TSB

screen printing => Screen Making => Topic started by: brandon on March 19, 2021, 07:59:44 PM

Title: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: brandon on March 19, 2021, 07:59:44 PM
Just curious when they designed this unit back in the day why the slant to it? Everything is either vertical or horizontal now so did the designer really just have a thing for rocket launchers haha

No really
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: TCT on March 22, 2021, 10:33:54 AM
Just curious when they designed this unit back in the day why the slant to it? Everything is either vertical or horizontal now so did the designer really just have a thing for rocket launchers haha

No really

I always thought it was to save SOME space... That and probably just tried to push the limits of what could be done, plus it just looked cooler than a ST.  We had one and then we had a ST-III. The rocket launcher took up less floor space which I really appreciated.

I don't know if that was their reasoning officially, but it is what I always figured it was.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Doug S on March 22, 2021, 10:58:47 AM
I was told by a guy at M&R that the I image ST stood for I image "Second Try"
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: zanegun08 on March 22, 2021, 12:29:14 PM
I'd say it was the path of least resistance to convert an epson to work with their screen loading mechanism.  And it was a happy mistake to take up less room.  The printer itself prints more vertically, however as you can see they tipped the printer backwards to make it more horizontal.  If they tipped it any further though I bet the ink would start pouring out of the capping stations and waste ink tanks.

The reason they had to tip it though is because with inkjet ink if printing more vertically it probably just dripped down the screen.  It was probably a balancing act to find a happy medium between having the ink level enough to not drip, and also the printer level enough to not pour out of it.

The reason they probably went flat and then with exposure on imager is because the ink is so runny moving the screens around to exposure units will change the image as it's really just surface tension holding it in place.  Which is why on Wax they are mostly vertical as you don't have any of the above issues as it becomes a solid once on the screen.

It was just an interesting choice to convert that printer when they could've gotten a flat bed printer, probably so they could make that M&R Gucci markup as the Epson's were cheap to buy, and pay for those embroidered polos.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 10:38:39 AM
All a lot of educated guesses there. I don’t know why the slant. I never asked or thought about it. It was before my time there. I can’t even work on them as they wanted all of my training to be focused on the new models. But I can tell you it’s not because of ink running.  At any time, the chemist at the CO where they get the ink can add chemicals to make the ink run as thick as wax if they wanted, but it’s not a good idea. They then would be restricted to only running at 6 pass, only using at least 2x larger picoliter of spray and only getting so much detail out it as you do with wax.


Some of the previous brands of ink were dry at once when hitting the screen and would for sure, not run. I’m sure that is the type they would have been using at that time if they had stayed with a vertical or slant machine.  Heck, if it were about being any more vertical, and the waste tank would run out...they would just align the base of the waste tank to rest/sit horizontal.  I’ve always wondered why they had vertical or even slant machines at all for any brand. It’s working against gravity as it’s being shot out.


It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink. I can have him provide the test file comparrisons that I’ve been wanting to show. ;)


I’m sure like many of you, he will make it work no matter the differences as (that is what you have) to work with. The purchase has been made so there is commitment to your decision. But hey, the real deal, is that it doesn’t matter. They are all good for us. I think he’s done testing/comparisons in the past already I’m sure, but I’m also sure, he wasn’t doing the same testing.  But there is more to the story of quality than is it rounder, or is easier to wash out the images because it’s chunkier).  In the end, like I’ve said many times, the differences and the benefit of those differences are minute and inconsequential.  I would go wax, or wet ink, or (double laser) at any given time.


Now, going 1200dpi wax is probably a discussion that is far more valuable. Do you go 1200dpi wax or do you stay with 600dpi wax? They are the same quality as their 600dpi. A blob is a blob and the wax can be jetted only so small due to its viscosity. It’s output size is finite. It requires a specific size of jet opening and picoliter size spray. [size=78%]In fact, it would be harder for wax machines to go 1200dpi than 600dpi.[/size]


There isn’t a need for much better than 600dpi on the apparel.  Now, if someone wanted to do wet ink at 1200dpi, it would benefit and make a difference (in the shadow tones and in the highlight tones. My guess as to why M&R did not/will not go 1200, is that for screen making for apparel, 600dpi works just fine without any additional financial investment.


