Author Topic: masking tape  (Read 8426 times)

Offline alan802

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3535
  • I like to screen print
Re: masking tape
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2012, 01:42:21 PM »
So is it cheaper to use 2" tape and more emulsion or 3" tape and less emulsion?  I guess I could run the numbers and experiment but I don't feel like it.

We use a rubber based 2.0 mil 3" tape that is great.  It's 4.50 a roll.  I've tried several dozen types of tape and we settled on this product because it does everything we need it to do and is very easy to remove and leaves no residue.  I've used the pmi split tape and damn it's pricey and doesn't work any better for us than the stuff we use now.
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 Shawn (EIP)

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1356
Re: masking tape
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2012, 02:10:43 PM »
I use a wider coater now days and only use 2 peices of tape , at the top and at the bottom of inside the screen, makes reclaim so much faster and my tape rolls last so much longer.  I buy the giant machine rolls of masking tape, each roll last about 2-3 months at 60 -100 screens a month. A case of 4 rolls last me a good portion of a year.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 02:13:33 PM by endless ink printing »

Offline blue moon

  • Administrator
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6356
Re: masking tape
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2012, 02:24:47 PM »
uline sent us a box of a 2" tape by mistake - i tried to get the screen guys to use it, but they pissed and moaned until i got the 3" tape back in stock.   we ended up using the 2" to tape up registration marks at the press.

I was the same way. My guys kept telling me to get a wider scoop coater and use the 2" tape. I kept telling them I though it would mess up our coating (EOM). Well, they were right! With a thinner gap, 2" covers just fine and it is easier to put on the screen than the 3" stuff. We also stopped taping the top and bottom (on longer prints we'll tape the bottom just in case) and now we use less tape that is cheaper, take less time to put it on and take off. While the savings in time and money is not very big, it is there and it did not come at the cost of quality.

It is worth looking into it . . .

pierre
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 02:27:18 PM by blue moon »
Yes, we've won our share of awards, and yes, I've tested stuff and read the scientific papers, but ultimately take everything I say with more than just a grain of salt! So if you are looking for trouble, just do as I say or even better, do something I said years ago!

Offline jsheridan

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2130
Re: masking tape
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2012, 02:34:15 PM »
So is it cheaper to use 2" tape and more emulsion or 3" tape and less emulsion?  I guess I could run the numbers and experiment but I don't feel like it.



I did cost it. On average if you tape a 23x31 frame on the inside top and 2 sides with 2" tape you'll need 170" as you have to double down with the tape to cover the frame and emulsion edge.

3" tape on the same screen uses 85" of tape as you only need 1 piece per side.

Now if you tape the back of the screen like we do to block out reg marks, then you need to add 24 to 40" to your number.

Okay.. still with me..

A 110 yard roll of tape has 3960" of tape on it. Take the cost of the tape and divide it by the length of the roll.

2" tape = $1.79/3960= .00045 per inch
3" tape = $3.49/3960= .00088 per inch.

Take that number and multiply it by the amount of tape you use...

2" tape @ 200" (170" + 30" for back of screen) = .09  cents per frame.

3" tape @ 115" (85 + 30" for back of screen) = .10 cents per frame.

Well look at that, it's .01 more for the 3" BUT.. it took you 1/2 the time to apply the tape so now you have to figure in labor and how long it takes to tape a screen..

I went there to.. lol!

$12 per hour employee breaks down to .20 cents a minute.
It takes 3 minutes to tape using the 2" tape for a cost of .60 cents
It takes 1.5 minutes to tape using the 3" tape. for a cost of .30 cents



Now add that to the tape cost

2" tape = .09 + .60 = .69 per frame

3" tape = .10 + .30 = .40 per frame.

Now multiply the amount of screens you use in a year and see just how much it's been costing you to tape screens.

who's going to stop using 2" tape now...

 8)

Oh yeah.. btw I've costed the emulsion per screen as well.. about ..25 to .40 depending on the mesh and how many coats you use.


this is all part of my consulting work, costing down to the minute.

If I just saved you $500 a year with a simple post about screen tape.. what can I do for you in person.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 02:43:33 PM by jsheridan »
Blacktop Graphics Screenprinting and Consulting Services

Offline Gabe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • If it`s not alive, I can print it.
Re: masking tape
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2012, 02:38:50 PM »
Thanks, for the feed back
i got a hold of couple of rubber base tapes
to try out
@ alan
your guess is as good as mine
i was thinking yesterday. 2 inch tape or 3 inch?
more emulsion ?
less emulsion?
what came first ? the chicken or the egg
i don`t know yet

Offline Gabe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • If it`s not alive, I can print it.
Re: masking tape
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2012, 02:48:07 PM »
@jsheridan
problem solved 3" is the winner
i never would`ve put all that math together
thank you ;)

Offline jsheridan

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2130
Re: masking tape
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2012, 02:56:47 PM »
@jsheridan
problem solved 3" is the winner
i never would`ve put all that math together
thank you ;)

Glad I could help!!  ;)
Blacktop Graphics Screenprinting and Consulting Services

Offline blue moon

  • Administrator
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6356
Re: masking tape
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2012, 03:27:53 PM »
So is it cheaper to use 2" tape and more emulsion or 3" tape and less emulsion?  I guess I could run the numbers and experiment but I don't feel like it.



