Different Hurricane results based on boosting procedure

This user has no status.
The topsheet was not shiny after I performed the boosting procedure without using the foil. I did not test the tackiness before boosting because that would have required gluing the rubber to the blade beforehand.

After boosting, the topsheet was able to hold the ball for a few seconds.

It seems reasonable that the tackiness would decrease slightly after boosting. As the sponge expands, the topsheet is stretched over a larger surface area, meaning there is less of the tacky substance per unit area (e.g., per square centimeter) in contact with the ball.
what is the tacky substance? is it only on the top most layer of the rubber? or is it the whole rubber itself that is tacky? genuinely asking because i have no idea. if its just on the top layer, then your deduction would be reasonable, but if its the whole rubber itself, then it would have to be a different factor right?
 
This user has no status.
That's actually a good idea! Still not sure how you can measure the absorption per square inch (or CM) on the actual sponge. I guess what i'm trying to say, there's no way to do an exact replica of a boost. you can have two of the "same" hurricane rubbers and use the same amount of booster and each of those rackets might have a slightly different feel. IMO, boosting is an art, not a science lol.

Yes that is correct, the procedure only measures the amount applied to the entire sponge, not individual areas of the sponge.
I agree that many other factors impact the result, but amount of booster applied is likely the most important.
Applying the same amount should increase the probability of the results being similar.
 
Top