TSB
screen printing => Screen Making => Topic started by: alan802 on February 12, 2016, 12:23:27 PM
-
I was showing the Vastex LED to a few guests that stopped by the shop on Wednesday and to my embarrassment I noticed I had 4 diodes out on one of my strips. It had been a few months since I had inspected the unit and I guess I should have done it prior to showing off the brightness (or lack thereof to some) of the LEDs. My screen guy hadn't alerted me to any cool spots or any issues with stencil development but to be honest, I've been doing receiving and shipping for the past 2 months and haven't put much time in the screen printing department. So now I have to put a call in to service and see what I have to do to get our one year old Vastex back up to proper working order. In the mean time, I can avoid that one side of the expo unit and hope no other bulbs go bad.
Anyone here have any bulbs go out on their LED unit? No matter which brand? I'm hoping replacing a strip won't be too difficult but I'll report back here after I speak with Vastex. It might be next week before I get anything done, we have about 70 cases of stuff coming in today and I didn't get everything counted from yesterday either.
-
just went and checked our startlight (and saati 300W), and both of them are fine. The starlight is coming up on 2 years old in April.
-J
-
Seems like that thing has been a constant headache for you since you've got it!
-
put that thing on a crate and order a starlight.
Or the STE II ;D
-
You are a 7 figure a year screen print shop, a Starlight is an impulse buy. It's time.
-
Starlight bulbs are good for life.
-
All are good on STE
-
Seems like that thing has been a constant headache for you since you've got it!
Not only for him:(
-
Seems like that thing has been a constant headache for you since you've got it!
Not only for him:(
glad I didn't take the plunge late last year. would have regretted.
-
Seems like that thing has been a constant headache for you since you've got it!
Not only for him:(
Have you had any bulbs go out?
Yeah, headaches mainly due to expectations coupled with the actual performance. For now I still think a strong metal halide is the best but I also think there is quite a bit of difference between the different manufacturers.
Not being able to hit certain ranges of halftones that we were able to with a 15 year old exposure unit should put things into perspective for those wanting to know about where our unit is comparatively speaking.
I know I sound like a broken record but there is no denying or hiding the recurring disappointment and the feeling that I need to continue to bring it up :) I guess Monday I'll make the call to see what we have to do to get it fixed. We only shot about 20 screens today all one-up but had a slow day overall with a bunch of one and two color jobs. Monday is a fairly easy day and we will finally get back to a full schedule about mid-late week after a month of slow days so we'll still be able to get along fine with half an expo unit for a bit longer. I should have called today but I wasn't really in the mood to deal with it or someone on the other side.
-
Sounds like that whole unit is a fail.
Starlight here. No issues.
-
Seems like that thing has been a constant headache for you since you've got it!
Not only for him:(
Have you had any bulbs go out?
Yeah, headaches mainly due to expectations coupled with the actual performance. For now I still think a strong metal halide is the best but I also think there is quite a bit of difference between the different manufacturers.
Not being able to hit certain ranges of halftones that we were able to with a 15 year old exposure unit should put things into perspective for those wanting to know about where our unit is comparatively speaking.
I know I sound like a broken record but there is no denying or hiding the recurring disappointment and the feeling that I need to continue to bring it up :) I guess Monday I'll make the call to see what we have to do to get it fixed. We only shot about 20 screens today all one-up but had a slow day overall with a bunch of one and two color jobs. Monday is a fairly easy day and we will finally get back to a full schedule about mid-late week after a month of slow days so we'll still be able to get along fine with half an expo unit for a bit longer. I should have called today but I wasn't really in the mood to deal with it or someone on the other side.
Same here. Halftones are not what they used to be, just glad I kept our old MSP 3140. Fine lines are as well troublesome. I have to check regarding failing bulbs. To me this is just a Baby Joe 2000 in a different chassis, the light bars are from LDTronix, the same people behind the BabyJoe 2000. A unit I never considered buying at all. Frankly speaking I`m well pissed off with VASTEX as this unit causes more headaches then it offers solutions. Oh and did I mention already that at the certain low temperature range you can`t expose screens at all anylonger. Not enough UV output due to the factr that the bulbs are not getting very warm at all.
-
I've had my starlight for 1.5 years and no problems.
-
Starlight a year. No issues.