The benefit of a laser is that it can indeed hold a more perfectly round vector looking dot (as good as your emulsion can hold) in the screen stencils thickness down to the full 1-99% and actually holding a near perfect 3%-97% (truly round) dot.  This then opens up the door for us to really hold far more accurate %’s and reproduction. You would use this and benefit from this when doing very light pastel colors of 3-7% for example in all C, Y, M,  K seps. This is the stuff that Mark Coudrey and the like, would be looking for in a CTS in comparison to the original best (photo chemical wet film processing and imagesetter dots at 3600dpi).  For both wet and wax ink, anything below 10% is not a true or accurate %. It must be adjusted to the point that it can be output via the device at 600dpi.  It’s not really “the device”, but rather they 600dpi. For example, when previewing the prt file in a wet ink file, the small dots are not formed well. The wet ink can reproduce this ill formed shape (on the stencil) more accurately than wax ink. The wax can only put out a blob...and at only so small...and therefore, cannot produce the same shape as wet ink does. the 3% in wax, will have to be more like a true 6% or more.


We thinks dots look “better” because this larger, chunkier blob of wax works for us better. We can wash it out easier and they don’t look like little crosses.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: TCT on March 23, 2021, 10:49:01 AM
It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.

I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department...  ;D

I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 02:01:05 PM
It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.

I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department...  ;D

I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.




Right. (Wax is now the same speed) as a single head.  Cuz a wax can ONLY print at a 6 pass. This used to be, ONLY at the LOW speed and UNI directional. Now, (Newley improved Bi directional...and at a HIGH speed setting that enables it to now equal a wet ink machine. BUT, for fast paced production, would be for the more open printing such as a 45lpi or solid vector work.   So the WAX, is only as fast as WET INK...if the WAX machine is at it’s lowest quality/fastest production setting.


If you need more quality out of the wax machine (such as a 65-85lpi), you should need to switch it to a higher wax output resolution, 6 pass (LOW speed), uni directional printing. In this case, wax would not be the same speed to the wet ink machine.  Any of the wet ink machines.
I’m changing my comment to include the concept that (one can use a  low speed fast production for even higher levels of printing such s 55-85lpi (but with poor results) that are subject to personal preferences. Gotta include the personal acceptance of quality levels in there.

In addition, Wet ink machines are more “versatile”in it’s output.  It can print at HIGH SPEED or LOW SPEED, Bi Directional or Uni, and at 4, 6, 8, 12, 18, 24 speeds. All for various options and preferences of output. For example, “Layering the ink lay down” at a slower speed and in layers, (similar to an airbrush artist puts ink coverage down for blending). This allows for far more accurate placement of picoliter of spray. For this reason, the wet ink machines print higher lpi (more precisely), more well formed without having to adjust the dot gain curves in the output.  The WAX, is so dense, it must be put down at 6 pass and to be dumped down more quickly (for the lack of a better word). This is a good thing for wax machines as they look more (faster paced). They can tend to fill in or gain too much at the shadow tones if they were to be switched to a 8-12 pass.


Now, lets look at what actually KILLS the wet ink machine in comparison "in every aspect”.  I mean literally. Lets look a that. Because there is a lot of “surface talk”,  but often missing the specifics...and I haven’t found one reason yet, as to where the WAX machines (process) is providing something that the WET ink machines cannot. The only areas where there is a clear difference and wax comes out ahead in a comparison, is with WAX not being susceptible to a poor or extreme environment. It works in extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dryness and extreme moisture.  Wet, requires to be within tolerances of a standard screen room environment such as 30-45% RH (give to take 5%) depending on location. To accommodate for that, you purchase a devise to control your RH.


There are plenty of people who will say “My wax is better” but how so?  Is it really, or are you just happy with your current results and were not as happy previously?


I’m very interested to be proven mistaken. If there is evidence to bring forth that will prove me to be incorrect, then I am happy to accept that and will easily concede.  This would also prove to be a good selling tool for the wax devices.


Please (in your own time and convenience), stop back and list all of the categories where a wax machine can beat a wet ink machine “in every aspect”. I then, can provide my feedback as well, as it relates to each category.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: inkman996 on March 23, 2021, 02:13:18 PM
It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.

I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department...  ;D

I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.




