NEAT Finishing Technology
Understanding the NEAT Finishing system.
|
“NEAT Surface Technology”: |
|||
|
An Engineered Performance Enhancing Sanding Technique |
|||
|
Written By: Nick Siefers |
|||
|
Senior Design Engineer |
|||
|
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it |
|||
|
|
|||
| NEAT Video | |||
|
The surface preparation and roughness of a bowling ball is a key factor in determining the overall ball motion. As seen in previous studies and data there are different ways to alter the surface of a bowling ball that will change the way it rolls down the lane. Changes in coverstock chemistry affect the chemical makeup and structure of the surface roughness while changes in sanding technique and preparation affect the surface roughness by means of mechanical alterations. After two years of research and development, 900 Global is proud to introduce a new and “NEAT” mechanical method of altering and maximizing surface roughness characteristics without sacrificing the visual aesthetics of the bowling ball. “NEAT” is a new Natural Engineered Abrasive Technology that offers both enhanced aesthetics and surface topography on the bowling ball. A magnified 3- dimensional view of the “NEAT” product is seen below in Figure 1 compared with other sanding pads that are traditionally used within the bowling industry. As opposed to conventional abrasives on the market, “NEAT” has a multi-layer uniformed placement of abrasive structures that allows for superior surface area contact, which yields a more consistent surface across the entire bowling ball. Testing and data analysis have also indicated that “NEAT” offers increased cut rates and up to 50% longer product life versus other competing abrasive brands. |
|||
Figure 1: Magnified 3-D View of “NEAT” vs. Conventional Bowling Sanding Abrasives |
|||
|
Technically speaking, this technology is different and unique because it not only alters the typical Ra surface roughness variable but also maximizes changes in other surface roughness parameters. Surface Roughness Ra was one of two roughness variables analyzed in the USBC ball motion study (found on the Equipment Specification webpage of www.bowl.com). The past study showed that increases in Ra led to increased overall ball motion traits. As a review, Ra measures on average how deep or high (vertical) the microscopic “pores” and “spikes” are on the surface of the bowling ball. It is a measured surface roughness variable that USBC has limited by setting a manufacturing specification that refrains the coverstock chemistry from creating a structure that exceeds a roughness of 50 u-in. A graphical and mathematical representation of Ra is shown below in Figure 2. |
|||
|
|
|||
| Figure 2: Surface Roughness Ra Visual Representation | |||
| Measuring surface roughness Ra has both advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, Ra is the most commonly used parameter to measure a particular surface roughness. It is also a variable that is measurable by most laboratory devices and is both statistically stable and repeatable. However, solely trying to characterize a surface by Ra alone does present a potential hazard and disadvantage. The Ra value itself is unable to completely distinguish a peak (“spike”) from a valley (“pore”). For an example on a large scale, think of the topography of the earth. In scenario #1 a mountain that has a peak of 2 miles above sea level vs. a crater next to it that has a depth of 2 miles below sea level. In scenario #2 a mountain that has a peak of 2 miles and another mountain next to the first that also has a peak of 2 miles high. In scenario #3 imagine two craters next to each other that both have a depth of 2 miles. In all three scenarios the Ra value would compute to a value of 2 miles but by only looking at the value it can not be seen whether a mountain or crater is present. Figure 3 below depicts the same type of analysis using the microscopic surface of the bowling ball. Both surfaces have the same Ra value but completely different overall surface profiles as one has more “teeth” while the other has more “cavities/pores”. On the lane, these two surface profiles will produce different ball motions. | |||
|
|
|||
|
Figure 3: Identical Measured Ra Surfaces; Different Overall Surface Profiles To avoid confusion and better understand the complete surface topography three additional surface roughness variables must be analyzed. The additional parameters listed below help give a more detailed analysis by breaking down the bowling ball surface into specific “peaks”, “valleys”, and distances from “peak” to “valley”. Figure 4 also displays a graphical representation of the variables.