Half tones fine. Came off amergraph 150.
Use one pot emulsions, add diazio in for wb and discharge though. Max we ever take for anything is 12 seconds.
Just liked starlight for the gazillion
Bulbs. I like bright and shiny things.
-
I'm just glad I can take my nose getting rubbed in it by you Starlight owners :)
I've been training a new receiving employee all morning and I'll probably get a call into service within the next hour or two. CAN'T WAIT!!!
-
What does vastex say? You would think they would resolve the problem so your happy.
-
What does vastex say? You would think they would resolve the problem so your happy.
Well I`ve emailed them a while ago asking for the wave length of their LED bulbs. Answer was they don`t know as their supplier does not provide this information, but their guess was...
Just the right answer I needed at the time to decide that I really will not order anything of them anylonger.
I approached them then again in more detail with all the problems we have. In all fairness their screen print Techs will look into it. Apparently they`ve sold hundreds of those units and shops getting great results. What we are experiencing is regarded as "odd" .
-
What does vastex say? You would think they would resolve the problem so your happy.
Well I`ve emailed them a while ago asking for the wave length of their LED bulbs. Answer was they don`t know as their supplier does not provide this information, but their guess was...
Just the right answer I needed at the time to decide that I really will not order anything of them anylonger.
I approached them then again in more detail with all the problems we have. In all fairness their screen print Techs will look into it. Apparently they`ve sold hundreds of those units and shops getting great results. What we are experiencing is regarded as "odd" .
Well, even before these units were widely available through Vastex, Pierre tried out a prototype and had fairly good results if I remember correctly.
-
Wouldn't comparative step tests and a light integrator tell the story of light output? I for one would be quite skeptical of a salesman who couldn't/wont give a comprehensive analysis of waveform.... However, not unlike pressure washers, and vacuum cleaners the stats would most likely be embellished a bit anyway, but still it would give a basic platform of efficiency to conduct further testing (should one be so inclined).
-
We tested it for two months and it worked fine for us. We also mapped the light field and it was the best we've seen so far (as far as uniformity). I also talked to the supplier and the wavelength is what I believe to be right after doing a lot of research. We are using a similar unit now and it works fine. Water based and discharge require a lengthy post exposure, but it is very usable. Yes, a 5k MH would be better, but that's a completely different animal. As mentioned before, it is my understanding that they made some modifications to the LED bars early on, so the units Rockers and Alan are having problems with might be pre changes.
Light strips are a user replaceable part and had a lengthy warranty at some point in time. Not sure what's going on now thoug, but I am surprised that Vastex is not sorting this out.
Pierre
-
Can't say much about the LEDs as I'm uaing an AmerGraph 150 for exposure, but the service and support I've got from Vastex has been nothing but superlative. I hope they address this issue, because the hardware I run from them has been excellent.
-
"Superlative" Now that's just a funword 8), might have to borrow it someday.... B/Moon might have just hit upon the answer, "early production runs", Comparing the manuals old and new most likely would have some differences in terms of production, and other G2 upgrades, and that would (to me anyway) be the place to start troubleshooting, Paying close attention to board revisions and filter cap values.
-
Well, we order a couple of month after blue moon posted his results of testing the Vastex unit. I made sure as well with the guys at Vastex that the unit we ordered would be the "updated" version.
-
What does vastex say? You would think they would resolve the problem so your happy.
Well I`ve emailed them a while ago asking for the wave length of their LED bulbs. Answer was they don`t know as their supplier does not provide this information, but their guess was...
What? They don't know the wavelength? Is it me, or is that totally ridiculous?
Steve
-
Quite frankly if Vastex can't tell you what wavelength of light the leds are putting out or the beam spread of said leds, they shouldn't be selling a led exposure unit.
ALL of the other manufacturers, if you ask, will share that info.
There are certain preferred ranges of uv output for optimal curing, which also matches the emulsion absorbsion curves.
Having an emulsion that doesn't match the uv output of your unit can certainly cause troubles.
-
What does vastex say? You would think they would resolve the problem so your happy.
Well I`ve emailed them a while ago asking for the wave length of their LED bulbs. Answer was they don`t know as their supplier does not provide this information, but their guess was...
What? They don't know the wavelength? Is it me, or is that totally ridiculous?