Right. (Wax is now the same speed) as a single head.  Cuz a wax can ONLY print at a 6 pass. This used to be, ONLY at the LOW speed and UNI directional. Now, (Newley improved Bi directional...and at a HIGH speed setting that enables it to now equal a wet ink machine. BUT, for fast paced production, would be for the more open printing such as a 45lpi or solid vector work.   So the WAX, is only as fast as WET INK...if the WAX machine is at it’s lowest quality/fastest production setting.


If you need more quality out of the wax machine (such as a 65-85lpi), you should need to switch it to a higher wax output resolution, 6 pass (LOW speed), uni directional printing. In this case, wax would not be the same speed to the wet ink machine.  Any of the wet ink machines.




Now, lets look at what actually KILLS the wet ink machine in comparison "in every aspect”.  I mean literally. Lets look a that. Because there is a lot of “surface talk”,  but often missing the specifics...and I haven’t found one reason yet, as to where the WAX machines (process) is providing something that the WET ink machines cannot. The only areas where there is a clear difference and wax comes out ahead in a comparison, is with WAX not being susceptible to a poor or extreme environment. It works in extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dryness and extreme moisture.  Wet, requires to be within tolerances of a standard screen room environment such as 30-45% RH (give to take 5%) depending on location. To accommodate for that, you purchase a devise to control your RH.


There are plenty of people who will say “My wax is better” but how so?  Is it really, or are you just happy with your current results and were not as happy previously?


I’m very interested to be proven mistaken. If there is evidence to bring forth that will prove me to be incorrect, then I am happy to accept that and will easily concede.  This would also prove to be a good selling tool for the wax devices.


Please (in your own time and convenience), stop back and list all of the categories where a wax machine can beat a wet ink machine “in every aspect”. I then, can provide my feedback as well, as it relates to each category.

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: inkman996 on March 23, 2021, 02:16:19 PM
And my guess for going away from the slant is gravity. You have to have the appropriate strength stepper motors to handle the weight and the gravity with out losing steps, some of the frames out there are rather heavy. Instead of beefing up the motors it would make more sense to go horizontal.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 02:21:59 PM
It will be good to get Pierre’s feedback on the actual quality of the wax versus the ink.

I can give you mine. Now I am nowhere near as sophisticated or in depth as Pierre, but I do have him in the looks department...  ;D

I've had 2 different ink machines and 1 wax. The wax KILLS the ink machines in every aspect. Only hold out is when comparing the speed of the wax machine vs. the ST-III I had. But the wax is the same speed as a single head ink.




Right. (Wax is now the same speed) as a single head.  Cuz a wax can ONLY print at a 6 pass. This used to be, ONLY at the LOW speed and UNI directional. Now, (Newley improved Bi directional...and at a HIGH speed setting that enables it to now equal a wet ink machine. BUT, for fast paced production, would be for the more open printing such as a 45lpi or solid vector work.   So the WAX, is only as fast as WET INK...if the WAX machine is at it’s lowest quality/fastest production setting.


If you need more quality out of the wax machine (such as a 65-85lpi), you should need to switch it to a higher wax output resolution, 6 pass (LOW speed), uni directional printing. In this case, wax would not be the same speed to the wet ink machine.  Any of the wet ink machines.




Now, lets look at what actually KILLS the wet ink machine in comparison "in every aspect”.  I mean literally. Lets look a that. Because there is a lot of “surface talk”,  but often missing the specifics...and I haven’t found one reason yet, as to where the WAX machines (process) is providing something that the WET ink machines cannot. The only areas where there is a clear difference and wax comes out ahead in a comparison, is with WAX not being susceptible to a poor or extreme environment. It works in extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dryness and extreme moisture.  Wet, requires to be within tolerances of a standard screen room environment such as 30-45% RH (give to take 5%) depending on location. To accommodate for that, you purchase a devise to control your RH.


There are plenty of people who will say “My wax is better” but how so?  Is it really, or are you just happy with your current results and were not as happy previously?


I’m very interested to be proven mistaken. If there is evidence to bring forth that will prove me to be incorrect, then I am happy to accept that and will easily concede.  This would also prove to be a good selling tool for the wax devices.


Please (in your own time and convenience), stop back and list all of the categories where a wax machine can beat a wet ink machine “in every aspect”. I then, can provide my feedback as well, as it relates to each category.

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.