1) Rp – Maximum height of a “peak/spike” 2) Rv – Maximum depth of a “valley/cavity” 3) Ry – Distance between highest peak and deepest valley
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Figure 4: Additional Surface Roughness Parameters – Rp, Rv, Ry |
|||
| Having a complete picture of a bowling ball’s surface topography and measured surface roughness through the variables Ra, Rp, Rv, and Ry we, at 900 Global, began to research innovative methods to alter and maximize these values to give unprecedented ball motion and reaction. Our research was focused on how a change in a single variable or changes to multiple variables could enhance the overall performance traits. The result was simply “NEAT”!
The “NEAT” sanding process has 4 unique engineered pads. Without sacrificing visual appearance, the pads work to maximize the potential peaks and valleys of the bowling ball surface and allow for a rougher surface contacting the lane compared with competing abrasive products. Figure 5 below shows each of the “NEAT” pads. |
|||
|
|
|||
| Figure 5: “NEAT” Sanding Pads | |||
| Four distinct surfaces can be created using a series of steps. The “N” surfaces uses the roughest pad (Black), “E” surfaces use the next pad (Blue), “A” surfaces uses a smoother pad (Green), and “T” surfaces use the smoothest pad (Yellow). The sequence of steps for each surface is listed below and represents how each surface is prepared during manufacturing.
“N” = 60u 3M Trizact + 50u 3M Trizact + 40u 3M Trizact +30u 3M Trizact + “N” Black “E” = 60u 3M Trizact + 40u 3M Trizact + 20u 3M Trizact + “E” Blue “A” = 50u 3M Trizact + 30u 3M Trizact + 20u 3M Trizact +5u 3M Trizact + “A” Green “T” = 50u 3M Trizact + 30u 3M Trizact + 20u 3M Trizact +5u 3M Trizact + “T” Yellow
** u = micron ** ** 60u ~ = 220 grit; 50u ~ = 240 grit; 40u ~ = 280 grit; 30u ~ = 340 grit; 20u ~ = 500 grit; 10u ~ = 1000 grit; 5u ~ = 1500 to 2000 grit **
When applied correctly, these surface preparations increase the “peaks/spikes”, “valley/cavities” by manipulating Ra, Rp, Rv, and Ry. The surface treatment also instills a higher grade appearance than data suggests. Below in Figure 6 is a comparison of the “NEAT” finish vs. Abralon vs. Polish. |
|||
|
|
|||
| Figure 6: “NEAT” & Abralon Surface Roughness Data | |||
| The analysis of the data indicates that the surface roughness Ra created by the new technology of each “NEAT” pad is actually rougher than it appears aesthetically. For example, the “T” surface visually looks like a medium compound/light polish has been applied to the ball but in actuality the surface roughness Ra is almost that of a 4000 abralon surface due to no compound/polish impeding the pore structure. The “E” surface visually looks like a 2000 abralon surface but it actually holds the overall surface roughness Ra of ~ 1500 abralon but with greater peak to valley distances. The same trend is noticed in the Ry data comparison. The interacting effects of changes in Ry and Ra yield ball reaction that is stronger off the spot and more continuous.
Another important point to pull from the data is in the “STDEV” column of the chart. Standard Deviation (STDEV) is a measurement that represents how close all the data points are to the average value. In laymen’s terms, it represents how consistent the surface is from spot to spot on the ball. The lower the standard deviation is, the more consistent the surface topography is. The data indicates that the “NEAT” surface finish is indeed more consistent than conventional sanding surfaces at each corresponding surface. Figure 7 below verbally summarizes the data found in the above figure. |
|||
|
|
|||
| Figure 7: Surface Roughness Parameter Verbal Results | |||
| In conclusion, “NEAT” sanding pads work to manipulate 4 surface roughness variables to maximize bowling ball motion and performance. The pads yield greater surface consistency across the bowling ball and give an enhanced visual aesthetic appeal despite maintaining a rougher surface profile. Product life can also be expected to last 50% longer than competing abrasives on the market. |
