Author Topic: LED Bulbs Already Failing  (Read 34335 times)

Offline Dottonedan

  • Administrator
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5880
  • Email me at art@designsbydottone.com
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #165 on: February 29, 2016, 05:16:53 PM »
HA!   In PA, the weather forecast was "Partly cloudy in the Allegheny county. (EVERY DAY). Er was it Partly Sunny. 50.50.
Artist & Sim Process separator, Co owner of The Shirt Board, Past M&R Digital tech installer for I-Image machines. Over 28 yrs in the apparel industry. Apparel sales, http://www.designsbydottone.com  e-mail art@designsbydottone.com 615-821-7850


Offline jvanick

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2477
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #166 on: February 29, 2016, 05:25:02 PM »
maybe the sun wasn't putting out the proper UV spectrum? *DUCKING*...

LOL.  This is seriously curious tho...

Offline alan802

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3535
  • I like to screen print
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #167 on: February 29, 2016, 06:02:22 PM »
It's hard to keep up here only being able to check the thread every 3-4 hours but I'll try to address the questions.

Ron and a few of the guys did come and demo the Starlight.  He is spot on with his assessment and how I felt.  I didn't want to give up on anything yet, and having seen a few others not having issues and Pierre's testing.  So I went back at it, trying new emulsion and EOMs and we've managed to squeeze a little more detail by adjusting some things, but the swab test really is a telling result, especially when we're dealing with such a thin stencil and long exposure time with an emulsion that is made for LED.

There has always been just enough doubt in my mind that it's us/me and when Rockers and I started communicating about our issues they mirror each other so precisely that I can't fathom it being coincidental. 

We've got some options on the table right now that we're mulling over.  I'll keep on trying to solve our problems and of course I won't give up until I have a better option or better way of doing things.  Gotta go but I'll try to address any other questions or comments I didn't get to.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it -T.J.
Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it -T.P.

Offline mimosatexas

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4221
  • contributor
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #168 on: February 29, 2016, 06:02:59 PM »
I know "the sun" is a horrible exposure source when trying to be specific about the amount of UV.  I was only bring that up because in my experience it outputs a lot more UV a lot faster than something like a flo tube unit would and penetrates better as well.  I just thought it was curious you got such bad failure on a rub test with as long an exposure in the sun as I would use without failure on my flo tube unit (which sucked) using the same emulsion.

Offline beanie357

  • !!!
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
  • Patience begets quality
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #169 on: February 29, 2016, 06:29:13 PM »
We shall chime in again. Testing  kiwo multitex, kiwo discharge  and ulano platinum emulsions. Currently use orange. 22-25 % eom. (Yes we have the gizmo)
Got a "to die for" under 10x loupe exposure on the kiwo discharge. Still trying to get the multitex dialed in. But the orange is ok, just does not want to bridge as well as we would like, and we decided to try some of newer for led emulsions. We use a 110 mesh  as our test bed. If it works killer there, we find the higher mesh counts are a no brainer. The kiwo discharge and multitex are resistant to staff spraying out detail. Yay!
 Staff needs things that require little finesse to achieve a winning hand. Maybe an M&R washout gizmo in the future.
All this at 12 seconds and under on our starlight. Frankly, they are so fast even 30 seconds is faster than staff. Thinking of a 40x loupe to look closer.

Offline Rockers

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2060
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #170 on: February 29, 2016, 06:34:06 PM »
Alan if I were in your shoes I would send these results over to vastex and ask them what they would recommend for emulsion for there unit?  I would also test the voltage on your unit to see if you are losing power when the LEDs turn on but I doubt it.  Green Galaxy did make a emulsion for LED use but I don't know how it will work on your unit.  We got a free sample a week or so back that we our testing this week.   At 60 secs on a 305 you shouldn't be getting these results since LEDs are suppose to burning faster than a 6k lamp.  What emulsion are  you using? 
It seems like the LED philosophy is that you burn the screen and than post harden it with light but with diazo emulsion you only get one chance to create this link.  So it seems like post exposure is what your missing.  I am against post exposure with diazo but  it does work with pure photopolymers.
Here is an emulsion test sheet I got from Vastex.
Now from what I know all these emulsions have been tested on standard T-mesh and not S-mesh like we use in our shop our Alan does in his shop. I would be curious to learn how many of you who post this super fast exposure times on your Starlight use S-mesh and who is using T-mesh. We did some swap tests on the squeegee side of the screen yesterday on a 150-S yellow coated 2/2 with a sharp edge Murakami Aquasol ST and at 50 sec we still got emulsion residue on the cloth.