Good feedback.  I find it ridiculous that one would have to do that. (add moisture to the screen or dampen the screen with a cloth). But there are some I would imagine, that a newer ink and some environments might need some unique accommodations for. Such as your example.  I can change that for you if you like, so you Never have to do that again.


The shop I was at last week was using T6 ink. They did not/nor ever dampen, and also did not have a dehumidifier in the room. Just a heater in the drying cabinet for drying screens.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 04:16:02 PM
Inkman,  you should call your I-Image department and ask them what is being done about this dampening thing. You should not need to do that. They should have another ink to offer you to use.  The last shop I was at last week uses T6 and have no issues whatsoever. They don’t dampen.  They do however, have an Eco-Rince in the same room about 20’ away. I’m sure that introduces moisture overall.


Now, if you coat, and are using a type of emulsion that dries out (a lot) after sitting, or if you coat up and stack 200 screens to be ready, but only use 50 a day, and your surrounding area stays dry...then perhaps I can see a modification to your process and having to use a dampening process to assist you. But that’s not really an ink thing is it.  Now. should it be an answer to this. Just try switching up the ink types. It’s a “emulsion, dry environment and screen turnover” thing maybe. What is your RH in that room? Of course, if you were using Wax, then this would a non issue. If that is your only concern, then maybe a deciding factor of an additional 20-30k is in order and get the wax machine so that you never have any of these potential “too dry” issues.  But back to my resolve for this.  You can change up the ink type to see what type works best for you...or you can dampen the screens as you have been. Refer to a TECH for feedback on each and the settings needed. Some don’t need any head setting changes while others do.


They are keeping with 4 brands that seem to work for different shops for sale on the mrprint.com website.   The Type D2,  the type T6.  The original (KARA) type K and a new KX. These inks have actually came down in price They used too be $190.00 now $176.80
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: GraphicDisorder on March 23, 2021, 04:52:38 PM

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

Just speaking from my own experience here.

My i-Image is 10ft from my 18/20 Gauntlet. It is in our wide open warehouse. Its 40-45 in winter (nights and weekends) and its 110-115 in summer. Its seeing that 100% of the time. We don't use a humidifier or anything for it. Its exposed to whatever the printing climate is. We've not really had any issues with it. Now and then it will have some hiccups that we clear up with a tiny bit of dorking around with cleaning head, but this is months or more apart really.

Its a Original ST, its a single head still on its original head from when we installed it in 2014 and still using the K ink. I am sure it will explode tomorrow now.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 23, 2021, 05:34:15 PM

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

Just speaking from my own experience here.

My i-Image is 10ft from my 18/20 Gauntlet. It is in our wide open warehouse. Its 40-45 in winter (nights and weekends) and its 110-115 in summer. Its seeing that 100% of the time. We don't use a humidifier or anything for it. Its exposed to whatever the printing climate is. We've not really had any issues with it. Now and then it will have some hiccups that we clear up with a tiny bit of dorking around with cleaning head, but this is months or more apart really.

Its a Original ST, its a single head still on its original head from when we installed it in 2014 and still using the K ink. I am sure it will explode tomorrow now.




If it does explode,  I can come fix it. :)
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: dirkdiggler on March 23, 2021, 09:34:01 PM

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

Just speaking from my own experience here.

My i-Image is 10ft from my 18/20 Gauntlet. It is in our wide open warehouse. Its 40-45 in winter (nights and weekends) and its 110-115 in summer. Its seeing that 100% of the time. We don't use a humidifier or anything for it. Its exposed to whatever the printing climate is. We've not really had any issues with it. Now and then it will have some hiccups that we clear up with a tiny bit of dorking around with cleaning head, but this is months or more apart really.

Its a Original ST, its a single head still on its original head from when we installed it in 2014 and still using the K ink. I am sure it will explode tomorrow now.

You and I got ours at the same time, switching from K ink always caused problems for us, been through 5 or 6 heads.  Finally back to K ink about 2 years ago and I WILL NEVER SWITCH AGAIN!  You were smart for never switching, thats where all the problems come from.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: GraphicDisorder on March 24, 2021, 07:55:30 AM

Making your screen room with in tolerance to accommodate an ink machine is not as trivial as you are making it out to be. This is coming from an owner of an I Image. It was by far the biggest struggle for us to deal with. Plopping a humidifier down did not work, plopping a second more robust humidifier down also did not work. The final solution was dampening the screens before imaging. The shop that we were sent to by M&R to see a demo of an I Image had major issues with controlling the environment for their machine. Their operator demonstrated for us what he had to do to imagae a screen. He had one of those hand help steamers used in dry cleaning for moistening the screens, then the screen had to sit for a period of time before being imaged. So yes their is a clear advantage to wax tech and ink tech that a potential owner should consider.