I did cost it. On average if you tape a 23x31 frame on the inside top and 2 sides with 2" tape you'll need 170" as you have to double down with the tape to cover the frame and emulsion edge.

3" tape on the same screen uses 85" of tape as you only need 1 piece per side.

Now if you tape the back of the screen like we do to block out reg marks, then you need to add 24 to 40" to your number.

Okay.. still with me..

A 110 yard roll of tape has 3960" of tape on it. Take the cost of the tape and divide it by the length of the roll.

2" tape = $1.79/3960= .00045 per inch
3" tape = $3.49/3960= .00088 per inch.

Take that number and multiply it by the amount of tape you use...

2" tape @ 200" (170" + 30" for back of screen) = .09  cents per frame.

3" tape @ 115" (85 + 30" for back of screen) = .10 cents per frame.

Well look at that, it's .01 more for the 3" BUT.. it took you 1/2 the time to apply the tape so now you have to figure in labor and how long it takes to tape a screen..

I went there to.. lol!

$12 per hour employee breaks down to .20 cents a minute.
It takes 3 minutes to tape using the 2" tape for a cost of .60 cents
It takes 1.5 minutes to tape using the 3" tape. for a cost of .30 cents



Now add that to the tape cost

2" tape = .09 + .60 = .69 per frame

3" tape = .10 + .30 = .40 per frame.

Now multiply the amount of screens you use in a year and see just how much it's been costing you to tape screens.

who's going to stop using 2" tape now...

 8)

Oh yeah.. btw I've costed the emulsion per screen as well.. about ..25 to .40 depending on the mesh and how many coats you use.


this is all part of my consulting work, costing down to the minute.

If I just saved you $500 a year with a simple post about screen tape.. what can I do for you in person.


all of this is based on the premise that you can not use a single piece of 2" tape which we are doing quite successfully. It also shows the cost of tape a little lower than it should be and the amount of tape used can be lower.

In principle though, the conclusion is correct (if you are unable to use 2" tape). What EVERYBODY should be taking from this is that one should NOT double up on the 2" tape and stop taping the top and the bottom part of the screen!

pierre



Yes, we've won our share of awards, and yes, I've tested stuff and read the scientific papers, but ultimately take everything I say with more than just a grain of salt! So if you are looking for trouble, just do as I say or even better, do something I said years ago!

Offline JBLUE

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2036
Re: masking tape
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2012, 03:42:33 PM »
@jsheridan
problem solved 3" is the winner
i never would`ve put all that math together
thank you ;)

Glad I could help!!  ;)

John,
You should put your paypal account info in your signature for those that want to tip you for saving them that kind of money on tape!  Great figures! Thanks for sharing that. ;D
www.inkwerksspd.com

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid...... Ben Franklin

Offline Gilligan

  • !!!
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 6853
Re: masking tape
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2012, 03:58:41 PM »
Am I wrong in my process of "cheating" the scoop coater to one side then the other while I coat.  This coats more of the screen but keeps the extra coats compiling where it counts.

I always end with a proper coat down the middle.

Now for you guys not taping top and bottom... is that mainly on autos, or are ya'll just careful not the get ink that for back and forwards?  Or do you guys just run the scoop coater all the way from edge to edge on the final "outside" pass?

Newbies need to know this stuff. :)

Offline blue moon

  • Administrator
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6356
Re: masking tape
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2012, 04:02:27 PM »
Am I wrong in my process of "cheating" the scoop coater to one side then the other while I coat.  This coats more of the screen but keeps the extra coats compiling where it counts.

I always end with a proper coat down the middle.

Now for you guys not taping top and bottom... is that mainly on autos, or are ya'll just careful not the get ink that for back and forwards?  Or do you guys just run the scoop coater all the way from edge to edge on the final "outside" pass?

