Alex Table Tennis - MyTableTennis.NET Homepage
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Plastic Balls -- Happy Innovation.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login
tabletennis11.com

Plastic Balls -- Happy Innovation.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Online
Points: 13518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Plastic Balls -- Happy Innovation.
    Posted: 02/06/2015 at 1:04am
After starting this thread in August Igor has finally started a thread warning us all on the lack of roundness of seamed 40+ balls, which was obvious months ago. (It seems I mentioned ithat problem on this thread on Aug 9, but it was already old news by then). Better late than never Igor.

I will forgive you if you can send over some of those carnal sex starved vampiresses you once went on about.

Back to Top
Stlig View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 01/30/2015
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Points: 142
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Stlig Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02/05/2015 at 11:36pm
these new plastic balls kill the rubbers much quicker than celluloid ones. Moreover, they are so easily broken. These new changes are nothing but the money. :(((


Edited by Stlig - 02/05/2015 at 11:37pm
Back to Top
igorponger View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/29/2006
Location: Third planet to the Sun
Status: Offline
Points: 2752
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote igorponger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/26/2014 at 3:52pm
TESTIMONIES OF THE PLASTIC BALLS BY CANADA's ADVANCED PLAYERS. (all representatives for loooper's school.
Originally posted by Ping Pong Depot,   Canadian Sport Goods Trader Ping Pong Depot,   Canadian Sport Goods Trader wrote:

To provide you with more feedback on the new 40+ plastic ball, we asked several players from the Prestige table tennis club to try various brands and to give some comments on them.
We asked them to write their opinions on four specific subjects:
-General impression of the plastic balls
-Favorite brand of the ones they tested,
-Difference with celluloid balls, what type of changes to their equipment or technique will the new balls require.

In total, 17 players provided their feedback, among them former Canadian national team players such as Peng Guo, Yang Jiang, Ling Kun Yang, Bao Nguyen, Patrick Léveillé, Mitch Rothfleisch and many other elite players.
The list of balls that were tested :
   • Double Fish 40+ 3-star
   • Joola SuperP 3-star
   • Nittaku SHA 40+ 3-star
   • Xushaofa 40+ 3-star (seamless)
   • Xushaofa Sports 40+3-star
(seamless)
   • Xushaofa Sports Club
(seamless)

Not all players tested all the balls, and the tests were not blind tests, and players may have influenced each other, but we found their comments still very interesting.

The first common remark was that ther e was not as big a difference as they had heard or expected. Most of the players really enjoyed playing with the new plastic balls and felt better about their game. Players foundthe new plastic ball harder slower, less spinny and bouncier (higher and more vertical bounces). As a result, they were making less mistakes and feeling more confident about their game. It was also more fun for them to play because the new ball allowed them to play longer rallies. Both Mitch
Rothfleisch and Bao Nguyen, former top 5 players in Canada, wrote that it was more fun to play because the rallies were
longer. One player wrote : "Good job ITTF".

The players found that the one practice ball they tested, Xushaofa Sports Club (seamless), played surprisingly well, a lot closer to the 3 star balls than they expected. While none of the balls received any negative comments, and half the players couldn’t identify
a favourite, 6 players chose Xushaofa Sports, one chose Xushaofa and chose Nittaku. Ling Kun Yang, former top 5 player in Canada, wrote that the Xushaofa Sports ball was the most similar to celluloid balls, and his favourite.
Finally, there was also the question on whether or not adjustments were needed to cope with this new change. Again while there were no strong conclusions yet, comments from Prestige players mentioned the necessity for table tennis players to find ways to adjust their technique or equipment to make up for the reduction in speed, spin and power due to the characteristics of the plastic
ball. A couple of players thought there was longer « dwell » time
with the new balls.
There is more to come as we keep receiving new brands of the plastic ball. The seamless plastic Palio and the Andro
40+*** balls have just arrived.
The Donic and Cornilleau balls will arrive in about a week, and soon we’ll gather comments on all these brands.
Please share with us any comments you have on the brands you try.
Stay tuned!


Mr. Pierre-Luc Hinse
Ping-Pong Depot


Edited by igorponger - 07/03/2019 at 7:08am
Back to Top
slevin View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 03/15/2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 3612
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote slevin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/21/2014 at 10:32pm
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:


Will manufacturers be motivated enough to search for a better (soft-and-ductile, ) material ?   Let's live and see...

I thought you wanted to reduce the impact of spin, speed, strength, skill, ...