Just speaking from my own experience here.

My i-Image is 10ft from my 18/20 Gauntlet. It is in our wide open warehouse. Its 40-45 in winter (nights and weekends) and its 110-115 in summer. Its seeing that 100% of the time. We don't use a humidifier or anything for it. Its exposed to whatever the printing climate is. We've not really had any issues with it. Now and then it will have some hiccups that we clear up with a tiny bit of dorking around with cleaning head, but this is months or more apart really.

Its a Original ST, its a single head still on its original head from when we installed it in 2014 and still using the K ink. I am sure it will explode tomorrow now.

You and I got ours at the same time, switching from K ink always caused problems for us, been through 5 or 6 heads.  Finally back to K ink about 2 years ago and I WILL NEVER SWITCH AGAIN!  You were smart for never switching, thats where all the problems come from.

I dunno why I never changed but we never did and I tend to think I made the right call, was 100% luck but ill take it.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: inkman996 on March 24, 2021, 08:10:46 AM
Our I Image sits in a room in the front half of our building, so it is fully climate controlled for heat or AC. In other words its in a low humidity environment at all times. Our typical humidity level is in the low 20's. I know for a fact if it was kept in the printing half of the shop it would be dripping with moisture because its always humid here. Regardless it works for us with little fuss so no complaints.

We use the T6 ink that it shipped with and do not want to bother trying to change ink types and potentially have issues to deal with. Our emulsion is Ulano QTX, a high solids fast drying emulsion. We never coat a hundred screens at a time, at most 30 at a time with about 50 screens ready to go. It is what it is, its not a deal breaker, love the machine but environment is a quirk one has to deal with.

Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 24, 2021, 01:53:49 PM
Our I Image sits in a room in the front half of our building, so it is fully climate controlled for heat or AC. In other words its in a low humidity environment at all times. Our typical humidity level is in the low 20's. I know for a fact if it was kept in the printing half of the shop it would be dripping with moisture because its always humid here. Regardless it works for us with little fuss so no complaints.

We use the T6 ink that it shipped with and do not want to bother trying to change ink types and potentially have issues to deal with. Our emulsion is Ulano QTX, a high solids fast drying emulsion. We never coat a hundred screens at a time, at most 30 at a time with about 50 screens ready to go. It is what it is, its not a deal breaker, love the machine but environment is a quirk one has to deal with.




But let me point out, THIS situation is where WAX sellers say (Oh, how horrible, look at all of the issues the WET ink can give you). But it’s not really the WET INK that is the issue.


Moving it out near the production area (could be the simplest answer). The issue (from what your are saying). is LOW humidity, causing the dryness of the screens...and therefore, you must use a dampening cloth).  It’s controlled up there in that front office area (for the comfort of humans) and not necessarily for the operation of the equipment.  For example, from what you are saying, it’s (more dry up there). “10%” less than a typical minimum should be for running the equipment. A RH of below 30 is leaning towards (too dry), so having it in a room at 20% is pushing it beyond a comfortable range for the machine. A common range of RH is above 30% and as high as 55. I’ve seen 60 or above but those worked with other inks or even from a Tech adding in some accommodations in the settings. As a result, for you, you must add moisture (dampening cloth) to your screens for the screen to have some stick’m.


You currently have issues, but don’t want to switch inks...that could be (and commonly is) your answer...to clear up that issues?  Ok.  Understood. You don’t want to potentially introduce additional issues. But as another answer/alternative, you may want to relocate your machine away from that dryer area and have less dry screen issues and not have not dampen your screens. You can also, keep it as is, and continue to just dampen the screens. At least you know, you have choices.  But now, we know, there is no need to blame “the machine”.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: inkman996 on March 24, 2021, 02:11:01 PM
Our I Image sits in a room in the front half of our building, so it is fully climate controlled for heat or AC. In other words its in a low humidity environment at all times. Our typical humidity level is in the low 20's. I know for a fact if it was kept in the printing half of the shop it would be dripping with moisture because its always humid here. Regardless it works for us with little fuss so no complaints.

