PAP Identification Method (& Terminology)

[Mike White]

This example only has a difference in the up number by an amount of 1/4".


Here the two balls are aligned to the point of release. Just 1/4" difference in the Up number and the Pin is clearly moved.


This example only has a change in the Over value, again 1/4". In this case the finger holes are still fairly aligned compared to the PAP, and the Pin hasn't moved much so I didn't rotate it to release position.

[Mike White]

I see one ball with the same layout, and one with what would be two different layouts. By shifting the pin you shift the core. When the two bowlers throw the first ball pictured the pin/top of the core will be at the same point of release for each bowler. When the ball is spinning around the pap off the hand the pin and mb will be in the same place for both bowlers. (3", 4" 5" ect span) When you understand that the rest will follow. By shifting the pin going off the second pic at release both balls while axis on the pap and will have the pin/top of the core, in different positions because they are not the same with your method.

Watch where the pin is on many of these vids in relation to the pap off the hand. No matter how long or short the span, the pin/top of the core, for both would be in the same location revolving around the pap off the hand. Even though it isn't the same distance from the fingers from one bowler to the next it doesn't matter because it revolves around the same axis from the same starting point for the bowlers style and span. The vid of different bowlers and layouts but clearly show where the pin is in reference to the pap onto the lane. Even with different spans the pin will always be in the same relation because of the bowlers pap.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOINRpWGrlw

Those are the exact same layouts. Both balls were (after drilling) rotated along their axis to position the finger holes horizontal to the PAP.

[Mike White]

Ok one more time, I don't have a problem with the Dual Angle Layout. I have a problem with locating the PAP with the Over and Up method. My system would still use the Dual Angle, it would just use a more consistent method of locating the PAP. The Dual Angle is just a coordinate system for positioning the core. 3 values for 3 dimensions. The weak link is in the 3rd parameter. It is being referenced to the VAL, which in turn is referenced to the Grip Center via the Over and Up.

[bowl1820]

I agree that in this pic those are the same layouts. And all you did was rotate the ball on the axis(pap) and line up the finger holes.


But whats that prove? one is just turned father along in its rotation.

The core is still at the same angle to the axis (PAP).

[billf]

The very first step in the dual angle layout is where your issue is? The first step is choosing the Pin to PAP distance but you're saying ANY of the current methods of obtaining PAP are inconsistent?

[billf]

Or is it that the industry is using the mid point of the span rather than the mid point of the finger holes as a reference point?

[Mike White]

I agree that in this pic those are the same layouts. And all you did was rotate the ball on the axis(pap) and line up the finger holes.


But whats that prove? one is just turned father along in its rotation.

The core is still at the same angle to the axis (PAP).

Here is a comparison between the same bowler and balls with different layouts.
One is 45 x 3 x 30, and the other is 45 x 3 x 40.

Based on your theory that "just being turned farther along in it's rotation" isn't significant you logically think the 3rd value of the Dual Angle layout is insignificant.

[Mike White]

The very first step in the dual angle layout is where your issue is? The first step is choosing the Pin to PAP distance but you're saying ANY of the current methods of obtaining PAP are inconsistent?

The weakness with the Dual Angle Method is it's reliance on the VAL. Obtaining the VAL is where the defect is. It's directly related to the Over and Up process.

[bowl1820]

Here is a comparison between the same bowler and balls with different layouts.
One is 45 x 3 x 30, and the other is 45 x 3 x 40.

I asked the question:
But whats that prove?

Showing the the same bowler with 2 different layouts doesn't answer that or anything.

Based on your theory that "just being turned farther along in it's rotation" isn't significant you logically think the 3rd value of the Dual Angle layout is insignificant.

you say I must logically think the 3rd value of the Dual Angle layout is insignificant. I think All the values are important!

What I'm saying is just because you turn the ball on the axis a little bit it didn't change anything, The pin to pap distance is still the same, It didn't change the the angle of the core to the axis.

[billf]

The weakness with the Dual Angle Method is it's reliance on the VAL. Obtaining the VAL is where the defect is. It's directly related to the Over and Up process.

It's directly related to the PAP, not the process. No matter what process is used to determine the PAP it still is one of two absolute axis on a ball. Now when some configure it they say "good enough" and that is the only inconsistency with it. I have mine figure to within .002". When the ball is first released and that marker dot does not move that is the PAP irrelevant to what process what used to obtain it.