Cleaning or Polishing Balls

I just got a new set last night and boy do they mobe around, I also have a set that ive been using for the past 3 months, getting a ball cleaner soon now to keep both sets in the best shape,
Ive only been cleaning mypro cupcarom set by hand with soap and water, then burinishing with a clean tshirt to get as much of any residue off

But I enjoy that fresh set that must have a tad of polish on it
 
Personally speaking, I am more concerned that the rules allow for the pool balls to differ from each other in weight......it is permissible to have every ball a different weight up to 1/2 ounce.....14 grams weight variation.

Everyone seems to have a favorite type cue ball to use.....and cue balls types do vary in weight....sometimes significantly. The laws of physics definitely come into play with two circular masses of different weights that vary in weight as much as a 1/4 ounce, and up to 1/2 ounce weight difference, collide. 14 grams heavier or lighter weight difference between the two pool balls definitely affects and alters the reaction......and you learn to adjust.......or else lose.......but that's a big issue in my opinion.

Matt B.
 
Dave said:
I had considered the Aramith ball cleaner the holy grail... oh well....? now what?
Thanks for finding the MSDS sheet Mr Pockets. It is curious that Saluc, the premier manufacturer of balls and the sponsor supplying their name and balls to just about all tournaments, sells a product that is clearly not within the rules.
I love my home made bucket ball cleaner, in which I've used Brillianize for years.
I knew it left something on the balls, but seemed pretty neutral... at least for my playing.
I've tried to figure this ornery cleaning problem out. The ideal would be to be able to use some liquid cleaner in the bucket and be done with it... not have to clean and then remove the cleaner with a more neutral product. Thanks for kicking this around.

Additionally, my guess [ yes, guess] is Saluc's cleaner is nothing proprietary... an off the shelf product that meets their specifications.
Hummmm.... 55 gallon drum..... @ $1/oz retail.. hummm ... there's good margin there, my man!... book it, bill it, SHIP IT!
Click to expand...

Here's a link to the Brillianize MSDS:

http://www.brillianize.com/Literature/BRILL MSDS 09April2012.pdf

As you can see, there's not much in it but water. Whatever the proprietary ingredient is, it is at a much lower concentration than the ingredients of either the Aramith or Novus products, so I doubt it'll leaving much of anything on the ball after the water dries. If you leave the Aramith cleaner on the surface to dry, it dries all hazy but then wipes off with a dry rag, leaving a very shiny surface. This is how you apply car wax. It's likely that the stuff isn't leaving much wax behind if it is used very sparingly in a ball polishing machine as most folks seem to do, but Aramith recommends using one drop per ball when hand cleaning, which makes for quick cleaning but may leave way too much residue on the surface.

It's funny to me that Diamond recommends using either Aramith cleaner or Meguiar's Ultimate Quik Detailer in their machine. The reason this is funny to me is that the two products have just about a night and day difference in their composition. Here's a link to the MSDS of the Meguiar's product (scroll down to the G14422 pdf.)

http://www.meguiars.com.au/msds/

The listed non-proprietary ingredients are isoproyl alcohol (a solvent) and propylene glycol (an antifreeze), both at rather small (.5-2%) concentrations. The balance is not given, but since this is touted as a "high bead" water-repellent detailer, it is likely that is contains silicone, waxes, or perhaps both.

From the company's sales info:

The most advanced high bead and deep gloss spray detailer! Meguiar’s®, the company that brought car enthusiasts the world’s first spray detailer, now introduces a revolutionary mist and wipe product that works like a spray detailer and enhances wax protection. This totally unique formula represents a significant breakthrough in technology that has even our eyes popping! Through the use of new Hydrophobic Polymer Technology™, Meguiar’s has created a spray detailer that actually repels water, withstands multiple car washes, and adds additional protection to your finish. The secret lies in the high level of surface tension created when these revolutionary polymers react. The result is a slicker, darker surface and incredible water beading! You will feel your towel almost float across the surface. The gentle, high lubricity formula is safe on all paint types including the latest clear coats and can be used daily to remove loose contaminants, dust and grime to keep your car looking its absolute best. It’s so easy, you can detail a full size car in less than 10 minutes!
Click to expand...