We use the T6 ink that it shipped with and do not want to bother trying to change ink types and potentially have issues to deal with. Our emulsion is Ulano QTX, a high solids fast drying emulsion. We never coat a hundred screens at a time, at most 30 at a time with about 50 screens ready to go. It is what it is, its not a deal breaker, love the machine but environment is a quirk one has to deal with.

You are twisting things a little. I am not having issues with the ink and humdity since I have a solution that is very easy and fast. If I was always struggling with humidity issues or inkspreading on the emulsion then yes I would consider an ink change, but there is no practical intelligent reason to do so now. As for moving the machine, that is a non starter, there is no room for it in the print area so it has to live where it lives.

Again I will stress the environment issue is not as trivial as you may imply. Imagine a customer bought the machine new, tech arrives does install and humidity is far to low and a new ink has to be sent and changed. Thats not an ideal situation, it wasn't ideal when I had to try two different humidifiers and not have it work. But again its NOT a deal breaker.

And BTW the Douhit base model and the I Image base model are not tens of thousands apart in price, the douhit was fairly close to the I Image after shipping and tech install cots. If I remember the reason we chose the M&R had to do with head replacement cost, I forget the numbers but I know it was quite high on the wax. I also was given a few numbers to call of Wax owners because I wanted to get a rough idea from actual owners the print life of the heads and from what I gathered the wax heads had a lower life expectancy than the ink head if well maintained.

Quote
But let me point out, THIS situation is where WAX sellers say (Oh, how horrible, look at all of the issues the WET ink can give you). But it’s not really the WET INK that is the issue.


Moving it out near the production area (could be the simplest answer). The issue (from what your are saying). is LOW humidity, causing the dryness of the screens...and therefore, you must use a dampening cloth).  It’s controlled up there in that front office area (for the comfort of humans) and not necessarily for the operation of the equipment.  For example, from what you are saying, it’s (more dry up there). “10%” less than a typical minimum should be for running the equipment. A RH of below 30 is leaning towards (too dry), so having it in a room at 20% is pushing it beyond a comfortable range for the machine. A common range of RH is above 30% and as high as 55. I’ve seen 60 or above but those worked with other inks or even from a Tech adding in some accommodations in the settings. As a result, for you, you must add moisture (dampening cloth) to your screens for the screen to have some stick’m.


You currently have issues, but don’t want to switch inks...that could be (and commonly is) your answer...to clear up that issues?  Ok.  Understood. You don’t want to potentially introduce additional issues. But as another answer/alternative, you may want to relocate your machine away from that dryer area and have less dry screen issues and not have not dampen your screens. You can also, keep it as is, and continue to just dampen the screens. At least you know, you have choices.  But now, we know, there is no need to blame “the machine”.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 24, 2021, 04:48:56 PM
Well, I wouldn’t go as far as to say ”I am twisting” anything.  That’s a bit hard on my sensitive skin.  It’s just how what you wrote reads to me.


Quote
Again I will stress the environment issue is not as trivial as you may imply.
Feel free to stress it, but it’s not a common factor. It’s odd. I mean, should M&R just stop selling the machines now, because you like to keep your machine where it is and dampen the screens?
Is M&R making a mistake?  For the shop you toured that has the same issue, I would suggest that since you know them, give the my number, or let them know to call M&R and resolve that for them. Let them know it can be addressed without expense.


Ok. I agree with you.  “environment is not as trivial as I may be implying”.


When it happens, it’s a serious issue to be dealt with.
Having given that fact, THIS, is not as common as one might think, when reading this. Therefore, (IMO), trivial in terms of quantity of events. In terms of the individual company that it is happening to at the time, it’s a serious beast.