Edited by slevin - 08/21/2014 at 10:33pm
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Online
Points: 13518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/21/2014 at 10:23pm
I played with the ITTF approved Xushaofa ball all evening today, which I bought from TNPP (6 for $10).  It bounces slightly higher than a celluloid ball dropped from the same height onto a table, but not a big difference.  (This is dropping them onto a table, not a steel plate).    This result is markedly different from the Joola plastic balls which bounce lower than celluloid, and which differ from celluloid by a larger margin.  The XSF ball was much nicer to play with than the Joola 40+ or the Nittaku China 40+.  Still a bit slower and less spin than celluloid, and will still take some getting used to in free play, but I had a lot more fun playing with this one.  It doesn't feel heavy and it seemed like fewer strange timing errors.  I haven't played with it enough to conclude too much but my distinct impression at this point is that if this was the ball we all ended up using forever, I would be ok with it.  I had the same feeling with the Nittaku Japan 40+ a few weeks ago.  We had some really good rallies with this XSF ball today.  It doesn't seem to sink so much away from the table as the Joola 40+.  All in all, a lot closer to playing with celluloid or so it seemed tonight.

   
Back to Top
igorponger View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/29/2006
Location: Third planet to the Sun
Status: Offline
Points: 2752
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote igorponger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/14/2014 at 11:32pm
HOW TO GET PLASTIC BALLS MORE SPINNY ?

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1998-10/909841669.Ph.r.html

It follows from the given research --a softer ball tends to produce greater spin and speed upon the on-racket impact.

The Plastic Balls, as now marketed worldwide, proved ALL to be made of exceedingly stiff material, hard to compress.. and obvious spin loss is now reported on all the ball brands, as compared to celluloid.

HOW TO IMPROVE.
-- Through using some softer plastic materials we could make up very well for the rotational deficiency of the current plastic samples..   Also, the ball speed rate is hopefully to grow up somewhat with introducing softer plastics.

Will manufacturers be motivated enough to search for a better (soft-and-ductile, ) material ?   Let's live and see...
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Online
Points: 13518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/14/2014 at 6:33am
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

   
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:


...... ....... Yes.


Dear Colleague,

Vexation eats the dog. you know, and easy mindset is the best healer.
Take things easy, pingpang is just a happy passtime, no case for going mad. Yes.


Thank god for the weener balls. Yes.
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Online
Points: 13518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/14/2014 at 6:30am
True about the range.
Back to Top
Tassie52 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/09/2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1331
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tassie52 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/14/2014 at 12:56am
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

I have yet to see a single seamed Chinese ball from DHS, Joola or Nittaku that bounces as high as any of the celluloid balls I have compared them to, and I have by this time checked around 16 of them.  Not even 1 out of the 16.  The average bounce height is roughly around 75% of celluloid.
What height are you dropping them from?  What are you dropping them on to?

The standard that is used is just that: a standard.  305mm drop height - not 309 or 303.  And they are dropped on a standardised block of steel - I believe Dr Kuneth keeps it under his bed at night so vampire dogs can't mess with it.  The rebound height of the ball is only measured under these circumstances.

I hear what you're saying about the low bounce but that doesn't mean it's outside the standard.  The acceptable range is 20mm which is perfectly visible to the naked eye.  It's a huge range.  260mm rebound is 85.25% of the drop height.  240mm is only 78.7%.  That's a 6.55% difference, and allows a major variation in the bounce of approved balls.

There's nothing new in this.  It's just that the celluloid balls we all play with seem to be at the upper end of the range without any great variation between them.  If the poly balls are at the lower end of the range we will all notice a significant difference.

Solution?  ITTF tightens the range of allowable bounce, or... we only buy and use those poly balls which have an acceptable bounce.  (At present, that looks like only XuShaofa balls.  I wonder how Weener balls will bounce?)
Back to Top
stiltt View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/15/2007
Location: Pongville, WA
Status: Online
Points: 16492
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stiltt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/13/2014 at 11:44pm
the carnal sex-starved vampiress are taking the vexery mad dog for a walk; everybody hidess before the bitee.




Back to Top
lineup32 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/06/2012
Location: Calif
Status: Offline
Points: 1179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lineup32 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/13/2014 at 11:29pm
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

GOOD TO HEAR......

http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf

Friends.
Look into this document's pages 15 -- 16.
"Research for a better plastic material will go on and on,
so as to meet the original technical specifications...."