All of the stuff in red has me concerned about whether or not I want these polymers adhering to my pool balls, particularly if the product can "withstand multiple car washes".

BTW as far as Brillianize seeming neutral regarding throw, have you tested it the way Dr. Dave does in his video? His method is pretty objective, and won't be affected by stroke errors.
 
Hi Mr P.
Thanks for the links.
I'm falling down this rabbit hole.....againnnnnnnn
Most of this is looking familiar. Have I tested ... No. I can hear it now.
Shut up and test.
... but I'll continue.
Diamond looks foolish.... I remember this MacG quick detailer. It's another company's Armorall.
Forgive me but, a blind man running for his life could see that it's not suited for cleaning balls.
It's a polymer, designed to make something shine and shed water!.... hummm
Doesn't that make it slippery? D'oh!
When I talked with the Brillanize people a few years back, I came away thinking there were polymers in their product too.
I asked specifically about cleaning billiard balls and the "nothing left behind" dictum.
The conversation got vague, but I do remember the representative saying something like 'Yes, we sell a lot of it for that use.' Great!


Anyone have a friend in polymer science?

Windex is looking more appealing. ... and then there's good old vinegar.
 
Le magnifique? Ball cleaner a suitable substitute for aramith cleaner?

I asked the billiard factory specifically for aramith but that's what they brought instore
 
beneath_the_sur said:
Le magnifique? Ball cleaner a suitable substitute for aramith cleaner?

I asked the billiard factory specifically for aramith but that's what they brought instore
Click to expand...

I use Aramith and Tiger Le' Magnifigue in my Diamond polisher. I actually prefer the Tiger over the Aramith for the simple fact it doesn't gum my polisher up near as bad. But as stated in earlier posts, it's not hard to clean the pads and hubs of the polisher. I clean 6 sets 3x's per week, I clean my polisher once a month, I have 3 sets of hubs I use per month. Brian.
 
The hubs are the inserts and not attached to anything. The side cleaners are just held in with Velcro. The bottom pads I install w/Contact Cement, they're easily removable, I just wash them, let them dry and contact cement them back in. I get about a year out of the pads and 3 sets of hubs. That cleans 6 sets of balls 3x's per week. Brian.
 
Sloppy Pockets said:
Well, that's what the Aramith ball restorer is for, isn't it? Use it and then rinse off the residue with a mild soap (not a detergent) to my way of thinking.

The point is that the Aramith cleaner does contain wax, a substance that is against the rules (and isn't such a good idea anyway). Do you believe it's some special kind of wax that was formulated just for phenolic billiard balls? I don't. It's 99.9% likely that it's just plain old cheap carnauba... which is automobile wax.
Click to expand...

It's amazing sometimes how people feel a need to reinvent the wheel! I'm not directing that necessarily at you, SP, but Aramith does not leave a waxy residue on the surface. Any residual compound that could possibly be left over DOES NOT affect the throw properties in any way. I tested the product per Dr. Dave's procedure, only I repeated the procedure 20 and 30 times with the same ball. Aramith cleaned balls threw the exact same amount on shot 1 as they did on shot 30. It was actually pretty surprising.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=5056666
 
Dan White said:
It's amazing sometimes how people feel a need to reinvent the wheel! I'm not directing that necessarily at you, SP, but Aramith does not leave a waxy residue on the surface. Any residual compound that could possibly be left over DOES NOT affect the throw properties in any way. I tested the product per Dr. Dave's procedure, only I repeated the procedure 20 and 30 times with the same ball. Aramith cleaned balls threw the exact same amount on shot 1 as they did on shot 30. It was actually pretty surprising.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=5056666
Click to expand...

Aramith is the one that reinvented the wheel. Lol! Do you think Greenleaf, Mosconi, and Crane used a "special" phenolic billiard ball cleaner?

The facts are that Aramith puts wax in their formulation. They even say they do, so there is no denying it. Why put wax in your emulsion if you don't want wax on the ball? How would you keep wax off the ball once you smear it on? It's just not logical that their cleaner contains wax and yet leaves no wax on the ball, nor does it make sense that they would add it if they don't want it to get on the polished ball.