Offline Rockers

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2060
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #171 on: February 29, 2016, 06:43:40 PM »
I'm a process guy (everyone here knows me well enough to know I like to break things down and know how each part makes up the whole), but I also understand that the goal/results are what matters when it's all said and done.  The end results are where I simply can't separate LED with MH because I'm putting some of the most finely coated screens anyone on this forum has ever seen (seriously, my guy makes better screens than I do, EOM is within 2 microns across the entire printing area), and regardless of the type of bulb is producing the UV I'm after, the RESULTS are poor with one unit and superb on the other.  So, I spend virtually an entire year, testing emulsions, moving our EOM all across the board, checking every part of the process to eliminate the exposure unit as the issue because I'm married to it at this point.  And how I come to the conclusion that it is the problem has more to do with me being able to roll up our old MH unit next to it, put the exact same screen on it and our issues are solved.  By saying that that is irrelevant and LED and MH are apples and oranges doesn't work for me.  I may very well be in the minority on that subject, and I'm not saying they aren't different, obviously they are, but the FINAL RESULT, the developed stencil doesn't give a damn about any of that. 

I'm not against making some adjustments here and there, obviously, we've been doing it for a year, but there wasn't any built in reasons or instructions that said anything about shortcomings or to put in different terms, a different animal with LED.  For example, every single screen that goes to press has an additional 36" of screen tape on the shirt side that never had to be done before.  The stencil begins to break down anywhere from 70-150 shirts but it eventually happens even though there are few shops that use less pressure than we do, few shops that use such a large variety of squeegee blade edges and durometer.  Because of the breakdown of the emulsion from the squeegee blade, that's one of the tricks we've had to put in place.  To get a more durable stencil (which you can see, burned 5 times longer didn't yield much better crosslinking on the squeegee side) we can post expose or just slap some tape on the screens, but post exposure hasn't worked as well as I would have thought.  I haven't done a lot of testing with post exposure and stencil durability due to the ease and speed of just putting some tape on a screen.

I just shot a halftone test of 50lpi, one side was shot for 12 seconds, the other 65 seconds.  The pic shows the white shirt that I rubbed on the squeegee side, very lightly, and only 3-4 swipes.  This particular screen is a 305, 5-6 micron EOM, under 10% EOMR.  The 12 sec exposure yielded decent halftones from 10%-90% but the 90 was sketchy and the 85% was solid.  The 65 sec side was good from 28%-90%.  I'm trying to get the pics from my microscope camera into my computer but the software isn't working properly so I can only post the phone pic right now.

So, I just don't understand where else I'm supposed to go with this.  Are we to jump through more hoops, continue to look for a different emulsion, increase the length of my tin foil hat antenna, even less EOM, be happy with what we're getting?  So if LED is the apple, MH is the orange, what more do I need to do to get what I think is a quality stencil? 



The LED units should as well then be clearly sold as Apples and not as Oranges so that there is really no confusion especially to customers who don`t have the luxury of testing them first before making the purchase. Or the differences should be pointed out right from the beginning. Especially if it requires shops to change their procedures in order to achieve a comparable "flavour" to an orange.

Offline markvas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #172 on: February 29, 2016, 07:03:04 PM »
Here we go.
When we tested the Aquasol with the Chromaline exposure calculator got a 15-20 second exposure. Then we used a Chromaline 10 step Stouffer scale, it gave us a full #6 at 15 seconds and #7 at 20 seconds. We shot the Kiwo (fine 85 LPI) and Chromaline calculator at 15 seconds and again got a solid #6. The instructions show 6-8 being a proper exposure. We held good detail, clear #4 text and good line and halftone detail. Paul can post detail photos tomorrow if needed. But, we think the best detail and durability still comes from dual cure emulsions.

Bottom line is we tested this machine thoroughly. We sent it to the Kiwo lab in Texas and got a very favorable review (actually that is Alan's machine). Pierre tested one and was impressed, as he has posted on this and other Vastex bashing posts before. We had our Chromaline rep come in and do tests with us, all good. We brought screens and a digital microscope to every trade show for the last three years. Charlie Taublieb has many customers using them, all good getting fine detail and great speed. We have sold countless units all over the world with little to no issues.

This thread, and a few others, has been hammering us with two customers unhappy with our LED machine, and one is using it below 50degF. Although we tested it outside at 30 degrees and it worked fine.

We have hundreds of customers using these LED's not posting on this thread, not calling us with exposure problems. As a result of these two unhappy users we made many calls to many customers using our LED's, all very happy with their results. Not that we are not in touch with many on a regular basis, but we called the ones we never hear from. What we didn’t do is ask them to go online and post it, this forum is not for that kind of cheap tactics. We still stand at two not happy, hundreds happy, or at least quiet.