Good to hear. So nIce and promisssory statement by the ball makers, Yes.

that should have been done prior to release no major sport would release equipment critical to the sport without complete research and testing, instead the ITTF has release several versions claiming there all play alike, unbelievable!    Bounce test is out dated and not critical enough for this purpose, video technology and software is available to accurately measure COR it should be used and results posted.
Back to Top
igorponger View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/29/2006
Location: Third planet to the Sun
Status: Offline
Points: 2752
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote igorponger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/13/2014 at 11:17pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:


...... ....... Yes.


Dear Colleague,

Vexation eats the dog. you know, and easy mindset is the best healer.
Take things easy, pingpang is just a happy passtime, no case for going mad. Yes.
Back to Top
DreiZ View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 06/01/2009
Location: New York, US
Status: Offline
Points: 2516
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DreiZ Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/13/2014 at 10:59pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

GOOD TO HEAR......

http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf

Friends.
Look into this document's pages 15 -- 16.
"Research for a better plastic material will go on and on,
so as to meet the original technical specifications...."

Good to hear. So nIce and promisssory statement by the ball makers, Yes.


That is good to hear because things as they stand are not acceptable.

There is a clear misstatement of fact in that ITTF document by Dr. Kuneth.  He claims that there is now no difference in sound in celluloid and polyballs approved by ITTF.  That is clearly not true for the seamless balls, even the ITTF approved ones. 

Also, he states that seamed balls are in the same range as bounce and roundness as current celluloid balls and overlap in size.  Maybe the companies spent weeks selecting their best 1% of plastic balls for testing by ITTF.  I have yet to see a single seamed Chinese ball from DHS, Joola or Nittaku that bounces as high as any of the celluloid balls I have compared them to, and I have by this time checked around 16 of them.  Not even 1 out of the 16.  The average bounce height is roughly around 75% of celluloid.  Roundness was also a much greater problem with plastic.  Maybe Double Fish is better.  I have not checked one of those.

And then there is the giant elephant in the room that ITTF does not address at all --- the Chinese seamed balls they have already approved have huge durability problems even at $2.00 each.

So one hopes they can fix this fiasco.

The good news is that there will be a new German ball maker named Weener.  Not the balls themselves necessarily, we have no clue yet what they will be.  The name.  Weener Balls. 

Yes.




I, for one, vote for Weener Balls.
Maybe instead of a fish it will have a cute little wiener dog on them... and 3 stars on the collar.
Yes!
Samsonov Force Pro BE FL 82g | H3 Neo 2.15 + FTL | Aurus Select 2.1
Samsonov Force Pro BE AN 82g | H8 2.15 | Grass D.TecS OX

For Sale: Hadraw VK FL 82g, Rapid Carbon Light AN 72g... PM ME!
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Online
Points: 13518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/13/2014 at 10:09pm
Originally posted by igorponger igorponger wrote:

GOOD TO HEAR......

http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf

Friends.
Look into this document's pages 15 -- 16.
"Research for a better plastic material will go on and on,
so as to meet the original technical specifications...."

Good to hear. So nIce and promisssory statement by the ball makers, Yes.


That is good to hear because things as they stand are not acceptable.

There is a clear misstatement of fact in that ITTF document by Dr. Kuneth.  He claims that there is now no difference in sound in celluloid and polyballs approved by ITTF.  That is clearly not true for the seamless balls, even the ITTF approved ones. 

Also, he states that seamed balls are in the same range as bounce and roundness as current celluloid balls and overlap in size.  Maybe the companies spent weeks selecting their best 1% of plastic balls for testing by ITTF.  I have yet to see a single seamed Chinese ball from DHS, Joola or Nittaku that bounces as high as any of the celluloid balls I have compared them to, and I have by this time checked around 16 of them.  Not even 1 out of the 16.  The average bounce height is roughly around 75% of celluloid.  Roundness was also a much greater problem with plastic.  Maybe Double Fish is better.  I have not checked one of those.

And then there is the giant elephant in the room that ITTF does not address at all --- the Chinese seamed balls they have already approved have huge durability problems even at $2.00 each.

So one hopes they can fix this fiasco.

The good news is that there will be a new German ball maker named Weener.  Not the balls themselves necessarily, we have no clue yet what they will be.  The name.  Weener Balls. 