So to me, with it being a not so common thing, there is little to be concerned about (as a whole).  Your feedback (negative or positive) is valued and appreciated. We want to have people be aware of this, but not overreact at the same time. Like a year or two ago, when 10 out of 500 would post on the internet that (There is an M&R ink is clogging their head and the ink is “bad”). Everyone saw those 10 people. Nobody ever mentioned the 490 that worked with that same ink and had no issues. Ok. I did.  I mentioned it.  It’s true, there were some that had a head go bad or (3 heads) on their particular machine and it would be something devastating to that shop and piss me off. It would if it happened to me. It didn’t happen to me, and we also used that same ink. But again, those stories weren't all that common either. It was a case of “a few were having a bad reaction, everybody should know it” sort of thing...and I’m not fond of that practice.  I don’t know for sure. I’m just giving a close example of the numbers. How do I know?  Cuz I work with many of these shops directly on a daily or weekly basis still today. I also work with WAX ink machine users daily. I hear things. Some I-Image shops STILL want and use that ink that was said to "cause other peoples heads to go bad” and they won’t change because it works so well for them.  Like you, they feel "Don’t fix what ain't broke”. So it’s another example of "each shop is different". But THAT, (the part that each shop is different) doesn’t make an M&R machine a bad machine or a poor choice.
Same for WAX.  I would never imply that going wax is a bad decision.  I’d never imply that the wax dots are inferior to wet ink or even Laser. "Inferior as it pertains to dot quality in CTS on a shirt is subject to preference.


But some people (competitors and this who dislike M&R or want to justify their personal decisions for whatever reason...make it out to sound as if environmental issues are abound (like 500 out of 500) when they talk about WET ink. Trust me, I’m aware, that there are issues with WAX machines that are not a big issues either. I don’t shout them out, I don’t call them out (and make them bigger than they are). Only a competitor might feel the need to do that. I don’t pretend that they will end your shop if you use a WAX machine or a laser. They have some issues too. I just want (US/WE), to be fair and balanced. Tell it like it is. Let the machines speak for themselves instead of allowing for some exaggerations not explaining the full story to pour into the feed. Some crap happens to both machines.


You have an issue with your use and operation. And justifiable and duly noted. We must all tell and talk about all issues with each. Thats my beliefs, but I also want to be correct about it and say what I know also.
No I’ll will or twisting intended.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 24, 2021, 04:56:24 PM
I forgot to comment on this one.


Quote
"And BTW the Douhit base model and the I Image base model are not tens of thousands apart in price, the douhit was fairly close to the I Image after shipping and tech install cots. If I remember the reason we chose the M&R had to do with head replacement cost, I forget the numbers but I know it was quite high on the wax. I also was given a few numbers to call of Wax owners because I wanted to get a rough idea from actual owners the print life of the heads and from what I gathered the wax heads had a lower life expectancy than the ink head if well maintained.[/size] [/size]

[/size]
TRUE when comparing apples to apples.  My eyes are on sight of an I-Image S that is near 30k. I forget that I keep that number in my head.
An I-Image S, and the I-Image ST (one print head) are equal machines in terms of output to the Douthit. That is where I get the comparison.
The difference between a I-Image S and an I-Image ST is that the S can never be upgraded and it’s body configuration is more specific or unique to the S only.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: dirkdiggler on March 24, 2021, 06:29:51 PM
I was told by an M&R employee that the S is slower than the ST 1 head.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 24, 2021, 08:31:05 PM
I don’t see how that is mechanically possible thus far. I haven’t heard anything to mention.
Both use the same print head and programs. Both run at 6 pass, high and low speed and uni and bi directional.  The only difference is in the travel. So there might be some minute difference in total screen per shift because of that. Like the only way I can explain that might be to say a couple screens less than an ST out of the full day due to the difference in travel.

They watch this forum. They can chime in and correct me if so.

Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Homer on March 25, 2021, 09:42:36 AM
honestly, I think for 75% of us wax vs ink doesn't matter as much as DTS VS Film.... Anyone would be miles ahead of film snagging Pierre's Rocket do-hickey....just in tape alone, I mean..Come'on man
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: bimmridder on March 25, 2021, 09:51:51 AM
It's all about the tape!
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 25, 2021, 10:22:06 AM
honestly, I think for 75% of us wax vs ink doesn't matter as much as DTS VS Film.... Anyone would be miles ahead of film snagging Pierre's Rocket do-hickey....just in tape alone, I mean..Come'on man




True. I’m 100% in agreement with this.  There are many parts to the beauty of CTS wether it’s WAX, WET INK or LASER. Direct To Screen being the most affective in terms of imaging quality.  Funny thing is, Film dots are about as good as wet ink and wax ink.  It’s the DIRECT contact the makes them all that much better (not the shape of a dot).  Now LASER, that’s another story.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: GraphicDisorder on March 25, 2021, 10:27:57 AM
honestly, I think for 75% of us wax vs ink doesn't matter as much as DTS VS Film.... Anyone would be miles ahead of film snagging Pierre's Rocket do-hickey....just in tape alone, I mean..Come'on man

This, people arguing about Wax VS Ink are basically arguing if the sky is sky blue or light sky blue IMO.

