OOAK Table Tennis Forum

What exactly do you mean by saying that the risk is REAL? What risk?

Here are some celluloid manufacturers:

MERTHAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE CO., LTD. http://www.tradekey.com/company/MERTHAN ... 65511.html

Hindustan Celluloid Plastic Inds http://www.startlocal.in/manufacturing_ ... 40669.html

Kengshan cellulose manufacturing co.,ltd http://caojianxmg.en.hisupplier.com/

CELLULOID INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED http://www.celluloid.com.cn/Company_profile.asp


Jiujiang Celluloid Industrial Co. Ltd http://www.globalsources.com/si/FL/Jiuj ... 149681.htm

Here are more links: http://www.alibaba.com/corporations/cel ... ---50.html

You'll want to dig deeper and find out how many of those companies make celluloid sheet as is used for table tennis as opposed for guitar picks or fountain pen barrels. Further, you need to be careful about the term "celluloid". Some products are marketed as "celluloid" that aren't truly celluloid. There are many cellulosic plastic that are not celluloid.

As for the risk, celluloid used to be made in more diverse locations. The diversity of manufacturing locations for celluloid has shrunk. I think that signifies an increased risk. I don't think it signifies a crisis or even a near crisis. But it is reason for concern and vigilance. But I would think that F.I.T. is up to the task of keeping that vigil.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

So, let me ask you again.

What risk?

You said "real risk". Again, what "real risk"? I do not mean imagined risk, I specifically mean "what real risk".

Because, as far as I can see, there is no real risk at all. No risk. There has never been a problem and there is no real reason to expect any problem.

About the "shrunk diversity of manufacturing locations". What is the problem here? Do you expect them to form a cartel? If yes, what is the basis for such an expectation? If not, what sort of risk do you mean? What facts do you have to justify this statement about "risk"?

As an industry shrinks in scale the chances for disruptions that affect it go up. As an industry shrinks in location diversity the odds of disruptions from things like natural disasters go up. The flooding in Thailand is a recent example. Every hear the saying, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." That's the basic concern. We aren't down to one "basket", but there are fewer of them.

As I said, I don't consider the risk to be particularly severe or high. But it does increase as these changes occur. So there is legitimate reason to pay extra attention to the issue.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

I see, "not PARTICULARLY severe or high". The next step down would be simply "severe or high". I understand the message, thank you.

OK, I remember Alex preferring to keep it friendly here, so I am not going to speculate about your possible motivation or your way of thinking. The fact is that I presented 5 concrete links to manufacturers of celluloid sheets from different countries and a link to other links, still you countered it with risk of putting eggs in ONE basket. ONE, after I showed you FIVE and more. There is no logic in that, and I am afraid I recognize a pattern of scare mongering we know so well from politics.

So far, 4 fake reasons to switch to plastic balls have been presented to us: worldwide ban of celluloid (lie), general hazards of celluloid (lie, because irrelevant under usual circumstances), production hazards (irrelevant, because easy to handle) and last not least "monopoly" or "disruptions" (irrelevant, pure scare mongering).

OK, I am looking forward to what is coming next, I am sure it will, there is a lot of money at stake.

I don't think Wturber is scare mongering, just supporting his statements. I don't think Jay has any vested interest in changing to plastic balls given his history on the subject. ITTF is probably scare mongering though considering the seemingly fake reasons put up to get rid of celluloid balls and there seems to be vested interests all over the place there.

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.

Here is scare-mongering...

_________________



The MNNB Blog has had some pretty amazing stuff lately. Just click this text to check it out. | My OOAK Interview
Table Tennis Video Links: itTV | laola1.tv | ttbl | fftt | Challenger Series | mnnb-tv

My whole set-up costs less than a sheet of Butterfly Dignics

I believe this is the Patent for USA: http://patents.com/us-8105183.html

_________________
OOAK Table Tennis Shop | Re-Impact Blades | Butterfly Table Tennis bats
Setup1: Re-Impact Smart, Viper OX, Victas VS 401 Setup2: Re-Impact Barath, Dtecs OX, TSP Triple Spin Chop 1.0mm Setup3: Re-Impact Dark Knight, Hellfire OX, 999 Turbo
Recent Articles: Butterfly Tenergy Alternatives | Tenergy Rubbers Compared | Re-Impact User Guide

The patent seems to be for a two-piece ball. I wonder if thats why the single piece ball fell out of favour?