Yes.
Back to Top
Tassie52 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/09/2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1331
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tassie52 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/13/2014 at 9:54pm
According to the Q&A, the acceptable range for bounce is for a ball dropped from 305mm onto a standard block of steel to rebound between 260mm and 240mm. If we're used to celluloid bouncing at the top of that range (255-260mm) but the DHS poly is at the bottom (240-245mm) then the difference is going to be very noticeable. Perhaps we need another rule change! Reduce the acceptable range to 250-260mm and the differences would be far less problematic.
Back to Top
igorponger View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 07/29/2006
Location: Third planet to the Sun
Status: Offline
Points: 2752
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote igorponger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/13/2014 at 9:09pm
GOOD TO HEAR......

http://tabletennis.org.au/Portals/16/Plastic_Balls_Q_A.pdf

Friends.
Look into this document's pages 15 -- 16.
"Research for a better plastic material will go on and on,
so as to meet the original technical specifications...."

Good to hear. So nIce and promisssory statement by the ball makers, Yes.
Back to Top
lineup32 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/06/2012
Location: Calif
Status: Offline
Points: 1179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lineup32 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/12/2014 at 12:50pm
Would like to see how each of the new plastic balls compare to celluloid in this test.  Celluloid seems to be an ideal material for TT balls if you want a lively ball after impact on a surface.  

 
Method 1
Table Tennis 
Ball
Marble


Cricket 
Ball
Tennis 
Ball
Golf
Ball
 
Velocity prior to impact (u) (m/s)
1.92
1.55
1.39
2.09
1.66
Velocity after impact (v) (m/s)
1.8
0.82
0.6
1.76
1.23
e
0.94
0.53
0.43
0.84
0.74

 
Method 1
Table Tennis 
Ball
Marble


Cricket 
Ball
Tennis 
Ball
Golf
Ball
 
H dropped (m)
0.22
0.16
0.13
0.27
0.16
H bounced (m)
0.18
0.05
0.03
0.18
0.1
Hb/Hd
0.82
0.31
0.23
0.67
0.63
e
0.90
0.56
0.48
0.82
0.79
Back to Top
LUCKYLOOP View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/27/2013
Location: Pongville USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2822
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LUCKYLOOP Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 3:17pm
Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Also, no matter what, the larger size cannot lack effect.  But i am more annoyed by low bounce of DHS etc.

If the new ball was 40+ celluloid then it would still be  slower but the magnus effect would be stronger or the same as the current 40C per the MIT study I posted.  
The issue with the  new ball goes beyond just  larger ball its made of a different material and reacts differently then celluloid when striking  surface area's.  Throw in heavier, thicker walls , less round, durability etc only adds to deviation from the celluloid ball.  

  


Hopefully, there is going to be a period of manufacturer quality control improvement.

This wouldn't be a problem except there was no tournament testing period to let the manufacturers perfect the new balls.

I think it would be better if they would put a little resin in the plastic so they would be more spinny and normal like the celluloid.
Hntr Fl / 4H & BH Xiom Sigma Pro 2 2.0
Yinhe T-2 / 4H Xiom Sig Pro 2 2.0 BH Xiom Omega IV Elite Max
Gam DC / 4H DHS Hurricane 8 39deg 2.1 BH GD CC LP OX
HARDBAT / Hock 3 ply / Frenshp Dr Evil OX
Back to Top
lineup32 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/06/2012
Location: Calif
Status: Offline
Points: 1179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lineup32 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 3:07pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Also, no matter what, the larger size cannot lack effect.  But i am more annoyed by low bounce of DHS etc.

If the new ball was 40+ celluloid then it would still be  slower but the magnus effect would be stronger or the same as the current 40C per the MIT study I posted.  
The issue with the  new ball goes beyond just  larger ball its made of a different material and reacts differently then celluloid when striking  surface area's.  Throw in heavier, thicker walls , less round, durability etc only adds to deviation from the celluloid ball.  

  
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Online
Points: 13518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 2:52pm
Also, no matter what, the larger size cannot lack effect.  But i am more annoyed by low bounce of DHS etc.
Back to Top
lineup32 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/06/2012
Location: Calif
Status: Offline
Points: 1179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lineup32 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 2:35pm
Originally posted by zeio zeio wrote:

Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Three words to describe this ball:  slow, low, straight.   I really don't have much fun playing with them. 

(Slower ball flight, lower bounce, less arc, or so it seems).

  The issues about lower bounce and spin may have something to do with what happens when modern plastic balls hit a TT table vs Celluloid. The confusion many of us have is calling celluloid a true plastic and expecting the new plastic balls to have similar properties but it may be that one reason celluloid has been used for all these years in spite of new plastic materials and process is that has some unique properties relative to retaining/transferring energy when it strikes a surface.