I have seen people doing some of the most amazing work on Flo bulbs. I have seen people on wax that their best print would be a misprint in a lot of our shops. So these tools are only as good as you are in most cases.

Anyone trying to suggest your going to do crap work because you are on either ink or wax and not the other is a idiot.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: 3Deep on March 25, 2021, 10:49:09 AM
Anyone trying to suggest your going to do crap work because you are on either ink or wax and not the other is a idiot.

There it is!!!!!, so much agree with Brandt, I seen some killer work come from the craziest setup, but they made it work, everything has it's place for someone
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 26, 2021, 10:27:06 AM
I was told by an M&R employee that the S is slower than the ST 1 head.


My statement came from the concept of lumping both together (the bare minimum of the St and apparently what is the max of the S.
It’s advertised at 100 min per shift. But I overlooked the potential at various settings can enable a single print head on an ST to print as many as 150 per shift.  I assume dit was only 100.


I did incorrectly lump the two together at 100 screen per shift.




This is the basic disclaimer “sales talk” but does give you an idea that the S is going to be less in quantity per day than a ST and potentially, but a substantial amount (as many as 50 screens less).

The outcome per day, (as most of you know already), generally depends on the size of what you are printing and also on the quality level you want to print at.  (standard sized solid vector) at a 6 pass, high speed, bi directional printing with the occasional halftone or sim process in the mix. 12 pass provides more consistent coverage and is a bit more accurate in the halftone shadows than a 6 pass. 12 pass runs about 20% slower than 6 pass. That may mean about 10 more seconds printing.  More heads means faster printing to completion.

These are just estimates.
I-mage S   1 head      80 - 100  per shift. - Not upgradable in number of print heads or exposure.
I-image ST  1 head      100 – 150 per shift. - Upgradable.


So there ya go.  I was wrong. I do apologize for miss informing and assuming. Dirkdiggler got me on that one.


I have some actual real world numbers from a shop I visited reentry that is running a ST 1 head.My trip was almost exactly 5 years minus 1 week. It was to replace a print head that we quickly found to not need replacing, but just some good cleaning.


This customer ran 26,023 job numbers (as of the time of my services). This did not included re-orders.
5205 per year on average, averaging 433 jobs (per month).Thats an average of 21.65 (jobs) per day in a 5 day work week. This does not count number of screens.
I could have gotten that total number of screens off of the machine but didn’t remember to grab it.

So you can consider that most jobs have at least two colors and almost half can have more than one side.
100-150 screens per day on an ST sounds about right.


1 person works that screen.
Coating, drying, imaging, washing out in the eco-rinse, drying and loading into the rack, all screens for each job.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 26, 2021, 12:37:31 PM
Also, as I suspected. The difference is in the movement. On one, the table moves. The other, the gantry moves. The gantry weights more.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: inkman996 on March 31, 2021, 12:46:33 PM
Dan I think you are blowing my issue with humidity way out of proportion. You are showing your knee jerk defense of the machine you represented and serviced. I am fine with MY I Image, the second it takes to dampen the screen is trivial and always works. I am not bemoaning it at all and have not done so. What started all this is my telling you that environment is a non trivial thing when it comes to owning and operating an ink imaging system. That holds true for a whole myriad of ink systems, such as DTG and other digital printing machines. You should not be so arrogant towards the people that have to buy and pay for this type of equipment, we are the ones that have all the risk.

Quote
should M&R just stop selling the machines now, because you like to keep your machine where it is and dampen the screens?

That above is an example of blowing out of proportion this whole discussion, I never talked bad about the I Image, I love the thing and would always recommend it going forward.
Title: Re: M&R iImage rocket launcher
Post by: Dottonedan on March 31, 2021, 01:16:33 PM
My first thought is that I don’t want to do or say anything to upset anyone. Do as what pleases you best.


Carry on.