - 03/20/2012 at 4:24am |
||||||||||
stiltt
Assistant Admin Joined: 07/15/2007 Location: Location Status: Offline Points: 1020 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
I'd be proud if I were you. You do inspire people, including me; No kidding!
Believe me you prefer it that way: if nobody were answering you'd feel lonesome.
WE ARE WITH YOU BUDDY!!!!!!!!!
|
||||||||||
remmpfremm
Member Joined: 04/05/2004 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 24 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
Originally posted by pnachtwey: You are confusing momentum ( mass x velocity ) with impulse ( mass x the_change_in_velocity ). ******************************************
My answer: Certainly I did not confuse the physical quantities (I meant what I said: mass times speed), but sorry for calling it `impulse' instead of momentum - that is because it is called `Impuls' in German, my mothertongue. I had remarked that the resulting curve will show more dependence on the paddle mass if one assumes that the paddle momentum (paddle mass times paddle speed is constant). *************************** Originally posted by pnachtwey: I don't think so. Plot it and post it and see for yourself. Don't believe me. Convince yourself one way or the other. Take a look at the equation for the speed after impact and you can see what factors it depends on. ******************* My answer: The equation for the final ball speed that you used is mp*vp0 - vb0*mp mb*vb0 + mp*vp0 (1) vb = ----------------------- *cr + ------------------------ . mb + mp mb+mp If one assumes that the paddle momentum mp*vp0 (call it `mom') is constant for all paddle masses, e.g., mom = 160g*10m/sec, then formula (1) changes to mom - vb0*mp mb*vb0 + mom (2) vb = ------------------------ *cr + -------------------- . mb + mp mb+mp The assumption of constant momentum is questionable, of course, but correct if the player always applies the same force for the same time, independent of paddle mass. Formula (2) gives more visible differences for different paddle masses, which is no surprise from inspecting the formulas. I looked at plots, but since comparison of different linear functions of cr is not too interesting, let me just give one example calculation: Setting mom = 160 g * 10m/sec, cr = 0.8, vb0 = -5m/sec, mb = 2.7 g (the standard ball mass), formula (2) produces the following values: For mp = 160g, it gives 1600 +5*160 2.7*(-5) + 1600 vb = [ ---------------- *0.8 + --------------------] m/sec = 21.55 m/sec. 2.7 + 160 2.7 + 160 For mp = 180g, it gives 1600 +5*180 2.7*(-5) + 1600 vb = [ ------------------ *0.8 + -------------------] m/sec = 19.63 m/sec, 2.7 + 180 2.7 + 180 so the difference is about 0.9 m/sec. With the same values, formula (1) (where mom is not held constant at 1600 g*m/sec, but equals 1800g*m/sec when the paddle mass is 180g) gives a difference of essentially zero, as you observed before. Of course, all such discussions take place only within the scope of the formula, as other forum members remarked already. |
||||||||||
B.
|
||||||||||
pnachtwey
Platinum Member Joined: 03/09/2010 Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Offline Points: 2035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
as
Edited by pnachtwey - 03/20/2012 at 4:24am |
||||||||||
Chopin
Beginner Joined: 10/17/2009 Status: Offline Points: 53 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
Just out of interest what differences do you consider to be significant, you could change the scale on the graph and make the differences look huge.
In cricket for example the difference of 4 mph (say 84-88mph) makes all the difference to world class batsmen. This equates to roughly a yard of pace (i.e. the ball is on you a yard quicker over about 18 yards). 4mph approximates to 1.8 m/s.
I am supposing the crux of your argument is that because the paddle mass is so much greater than the ball mass an extra 5/10g doesn't make a huge amount of difference when considering conservation of momentum and energy equations, is this what you are arguing?
(I'd rather leave COR out of it as I believe that can be considered seperately to 2 bats of different mass - if your wanting to examine the effects of mass on ball speed that is. By all means consider COR effects after, I am not denegrating that).
In addition what are your thoughts on using paddle weight, paddle and hand weight, paddle and arm weight for the equations? Can the bat be considered completely seperate from the body for the purposes of the relevant equations as the mass of a golf club head can.
|
||||||||||
Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!