1. Under room temperature, celluloid possesses an exceedingly high hardness and young's modulus.  Table tennis balls made of celluloid can remain intact after an impact with the table at a speed over 150 km/h(~93mph) without any permanent deformation.

2. At 100°C(212°F), celluloid can stretch over 60% its original length, which makes it possible to use water as a heat medium for compression molding.

3. The ability to use solvent to join two domes a little over 10 seconds, and the strength of the joint is on par with that of the main unit.

There are hardly any other material available today that can satisfy these three prerequisites.  This is the sole reason celluloid has remained a staple for so long.
Not unusual for materials that have unique properties  included for classification purposes within the same general material.  Clay is similar to plastic in that it can be molded or made into a wide variety of shapes and uses but don't take a low fire clay and put it in a high fire kiln as it will explode.  One can mix various clay bodies to generate unique temp ranges and hardness and therefore create a clay body that is perfect for specific applications.  
No mystery about new TT balls muted  magnus effect relative to 40C they are a different material and do not behave the same like comparing a nerf ball to a baseball or other sphere shapes. Would not spend much money on new equipment trying to make the new ball play like Celluloid.

Golf went through a similar situation in that a smooth ball was introduced that had little or no mangus effect so it didn't slice or curve making it easier for players to keep the ball in the fairway.  The PGA and other  professional golf associations banned the ball from tournament play because it made the game too easy to play.  
                

Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Online
Points: 13518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 2:32pm
Also, the possibility of using cellulose acetate plastics has existed for 100 years.  For example, it was used to replace celluloid in movie films to reduce fire hazards of movie theaters, I believe by the 1930s.  I read somewhere that plastics made of cellulose acetate tend to degrade more over time than cellulose nitrate, and the film stock starts to smell like vinegar as it degrades, a serious problem for preservation of classic films.  So I am thinking that cellulose acetate would have been used a lot earlier if it made a decent ball.  After all, you might think that the companies making balls would want to reduce their risks.  Perhaps zeio knows more about this. 

I am hopeful that modern chemical engineers are able to solve the problem and tweak cellulose acetate in such a way as to produce something better and more like celluloid.  Like I have said, the Nittaku Japan polyball we checked (only one, though) bounced exactly the same as a Nittaku celluloid Japan 40 (at least in our crude test).  It was very round.  We will learn more in October.  Interestingly, a seamless XSF ball (again only one) actually bounced quite a bit higher than celluloid!  I wish I had played with that one more, and I just ordered some from TTNPP.  It is the only time I have ordered something from them.
Back to Top
zeio View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 03/25/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 7059
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zeio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 1:48pm
Originally posted by lineup32 lineup32 wrote:

Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Three words to describe this ball:  slow, low, straight.   I really don't have much fun playing with them. 

(Slower ball flight, lower bounce, less arc, or so it seems).

  The issues about lower bounce and spin may have something to do with what happens when modern plastic balls hit a TT table vs Celluloid. The confusion many of us have is calling celluloid a true plastic and expecting the new plastic balls to have similar properties but it may be that one reason celluloid has been used for all these years in spite of new plastic materials and process is that has some unique properties relative to retaining/transferring energy when it strikes a surface.

1. Under room temperature, celluloid possesses an exceedingly high hardness and young's modulus.  Table tennis balls made of celluloid can remain intact after an impact with the table at a speed over 150 km/h(~93mph) without any permanent deformation.

2. At 100°C(212°F), celluloid can stretch over 60% its original length, which makes it possible to use water as a heat medium for compression molding.

3. The ability to use solvent to join two domes a little over 10 seconds, and the strength of the joint is on par with that of the main unit.

There are hardly any other material available today that can satisfy these three prerequisites.  This is the sole reason celluloid has remained a staple for so long.
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
Back to Top
zeio View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member


Joined: 03/25/2010
Status: Offline
Points: 7059
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote zeio Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 1:31pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Actually the fact that the ITTF rule has specifically allowed for plastic balls for decades is not an accident..  Some of the older players may remember that Halex produced ITTF approved plastic balls in the 1970s.  They were, of course 38 mm, but they had a somewhat broken sound and had a lot of the same problems that people are reporting with the current seamed polyballs (fragility, hardness, weird play, somewhat different sound).  I don't know if they were made of cellulose acetate, but that would be the obvious choice if you were trying to use something other than cellulose nitrate.  There may have been other attempts at this I don't know about.  I very much doubt that the increase in size is the source of all of the discontent with the seamed Chinese poly balls (which also means some of the problems could get better).  I think some of it is the hardness of the ball surface.  Too hard or too soft can both be bad.  The word "this" in clannewton perhaps should have been "a".   