We’ve had some trouble with bulbs going out, I admit it. I think it is the chips or its connections to blame, when this happens we replace them completely free of charge.

Alan, if you’re so unhappy with your machine, move on. Contact River City and let him take it back, we will make you whole. I am sure we offered this over a year ago after your first or second thread, as we offered the pump upgrade over a year ago, but regardless, I will offer it again.  The time spent writing about it could be better spent making money or enjoying life.

In our 56 year history, Vastex has almost never had to take a machine back for an unhappy customer. But in the LED case, I can take a score of hundreds happy, one or two not.

As for my friend in Japan, I wish you purchased through our dealer, they would have assisted you. But you insisted in purchasing directly. We contacted them, who has sold many machines; all their customers are very happy.

One of my competitors has taken this opportunity to chime in on this one, very very classy. I have not responded to most of this or that because I always felt this was a place for people share ideas, not make sales pitches or stick it to the competition. And honestly we didn’t spend our time monitoring this or any other forum. I don’t believe either of these two customers was treated poorly, or ignored, requiring this and the other pages of reading for the world.

Mark Vasilantone

Offline Rockers

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2060
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #173 on: February 29, 2016, 07:42:17 PM »
Here we go.
When we tested the Aquasol with the Chromaline exposure calculator got a 15-20 second exposure. Then we used a Chromaline 10 step Stouffer scale, it gave us a full #6 at 15 seconds and #7 at 20 seconds. We shot the Kiwo (fine 85 LPI) and Chromaline calculator at 15 seconds and again got a solid #6. The instructions show 6-8 being a proper exposure. We held good detail, clear #4 text and good line and halftone detail. Paul can post detail photos tomorrow if needed. But, we think the best detail and durability still comes from dual cure emulsions.

Bottom line is we tested this machine thoroughly. We sent it to the Kiwo lab in Texas and got a very favorable review (actually that is Alan's machine). Pierre tested one and was impressed, as he has posted on this and other Vastex bashing posts before. We had our Chromaline rep come in and do tests with us, all good. We brought screens and a digital microscope to every trade show for the last three years. Charlie Taublieb has many customers using them, all good getting fine detail and great speed. We have sold countless units all over the world with little to no issues.

This thread, and a few others, has been hammering us with two customers unhappy with our LED machine, and one is using it below 50degF. Although we tested it outside at 30 degrees and it worked fine.

We have hundreds of customers using these LED's not posting on this thread, not calling us with exposure problems. As a result of these two unhappy users we made many calls to many customers using our LED's, all very happy with their results. Not that we are not in touch with many on a regular basis, but we called the ones we never hear from. What we didn’t do is ask them to go online and post it, this forum is not for that kind of cheap tactics. We still stand at two not happy, hundreds happy, or at least quiet.

We’ve had some trouble with bulbs going out, I admit it. I think it is the chips or its connections to blame, when this happens we replace them completely free of charge.

Alan, if you’re so unhappy with your machine, move on. Contact River City and let him take it back, we will make you whole. I am sure we offered this over a year ago after your first or second thread, as we offered the pump upgrade over a year ago, but regardless, I will offer it again.  The time spent writing about it could be better spent making money or enjoying life.

In our 56 year history, Vastex has almost never had to take a machine back for an unhappy customer. But in the LED case, I can take a score of hundreds happy, one or two not.

As for my friend in Japan, I wish you purchased through our dealer, they would have assisted you. But you insisted in purchasing directly. We contacted them, who has sold many machines; all their customers are very happy.

One of my competitors has taken this opportunity to chime in on this one, very very classy. I have not responded to most of this or that because I always felt this was a place for people share ideas, not make sales pitches or stick it to the competition. And honestly we didn’t spend our time monitoring this or any other forum. I don’t believe either of these two customers was treated poorly, or ignored, requiring this and the other pages of reading for the world.

Mark Vasilantone
Mark, no reason to get all touchy here. Now I can tell you stories about your dealer here in Japan you would not want to believe. And they are a big part of why I don`t buy of them. As a matter of fact I hardly buy any equipment of any dealer in Japan as they have really no clue about printing and about what they are actually selling. And I can back this up through my contact at Wilflex here in Asia who is travelling Japan frequently. And frankly speaking buying the unit through a dealer would have made no difference at all apart from that I would have to pay a lot more which in return would give me even less joy and I promise you they would not be able to address any of my concerns. As a matter of fact they would not understand what I`m talking about and not because of the language barrier.
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 09:53:11 PM by Rockers »