|
||||||||||
nicefrog
Platinum Member Joined: 06/12/2008 Status: Offline Points: 2398 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
Any table tennis player will probably have noted that lightly built guys that still have good core muscles can hit the ball harder than anyone else. Just like the fastest karate guys are always built like that. The arm definitely is part of the equation and the reason bat weight is such a problem since it's stuck on the very end of the pendulum and extra weight there slows the acceleration heaps. I guess it impacts the previously mentioned lightly built guy more than it does a heavy set guy too
|
||||||||||
zeio
Premier Member Joined: 03/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 10833 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
Hmm...while I am amazed at your eager embrace of the term COR, you do realize the very term with which you are so obsessed when applied in this case is actually indirectly derived from and hence dependent on mass? By the above, the COR is thus not a variable one can pick arbitrarily as in textbook physics. Disregarding this fact, as is the case in your simulation(same COR for paddles of different masses with equal initial velocities in an inelastic collision), renders the plot unrealistic and unphysical. |
||||||||||
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare) + Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃) = 184.8g |
||||||||||
pnachtwey
Platinum Member Joined: 03/09/2010 Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Offline Points: 2035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
as
Edited by pnachtwey - 03/20/2012 at 4:25am |
||||||||||
zeio
Premier Member Joined: 03/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 10833 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
There is no better or worse term if COR, speed, faster rubber or faster blade all themselves are quantities presented in a relative manner. As long as the quantities are derived from experiments carried out under different preset conditions by different manufacturers, the end-users will always find it difficult to compare them in a consistent and reliable manner. Only a standardized test method across the industry would comparable absolute quantities be produced, but that would be a mission-close-to-impossible since confidential business information like trade secrets would undoubtedly be involved.
It looks like bolding the clauses of paramount significance alone has little effect,
Just because the mass is not in the equation does not mean it is not there. By conservation of momentum in a closed system, the final velocities of a one-dimenional collision for two colliding objects are given by: There you go, mass is now visible in the equation. Plug one of the final velocities into the COR formula and you get the speed-after-impact formula for that final velocity. Plug the other in and you get one for the other. The fact is COR, mass and final velocities are inter-dependent. Using the speed-after-impact formula does not change that. Disregarding this fact, you forcefully separate the COR and mass into two independent variables. This is where the plot becomes unphysical. Having two independent variables also renders the plot unrealistic because it is in clear violation of fair test: |
||||||||||
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare) + Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃) = 184.8g |
||||||||||
davidz
Super Member Joined: 10/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 143 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
It seems to me that the paddle mass is not that important related to ball speed unless the paddle mass is not much larger than the weight of a table tennis ball.
Based on
ma ua + mb ub = ma va + mb vb 1/2ma ua2+ 1/2mb ub2 = 1/2ma va2 + 1/2mb vb2 Assuming the initial ball speed ua is zero before collision, we have mb ub = ma va + mb vb mb ub2 = ma va2 + mb vb2 Solving this equation, the ball speed after collision is va = 2 mb ub/(ma+ mb)
For a ball with zero speed and mb >> ma, the maximum speed is about 2 times the blade speed after collision. This suggests that there is almost no difference for ball speed between 150 gram and 200 gram blades. |
||||||||||
pnachtwey
Platinum Member Joined: 03/09/2010 Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Offline Points: 2035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
as Edited by pnachtwey - 03/20/2012 at 4:25am |
||||||||||
zeio
Premier Member Joined: 03/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 10833 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
O.o?! The speed-after-impact formula DOES assume perfectly elastic collisions(zero loss of kinetic energy, COR=1), inelastic collisions(some loss of kinetic energy, 0 < COR < 1) and perfectly inelastic collisions(zero kinetic energy in a center of momentum frame, COR = 0). That is the whole point of having the COR in the equation to start with!
Yet you used the speed-after-impact formula assuming kinetic energy in both conserved and non-conserved states when generating the plot on the notion that COR is independent of mass.
You have two independent variables in the plot: COR[0...1] and mass[160, 180, 200, 250, 300], irrespective of each other. On the same page now?
Setting the same conditions for the speed-after-impact equation would yield the same result if you solve for the COR, and vice versa. The two equations are interchangeable. It does not matter whether the paddle is allowed to move or change speeds as long as the initial conditions are consistently applied to both equations. This is the whole point of having a fair test, so as to avoid unrealistic results.
Do not use the speed-after-impact equation as a shield. It is your model in which the COR and mass are treated as two separate entities that renders the plot unphysical.
How do you expect for a COR derived between a ball having non-zero initial and final velocities and constant mass, and a stationary paddle possessing zero initial and final velocities and infinite mass(practically a floor) to apply for conditions where a ball with same constant mass and a paddle possessing non-zero initial and final velocities and finite but differing mass? |
||||||||||
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare) + Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃) = 184.8g |
||||||||||
stiltt
Assistant Admin Joined: 07/15/2007 Location: Location Status: Offline Points: 1020 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
pnachtwey
Platinum Member Joined: 03/09/2010 Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Offline Points: 2035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
as Edited by pnachtwey - 03/20/2012 at 4:26am |
||||||||||
JimT
Premier Member Joined: 10/26/2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 14602 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
Almost off-topic but mass-related:
I just bought a really cheap but decent pocket digital scale (9 dollars from Amazon - free shipping 'cause I needed to buy some other stuff as well, weighs up to 1000 g with 0.1 g precision) and weighed some rubbers and blades. Some results shocked me... My two primary blades: Galaxy W-1 (originally 89-90 g) with all the trimmings, including double edge tape (and foam), grip tape, wing triangles: 102.9 g! No frigging kidding, my friends... Galaxy T-8 (originally 84.5 g) with all the same additions: 94.1 g Why there is a difference in 2 g between what was added on W-1 and T-8? I have no idea... perhaps a few more centimeters of grip tape? Furthermore, cut sheets of: Thors - 49 g PME 47.5 2.2 - 49.3, 46.3, 49.1 Karate Hard 2.2 - 51.7, 52.3 Just for your general info... |
||||||||||
Single Ply Hinoki Club, Founding Member
Say "no!" to expensive table tennis equipment. Please... |
||||||||||
davidz
Super Member Joined: 10/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 143 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
pnachtwey, After I read your first post, I realized the result I got is just a special case of yours. From physics point of view, formula is right! However, it should be caution to apply these results to table tennis.