According to one patent application, Dunlop used styrene acrylonitrile copolymer for their non-celluloid balls in the 80s.  I doubt it would be anything cellulose-based for Halex.


Edited by zeio - 08/11/2014 at 1:33pm
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
Back to Top
NextLevel View Drop Down
Premier Member
Premier Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/15/2011
Location: Somewhere Good
Status: Offline
Points: 13081
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NextLevel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 1:28pm
The real problem is that there is no real money in our sport. I find it hard (but not impossible) to believe that no reasonable substitutes for celluloid can be developed with all the genius out there - the question is likely resource-starved. Thankfully, the Japanese took the problem seriously. Let's hope the Germans are doing the same.
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Hadraw VR/190
FH: Tibhar MX-K 2.1 B
BH: Tibhar MX-K 2.1 R
Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes.
Back to Top
lineup32 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 12/06/2012
Location: Calif
Status: Offline
Points: 1179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lineup32 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 1:05pm
Originally posted by Baal Baal wrote:

Three words to describe this ball:  slow, low, straight.   I really don't have much fun playing with them. 

(Slower ball flight, lower bounce, less arc, or so it seems).

  The issues about lower bounce and spin may have something to do with what happens when modern plastic balls hit a TT table vs Celluloid. The confusion many of us have is calling celluloid a true plastic and expecting the new plastic balls to have similar properties but it may be that one reason celluloid has been used for all these years in spite of new plastic materials and process is that has some unique properties relative to retaining/transferring energy when it strikes a surface.
Back to Top
clannewton View Drop Down
Super Member
Super Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/03/2008
Location: Melbourne,FL US
Status: Offline
Points: 299
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote clannewton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 10:11am
Originally posted by Tassie52 Tassie52 wrote:

Originally posted by clannewton clannewton wrote:

A friend of mine who stays in contact with Stellan Bengstan, related that they had experimented with this poly ball back in the 70's
Obviously not true as the ball in the 70s was not 40+, nor was it likely to be made out of the same materials.
Baal made a good correction, as I should have written "a" instead of this, but the fact that these ball are even larger than the 38mm, even more mass and heavier, it seems to me the effects on the equipment(rubbers and tables) is going to have even more impact than than the "similiar material" balls from the 70's.  But I will be glad to let you use it on your equipment over a long term and please let us know what and if there is any impact on your equipment.  I don't know if there has been any long term testing to see if this is a real concern as it feels like this ball has been rushed into production and into the market.
Nittaku Violin FL-L
FH Donic Bluefire m-1 max
BH Donic Bluefire m-2 max
Cocoa Beach TTC, Florida
Back to Top
Baal View Drop Down
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator


Joined: 01/21/2010
Location: unknown
Status: Online
Points: 13518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Baal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 7:48am
They barely bounced, were brittle, and sounded broken, and nobody wanted to use them.
Back to Top
LUCKYLOOP View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 03/27/2013
Location: Pongville USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2822
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote LUCKYLOOP Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 6:45am

The Halex 3 stars 38 mm I remember in 70's were of high quality very hard, did not break easy. very fast and spinny. except the stiga rubber used then was not very tacky, not quite as tacky as Tenergy 05.

edit

The ones I used were celluloid and good balls.     

Edited by LUCKYLOOP - 08/11/2014 at 3:09pm
Hntr Fl / 4H & BH Xiom Sigma Pro 2 2.0
Yinhe T-2 / 4H Xiom Sig Pro 2 2.0 BH Xiom Omega IV Elite Max
Gam DC / 4H DHS Hurricane 8 39deg 2.1 BH GD CC LP OX
HARDBAT / Hock 3 ply / Frenshp Dr Evil OX
Back to Top
Tassie52 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 10/09/2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1331
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tassie52 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08/11/2014 at 6:32am
Oh for the days of Barna 3 Crown balls!  Made of plastic and indestructible.  I was a poor high school student and indestructible was pretty damned important!   Big smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  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 0.094 seconds.

Become a Fan on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Web Wiz News
About MyTableTennis.NET | Forum Help | Disclaimer

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

Copyright ©2003-2019 Alex Table Tennis Ltd. All rights reserved.