And, yes, the stuff DOES affect the throw properties of the ball. If you use the Aramith treated ball as the reference, then no, it obviously has no effect. But if you use the untreated phenolic ball as the reference (i.e. cleaned of all traces of residue using a solvent like alcohol, acetone, or by using a detergent) , well, the Aramith product decreases throw compared to the bare resin. Dr. Dave's experiment demonstrated this quite adequately to me.
 
Sloppy Pockets said:
Aramith is the one that reinvented the wheel. Lol! Do you think Greenleaf, Mosconi, and Crane used a "special" phenolic billiard ball cleaner?

The facts are that Aramith puts wax in their formulation. They even say they do, so there is no denying it. Why put wax in your emulsion if you don't want wax on the ball? How would you keep wax off the ball once you smear it on? It's just not logical that their cleaner contains wax and yet leaves no wax on the ball, nor does it make sense that they would add it if they don't want it to get on the polished ball.

And, yes, the stuff DOES affect the throw properties of the ball. If you use the Aramith treated ball as the reference, then no, it obviously has no effect. But if you use the untreated phenolic ball as the reference (i.e. cleaned of all traces of residue using a solvent like alcohol, acetone, or by using a detergent) , well, the Aramith product decreases throw compared to the bare resin. Dr. Dave's experiment demonstrated this quite adequately to me.
Click to expand...

Two points:
1. The old timers used clay balls, not phenolic, for all or much of their careers. I don't know what they used to clean them,

2. You may be correct that Aramith causes less throw than a ball cleaned with soap and water. It may be a rainy day project for me to try. However, throw does not change with the Aramith cleaner while it does change with products that leave a residue. This suggests that the residue from using Aramith is either negligible, or is some material that does not affect throw. Either way, the product removes scuff marks, is easy to use in a ball machine, isn't expensive and a bottle will last a very long time. I think you could do worse and even ruin the balls with homemade remedies.
 
Dan White said:
I tested the product per Dr. Dave's procedure, only I repeated the procedure 20 and 30 times with the same ball. Aramith cleaned balls threw the exact same amount on shot 1 as they did on shot 30. It was actually pretty surprising.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=5056666
Click to expand...

I just read your thread about the tests you did and I think it is very good work. Like I said earlier in this thread, Novus 1 contains poly dimethylsiloxane in the same concentration as 3M silicone spray uses, so the Novus product is, in fact, a silicone spray equivalent to the 3M product. This does not negate the fact that the Aramith cleaner has wax in it, however. It also contains fine abrasives and a solvent (limonene in this case, I used to use that stuff in prepping histological sections, its smell is quite unique).

I'm not even saying it's not good stuff to use (as long as you use it regularly before it wears off), just that it is there, and that some rule sets state that it is illegal to use without removing it with some sort of solvent. Maybe we should change the rules? At least folks should know about the Novus 1 having silicone in it, because that is definitely a big no-no.
 
The key to ball polishing and restoration is in the process, which involves speed of polisher, grit of the "carpet" and composition of the compound.
Rubbing compounds are developed to be used within a certain range of temperature (speed), on specific rubbing materials and on certain materials.
Upon extensive testing of a new concept of pool ball polisher in EU, which is yet to be released on the market, we found out that in order to achieve good and consistent results in the restoration, speed plays a key role and that any product containing waxes and silicones should be avoided.
Best results are achieved either with wax free powder rubbing compounds used in the metal industry, or with ammonia and chlorine free liquid metal polishers*as long as they can withstand high temperatures.
Currently we are achieving best results with a proprietary blend.
What everyone tends to forget is the industrial polishing process the balls undergo. This does NOT involve neither slow speed polishing, nor wax based compounds of any sort.
The wax and sylicones stick to the balls and will finally end on your table cloth, and cushions and pockets, resulting in unproper rebound and pockets playing "funny" and this even more true on high wool content cloth such as the 860 since they tend to soak up more stuff than their lower wool content counterparts (such as but not limited to the 760).
The problem of chalk sticking on restored pool balls is something we have to live with. It can be minimized by using proper polishing procedures (machines and compounds) but it cannot be completely eliminated since it is simply not possible to achieve same results as the big industrial polishers in one unit that is intended for household and/or poolroom use.
The problem is simply due to the fact that the porosity of the surface of the ball is not as smooth as one that has undergone an industrial polishing process. A dirty ball will not get chalkmarks simply because it is too greasy or the surface it too oxidyzed to catch chalk, which doesn't mean that ball plays better than a polished/restored ball.
As far as whitening of old balls, yes that is possible and currently there is a sample of the product in the US, since we have shipped some samples to Rob Molina.
It is not likely that the withener will be released for household use since there's a good chance it will spoil the balls if not used by trained personnel and on top of that it requires high speed polishing as the final step.