The big assumption to apply your chart (or result from my post) requires constant COR among heavy and light blades. I do not believe this assumption holds.
In realty, heavy blade tends to be faster than light blade within the same brand (heavier -> faster blade). One may make a faster blade by decreasing the size of the blade (lighter -> faster blade). Certainly, there could be another case: ball speed is not too much related blade’s weight (e.g., very stiff and hard blade) Thanks for bringing up this interesting topic!
|
||||||||||
pnachtwey
Platinum Member Joined: 03/09/2010 Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Offline Points: 2035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
as
Edited by pnachtwey - 03/20/2012 at 4:26am |
||||||||||
yogi_bear
Forum Moderator Joined: 11/25/2004 Location: Philippines Status: Offline Points: 7219 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
assumptions even with equations with out proper experiment still isn't convincing.... people you have been SIDomized again hahahahaha
|
||||||||||
Independent online TT Product reviewer of XIOM, STIGA, JOOLA, SANWEI, GEWO, AIR, ITC, APEX, YASAKA and ABROS
ITTF Level 1 Coaching Course Conductor, ITTF Level 1 Coach |
||||||||||
yogi_bear
Forum Moderator Joined: 11/25/2004 Location: Philippines Status: Offline Points: 7219 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
a coach once asked a chinese coach what muscles are involved doing certain strokes the specific muscles... he was told by the chinese coach that even a person who does high jump use a lot of muscles even if its a lot more simple compared to table tennis.
moral of the story: you do not need to over complicate things to be a good player..
|
||||||||||
Independent online TT Product reviewer of XIOM, STIGA, JOOLA, SANWEI, GEWO, AIR, ITC, APEX, YASAKA and ABROS
ITTF Level 1 Coaching Course Conductor, ITTF Level 1 Coach |
||||||||||
zeio
Premier Member Joined: 03/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 10833 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
In an effort to clarify the relations between the coefficient of restitution and the mass of a paddle, I have dug around the net and stumbled upon a comprehensive study just on that. The study, "Prediction of Racket Performance Based on the Table Tennis Impact Analysis", is co-authored by Yoshihiko KAWAZOE of Saitama Institute of Technology and Daisuke SUZUKI of Hitachi Kodaira Semicon Ltd.
The following is the abstract of the paper: "This work investigated the physical properties of the racket and the ball, and predicts the impact force, the contact time, the deformation of ball and rubber, and the rebound power coefficient associated with the impact when the impact velocity and the impact location on the racket face is given. It clarifies the origin of ball speed. It is based on the experimental identification of the dynamic characteristics of the ball-racket system and an approximate nonlinear impact analysis, where the contact time is determined by the natural period of the whole system composed of the mass of the ball, the nonlinear stiffness of the ball and rubber, and the reduced mass of the racket at the impact location on the rubber face. Also considered is the energy loss during the impact. The diameter and the mass of the ball are 38 mm and 2.5 g respectively and the mass of the racket is 171 g including 79.5 g for two sheets of rubbers. This work enables us to predict quantitatively the factors associated with impact between a racket and a ball. The results show that the rebound power coefficient peaks at 18 mm from the center of the racket face and then diminishes because of the mass distribution of the racket. The rebound power coefficient decreases remarkably with increasing impact velocity. The original paper in Japanese is available in full view here. An english version has been published in the "Science and Racket Sports III" edited by A. Lees, J.-F. Kahn and I.W. Maynard and is available for preview at Google books. A follow-up study was conducted by the same authors on the difference between 38 and 40mm balls and has been published in the "Science and Racket Sports III" under the title "Comparison of the 40 and 38 mm table tennis balls in terms of impact with a racket based on predicted impact phenomena." This paper is available for preview at Google books. The racket used in both studies is a BISIDE(91.5g) by Tamasu(Butterfly) with Sriver of 1.9mm thickness stuck on both sides(79.5g) resulting in a total weight of 171g(Table 1, Figure 12). There is no mention of the specific glue used. The balls used are 38mm and 40mm in diameter with a weight of 2.5g and 2.7g, respectively. The impact model is comprised of a ball-racket-arm system(Figure 4) in which the spring constant(KRB, a constant of restoring force over deformation) and coefficient of restitution(eRB, a dimensionless ratio of velocity of separation over approach) between the rubber and ball are measured separately. Of particular interest here is the reduced mass(Mr, the effective mass involved during a collision), which takes into account the mass of