Offline Steve Harpold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #174 on: February 29, 2016, 08:54:02 PM »
I have typed the science behind LED's and UV output at lower and higher temperatures a few times and deleted based on this thread.  I am very confident in saying that none of the manufactures myself included have used a spectroradiograph to compare the UV output at differing temps, say 50 degrees - 100 degrees. To go one step further I am also very confident that none of the manufactures wrote software or (One possible idea) used a temperature sensor with a compensation circuit to drive the power differently when temps are lower compared when they are higher.  Panasonic does this (Pretty cool) (not sure why we would as inks, emulsions, don't do well at 50 degrees either) or a light integrator would work as well. (Assuming all LED's performed exactly the same)

 If one of the manufactures did this please state that other than use this as forum to promote their equipment as perfect under the same scenario. (Yes I know you can over power the device to over compensate, but the UV output will not be the same at both temps either way) 

I have competed with Vastex for nearly 15 years and have the utmost respect for Mark and their team. Though we are competitors, I have seen how hard Vastex works to carry a solid reputation, and in every instance stand behind there equipment. As always good luck Vastex, I look forward to the fair competition for years to come!

Steve Harpold
The Brown Manufacturing Family!   

Offline islandtees

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #175 on: February 29, 2016, 09:27:15 PM »
I don't understand all this. The company offered to take back the machine. Why doesn't Allan return it and buy the machine he wants.
I own a Starlight and Rich told me try it and if you don't like it return it.
Needless to say the Starlight is still in my shop.

Offline markvas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #176 on: March 01, 2016, 06:39:38 AM »

 If one of the manufactures did this please state that other than use this as forum to promote their equipment as perfect under the same scenario. (Yes I know you can over power the device to over compensate, but the UV output will not be the same at both temps either way) 

I have competed with Vastex for nearly 15 years and have the utmost respect for Mark and their team. Though we are competitors, I have seen how hard Vastex works to carry a solid reputation, and in every instance stand behind there equipment. As always good luck Vastex, I look forward to the fair competition for years to come!

Steve Harpold
The Brown Manufacturing Family!

Thanks Steve, I have been waiting for the title wave of satisfied customers using my machine to chime in, but I guess they don't browse here. In lieu of that I'll take a vote of confidence from an unlikely source. You are a gentleman.

Offline markvas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #177 on: March 01, 2016, 06:46:06 AM »
I don't understand all this. The company offered to take back the machine. Why doesn't Allan return it and buy the machine he wants.
I own a Starlight and Rich told me try it and if you don't like it return it.
Needless to say the Starlight is still in my shop.

So far every E2000 is still in their shops as well. We have always believed to get the finest detail, dual cure is the correct product. Our testing was on all emulsion types, but our efforts to prove the finest detail was always focused on the dual cures.

Offline Vastex

  • Verified/Junior
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #178 on: March 01, 2016, 08:30:53 AM »
HA!   In PA, the weather forecast was "Partly cloudy in the Allegheny county. (EVERY DAY). Er was it Partly Sunny. 50.50.

We actually had a nice sunny day here in Allentown, PA. That is the only reason we tried it out. Normally we won't recommend sun exposure because there is really no way to regulate or replicate it. It's tough to come up with any real conclusions from it but we thought we would give it a shot.

Offline Vastex

  • Verified/Junior
  • **
  • Posts: 15
Re: LED Bulbs Already Failing
« Reply #179 on: March 01, 2016, 08:55:01 AM »
I have typed the science behind LED's and UV output at lower and higher temperatures a few times and deleted based on this thread.  I am very confident in saying that none of the manufactures myself included have used a spectroradiograph to compare the UV output at differing temps, say 50 degrees - 100 degrees. To go one step further I am also very confident that none of the manufactures wrote software or (One possible idea) used a temperature sensor with a compensation circuit to drive the power differently when temps are lower compared when they are higher.  Panasonic does this (Pretty cool) (not sure why we would as inks, emulsions, don't do well at 50 degrees either) or a light integrator would work as well. (Assuming all LED's performed exactly the same)

 If one of the manufactures did this please state that other than use this as forum to promote their equipment as perfect under the same scenario. (Yes I know you can over power the device to over compensate, but the UV output will not be the same at both temps either way) 

I have competed with Vastex for nearly 15 years and have the utmost respect for Mark and their team. Though we are competitors, I have seen how hard Vastex works to carry a solid reputation, and in every instance stand behind there equipment. As always good luck Vastex, I look forward to the fair competition for years to come!

Steve Harpold
The Brown Manufacturing Family!

Thank you for the kind words, Steve. We always stand behind our products because we believe in everything that we make. It's always important to have friendly competition with other equipment manufacturers. When we are selling our products, we never speak badly about somebody else's equipment. We will gladly explain the differences between products, but putting down somebody else's product isn't what we do. Best of luck to Brown and we'll see you around the tradeshows. 

-Paul