Get in touch with Rob for more info.
 
Gumbo said:
... The problem of chalk sticking on restored pool balls is something we have to live with. It can be minimized by using proper polishing procedures (machines and compounds) but it cannot be completely eliminated since it is simply not possible to achieve same results as the big industrial polishers in one unit that is intended for household and/or poolroom use.
...
Click to expand...
Very interesting. Is it possible to come close to the industrial result by using a second, finer grit polish as a finishing step?
 
The Written Rules State...

WPA sanctioned events specify:

All balls must be composed of cast phenolic resin plastic and measure 2 ¼ (+.005) inches [5.715 cm (+ .127 mm)] in diameter and weigh 5 ½ to 6 oz [156 to 170 gms].

Balls should be unpolished, and should also not be waxed.

Balls should be cleaned with a towel or cloth free of dirt and dust, and may also be washed with soap and water.

Balls contaminated with any slippery substance - treated with a polishing or rubbing compound and/or waxed - must be cleansed and dewaxed with a clean cloth moistened with diluted alcohol before play.
 
Why bother going through all that when you can just get the referee to do it for you?
For the cleanest balls, wait until your opponent is on a roll and then ask the ref to clean them over and over again!

- Karl Boyes
 
Bob Jewett said:
Very interesting. Is it possible to come close to the industrial result by using a second, finer grit polish as a finishing step?
Click to expand...

That's always the process to achieving a high polish. It is much easier and quicker to start with the coarsest grit that will eliminate the deepest scratches and then quickly step up through graded abrasives until you get the polish desired.

The problem is that within a few hours of serious play the balls will be covered with very fine scratches. Although they won't be easily seen with the naked eye, they are there. In order to get these completely out it is necessary to go back to the coarsest grit that will remove them, which is very likely one or two grits courser than the grit used on the final polishing.

This will go on indefinitely, with the balls getting worn down way faster than normal play would cause. Most cream polishes contain very fine abrasives and waxes. These kind of dub over the edges of the fine scratches so they aren't easily seen, but they are still as deep as they ever were. Only by taking the entire ball surface down to the level of the bottom of the deepest scratches can you totally eliminate them. IMHO this process should be done once and only once - as the very last step in the manufacturing process.
 
Since all balls are polished as the final step before going to market it is evident that the written rule is aimed at preventing waxed balls, more than polished balls being used in tournaments. Waxing is one thing polishing is another thing. Rubbing the balls with an alcohol based solution is indeed aimed at removing wax residues from the ball.
While this practice is effective (to some extent) in reducing the problem of wax residues building up on the cloth and unconsistency of the ball behaviour as the wax wears out, this doesn't solve the problem of the ball being improperly "polished".
Bob, its not only a matter of finer compound grit. As I said previously the speed/rubbing material/rubbing compound must be matched in order to obtain good results.
The difficulty of producing a machine that will yeld a "near factory" finish at an affordable price is the reason why this new polisher was not yet released, but we are near.
We are working on an expandable, modular concept aimed at polishing up to 4 full sets in a matter of seconds. This should make the machine more appealing for professional use while still retaining an acceptable price range for the home enthusiasts looking for near factory finish and consistent behavior of the balls.
The fact that currently a speed controller that will work with both 110 and 220 volts input is not available on the market as a preassembled unit (other then the very expensive inverter based units) is not helping much in producing a machine that is addressed at both the European and the US market, but we working on it.
 
Thanks for your input Gumbo.
I'll be interested to hear more about and see your ball cleaner in action.
I'll be sticking to my bucket cleaner, but trying to improve my process.
Here's to a neutral playing field!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top