racket(MR), the equivalent mass of arm(MH = 1kg), the moment of inertia(IGH), and impact locations(A-H) from the center of mass of the combined racket-arm(Figure 5 and 6). The effect of the reduced mass(Mr) on the rebound power coefficient(e, based on eRB) derived from equation (13) is illustrated in Fig.13. The coefficient grows rapidly and starts to fall off for Mr greater than 20g. It reaches a plateau once Mr goes past 200g. For reference, the lowest Mr without equivalent arm is at impact location A(78.1g). In essence, the mass of the ball is simply too low for the arm to cause a huge effect. In contrast, the impact velocity(VB0 = 8, 16 and 24m/s) has a noticeable impact on the graph where the higher the velocity goes, the lower the coefficient becomes. The vibration of the racket is also considered in the study and the associated loss of kinetic energy is negligible(Fig.18, (20).) The rebound power coefficients(e, based on er) for impact locations from A to H at 30m/s of impact velocity are illustrated in Fig.19. The rebound power coefficient increases along with increased reduced mass. The ball velocities at impact location A and D are compared in Fig.20. The graph suggests that the closer the impact location is to the center of mass, the greater the ball velocity gets. The effect becomes more pronounced as the impact velocity increases but diminishes after 30m/s. Figures 14 to 19 illustrate the difference between 38mm and 40mm balls. For 40mm balls, there is a small gain in the rebound ball velocity for impact velocity below 20m/s but a bigger loss above 25m/s(Figure 18.) The same behavior is seen for the rebound power coefficient in Figure 19. In a nutshell, 1. The rebound power coefficient increases along with increased reduced mass. 2. A reduced mass above 200g produces little gain on rebound power coefficient. 3. A higher impact velocity results in a lower rebound power coefficient. 4. Vibrations of the racket have negligible effect on rebound power coefficient. Yet players rely on vibrations to differentiate between good shots(ones hit inside sweetspot) and bad shots. 5. The ball velocity increases as the impact location gets closer to the center of mass, but diminishes once impact velocity goes past 25m/s(40mm) and 30m/s(38mm), respectively. |
||||||||||
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare) + Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃) = 184.8g |
||||||||||
pnachtwey
Platinum Member Joined: 03/09/2010 Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Offline Points: 2035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
Edited by pnachtwey - 03/20/2012 at 4:27am |
||||||||||
zeio
Premier Member Joined: 03/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 10833 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
Refer below:
The significance of the study lies in that it bridges the abyss between the clauses underlined above, and that it also brings us back to my original argument:
Refer to the first quote.
View it this way. Anything between 20g and 200g, however infinitesimal the differences may be, are significant enough when it means winning or losing the match. The net weight of the BISIDE blade(91.5g) in this study also rhymes with the median weight that shakehand blades of post-glue generation on the market usually come in.
At least it is not 0 and/or 1 which only appear in textbook physics.
I would also hope there lies on the net another study on this matter waiting to be dug up.
This is noteworthy whereby many pros are attributed for having a very high swing speed. Assuming they can consistently attain or even surpass the 25m/s barrier, the logical way to gain a further increase would be in blade weight if that is not already visited before. |
||||||||||
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare) + Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃) = 184.8g |
||||||||||
pnachtwey
Platinum Member Joined: 03/09/2010 Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Offline Points: 2035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
as
Edited by pnachtwey - 03/20/2012 at 4:29am |
||||||||||
yogi_bear
Forum Moderator Joined: 11/25/2004 Location: Philippines Status: Offline Points: 7219 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
how bout constructing a robotic arm that swings and hit using a light and heavy paddle.. the amount of force on the robotic arm is the control factor then measure the speed of the balls??? an experiment is the best way to prove that
|
||||||||||
Independent online TT Product reviewer of XIOM, STIGA, JOOLA, SANWEI, GEWO, AIR, ITC, APEX, YASAKA and ABROS
ITTF Level 1 Coaching Course Conductor, ITTF Level 1 Coach |
||||||||||
pnachtwey
Platinum Member Joined: 03/09/2010 Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Offline Points: 2035 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|||||||||
as
Edited by pnachtwey - 03/20/2012 at 4:28am |
||||||||||
Post Reply | Page <1234> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Forum Home | Go to the Forums | Forum Help | Disclaimer
MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd. |