Newbies need to know this stuff. :)

we are on an auto. I can see the issues with not having tape on a manual, but as you mentioned, coating all the way to the edge might solve that. My suggestion is to try it out and don't be stubborn like I was!!!

moving the coater will work, but it is easier with a wide one. . .

pierre
Yes, we've won our share of awards, and yes, I've tested stuff and read the scientific papers, but ultimately take everything I say with more than just a grain of salt! So if you are looking for trouble, just do as I say or even better, do something I said years ago!

Offline jsheridan

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2130
Re: masking tape
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2012, 04:07:49 PM »

all of this is based on the premise that you can not use a single piece of 2" tape which we are doing quite successfully. It also shows the cost of tape a little lower than it should be and the amount of tape used can be lower.

In principle though, the conclusion is correct (if you are unable to use 2" tape). What EVERYBODY should be taking from this is that one should NOT double up on the 2" tape and stop taping the top and the bottom part of the screen!

pierre

You can't get much better than that and it's a very viable way to coat and tape to keep cost and labor down for static frames..  but... what are you going to do when you get roller frames and you can't coat all the way to the edge due to the corner softening.??

Coating to the edge works awesome on a static frame.. not rollers. you'll leave blobs of emulsion in the corners so you have to use 3" tape if you want to cover the roller and emulsion edge. It gets even worse when the corners are to soft and you lose over 6" of top to bottom coverage and 3-4" of side to side.

This costing was done for the shop I'm working with now as the owner kept saying the 3" tape was to expensive.. so I had to show him with math how much he was losing a year (about $800 in extra tape and labor) by using and doubling the 2" tape.

I just gave away one of my formulas that I've had for years so I hope everyone uses it the best you can and looks at how you tape a screen differently.

Did I save you a few hunderd or even a thousand bucks this year .. send a paypal thanks to my email. Thanks for the Idea Jason  8)
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 04:15:22 PM by jsheridan »
Blacktop Graphics Screenprinting and Consulting Services

Offline Gilligan

  • !!!
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 6853
Re: masking tape
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2012, 04:13:01 PM »
No offense but if people didn't already know how to do that math then they just aren't math junky/nerds like me. :)

Sadly I wouldn't even consider myself a math junky in my circles.  My buddy used to carry around a math book for fun... he took EVERY math class at our college when he was there (Math Major).  I know nothing compared to him.

But I do enjoy playing around in excel and doing all these costing things... drives the wife crazy.  I built a quick spread sheet to see how much it would cost us to make a bar of soap based on cost of ingredients, some of it comes in gallons, some of it comes in ounces (yeah, we are thinking about yet ANOTHER business to get into!)

Offline jsheridan

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2130
Re: masking tape
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2012, 04:22:32 PM »
No offense but if people didn't already know how to do that math then they just aren't math junky/nerds like me. :)


You would be amazed at how many shops have never even thought to do stuff like this, math and science solve all problems.
Blacktop Graphics Screenprinting and Consulting Services

Offline blue moon

  • Administrator
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6356
Re: masking tape
« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2012, 04:36:00 PM »

all of this is based on the premise that you can not use a single piece of 2" tape which we are doing quite successfully. It also shows the cost of tape a little lower than it should be and the amount of tape used can be lower.

In principle though, the conclusion is correct (if you are unable to use 2" tape). What EVERYBODY should be taking from this is that one should NOT double up on the 2" tape and stop taping the top and the bottom part of the screen!

pierre

You can't get much better than that and it's a very viable way to coat and tape to keep cost and labor down for static frames..  but... what are you going to do when you get roller frames and you can't coat all the way to the edge due to the corner softening.??

Coating to the edge works awesome on a static frame.. not rollers. you'll leave blobs of emulsion in the corners so you have to use 3" tape if you want to cover the roller and emulsion edge. It gets even worse when the corners are to soft and you lose over 6" of top to bottom coverage and 3-4" of side to side.

This costing was done for the shop I'm working with now as the owner kept saying the 3" tape was to expensive.. so I had to show him with math how much he was losing a year (about $800 in extra tape and labor) by using and doubling the 2" tape.

I just gave away one of my formulas that I've had for years so I hope everyone uses it the best you can and looks at how you tape a screen differently.

Did I save you a few hunderd or even a thousand bucks this year .. send a paypal thanks to my email. Thanks for the Idea Jason  8)


hmmm, interesting! We are using EZ frames with soft corners and have no problems with it. They do have solid square frames so that might be a part of the equation when it comes to how wide the tape has to be.

I had to go and check. The corners are soft for only about an inch, or two at the most. We coat to about 1.25 from the edge which gives us about 3/4" on the frame. That might not be enough for the rollers . . .

pierre
Yes, we've won our share of awards, and yes, I've tested stuff and read the scientific papers, but ultimately take everything I say with more than just a grain of salt! So if you are looking for trouble, just do as I say or even better, do something I said years ago!