Interesting it covers balls to 48mm! Hope it doesn't give Adham any ideas!

_________________
I'm always in the dark, but the Dark sheds lights upon everything!! Beauty is only pimple deep! Beauty is in the eye of the pipholder!
S/U 1: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Andro Rasant 2.1 . BH Red Tibhar Grass Dtecs
S/U 2: Blade: Bty Gergely . FH Black Hexer+ 2.1 . BH Red GD Talon
S/U 3: Blade: Bty Gergely . No rubbers...thinking of adding Red Dtecs and Black Rasant
Aussie Table Tennis Shop / Aussie Table Tennis Facebook Page / Equipment Review Index / Read my Reb Report Blog: click here.

Too late!

I'd bet you USD$10,000 that Adham is the man behind the patent.

(...It isn't that hard to see through all the smoke and mirrors...)

SLICK AND NOISY.

One more problem about the PB has emerged by now..

PB is reported to become rather unplayable as soon as after a hour's play, through getting something ivory-slick and not gripping on the rubber surface well. The reports sound quite truthful. I have some used samples of Barna, Aurora and GO-GO balls (seemingly made of plastic) and they really look, feel and play like a polished glass globe, that is no friction on impacts.
Such a poor PB's playability is going to cause a true financial collapse for those individual players using tt-robots. The balls with less friction have to be replaced over and over again for getting less spinny, you understand.

The early loss of grippiness seems to be a common "weak spot" with any plastic material of any chemical composition. The well-known fact of mid-80's table tennis industry is that the "novelty" ball of plastic from Dunlop (Barna Super) had failed to catch on the market as being too noisy and slippery .

Dear Mr. Kuhn,
Are you aware of the surface friction instability inherent to any plastics?
Do you think it acceptable for a table tennis ball to have to be replaced just after each one match for a total loss of grippiness ?

+1

This is the only post I have ever agreed with Igor in the last 3 years.

_________________
Goof-off chopping bat
Gambler All Rosewood
Aurus Soft / Gambler GXL .6 sponge

Status - Out of Business Janitor/Babysitter

I also said thing like "not a crisis", "is something that should be handled by manufacturers - doesn't need ITTF involvement"


Actually, you'd have to dig deeper to find if ANY of those five actually make celluloid sheet themselves as oppose to farming it out and also dig deeper to see if the make the kind of sheet used to make ping pong balls. Your facts are very superfiical. Further, I used the "all eggs in one basket" to illustrate the point. I made it clear that we are not down to one basket.



And who is it that was front and center debunking the first three? ME!! I spent many many hours on it. Keep that in mind if you find yourself speculating about my motivations.

As for the fourth, you are simply wrong. Here is what I said originally:

"It seems to me that the real problem is that celluloid is a niche product made by only a few companies. The lack of manufacturing diversity does carry some real risk and does, IMO, warrant investigating alternatives. But ramrodding such endeavors through by using false proclamations (the ban, 80% the same as nitroglycerin, its why Hollywood is going digital) and failing to provide support for the claimed safety concerns is not the way to go about it. That's the real problem IMO. "

I did not give the increased risk as a justification to convert to plastic balls. At best, right now it is merely a reason to be considering future options. But it is a legitimate reason for TT manufacturers (not the ITTF) to have some concern. There is an increased risk when you reduce the diversity of your resources. That's basic business/economics. I gave a good example that you seem happy to ignore. So I won't bother giving more. But such examples are easy to find.

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

Read it all the way through. It includes a one piece ball specifically (Claim 31.)

Here's the patent on rotationally molding a seamless ball. Anyone know if Huilin, Zhang is an ITTF official or is related to one?

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2010111 ... -citations

_________________
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Hardbat: Nittaku Resist & Dr. Evil

Anyone find news on a reply from the ITTF on this issue yet?