Steve
Agreed. My first thought when I read that was "Really!?? You've got to be effin' kidding me!" ...that's, kinda, absolutely key information, ya know? The wavelength and bandwidth are the only thing I'm concerned about, up front.
I had this same issue when another LED unit manufacturer rep was courting our sale. "I'll have to talk to the engineers."
Yeah...yeah you will.
-
So, we have all of these specs on the other units out there?
-
I don't think others disclose wavelengths, at least not publicly.
-
I don't think others disclose wavelengths, at least not publicly.
Exactly. And when we encountered this some time back, it was noted that it made the emulsion manufacturers' job a little tougher as well.
-
Vastex buys the strips from Lou and while they might or might not know the actual wavelength, as mentioned here, I don't see them disclosing it. I promise you that Lou knows what he is doing, we have talked at length about the power output, calibrating the current draws, controlling the heat and many other aspects the I know for a fact some other manufacturers missed. Obviously, there could be something going on long term with the manufacturer and the units could be developing issues. . .
My point here is, don't knock it until you know the facts.
pierre
-
I guess I can't see how the wavelengths would be a secret, it's not news that different emulsions react differently to different wavelengths. I mean, if you have a Metal Halide, you need to buy the proper bulb. That would be one of my first questions to a salesperson, "How am I supposed to expect it to work if you don't tell what the wavelength is so I can see if it will work with my favorite emulsions?" It's not like I'm about to build one and compete...
Steve
-
When asked M&R supplied the info to me, as did Saati I will add that Saati also added their reasoning for their choice into the discussion.
-
I guess I can't see how the wavelengths would be a secret, it's not news that different emulsions react differently to different wavelengths. I mean, if you have a Metal Halide, you need to buy the proper bulb. That would be one of my first questions to a salesperson, "How am I supposed to expect it to work if you don't tell what the wavelength is so I can see if it will work with my favorite emulsions?" It's not like I'm about to build one and compete...
Steve
Someone else might though...
-
Someone else might though...
there's a LOT more to creating a UV exposure unit than just a wavelength. beam scatter, power, etc all play a role. I can understand manufacturers not wanting to divulge that information, but properly matching wavelength to emulsion is pretty critical if you want a solid screen, especially with these devices being very narrow wavelength devices (unlike a MH bulb which has a spectrum that's quite wide).
-
Someone else might though...
there's a LOT more to creating a UV exposure unit than just a wavelength. beam scatter, power, etc all play a role. I can understand manufacturers not wanting to divulge that information, but properly matching wavelength to emulsion is pretty critical if you want a solid screen, especially with these devices being very narrow wavelength devices (unlike a MH bulb which has a spectrum that's quite wide).
Sorry I should have been more specific. Some may not want to give any info away as some ARE trying to copy to a T even.
-
Someone else might though...
there's a LOT more to creating a UV exposure unit than just a wavelength. beam scatter, power, etc all play a role. I can understand manufacturers not wanting to divulge that information, but properly matching wavelength to emulsion is pretty critical if you want a solid screen, especially with these devices being very narrow wavelength devices (unlike a MH bulb which has a spectrum that's quite wide).
Sorry I should have been more specific. Some may not want to give any info away as some ARE trying to copy to a T even.
Yeah, but a few hours on the inter web will tell you all that, so what's the big deal? By the way, I like Vastex, it was the first press I used, and we have a little Red for our numbering machine.
Steve
-
Stealing that idea would go beyond a few calls to reps, That more reverse engineering, But while trying to sell these things to a hardcore old school market, one would think that would be a selling point not facts to hide, unless it just doesn't measure up than I could see that... But this goes beyond that, warranty's, and customer service and the fact he bought one on good faith should in fact supersede. "That's odd" and good luck with that is not really what someone wants to hear on such a critical piece of equipment coming into busy season.... I have nothing against Vastex, nothing at all, But really hope they help this guy out, for obviously He WAS very proud of his machine.
-
Update: There ain't one. Had another crazy day with lot's of product coming in so I spent the entire day in receiving.
There are a few people on this forum that if they say they tested something I trust that they did just as I would have, just want to put that out there first. Now, I would say with my results and seeing Rockers basically having the exact same issues essentially with the performance of the unit literally halfway across the earth, this thing is not for "high-end use". Meaning, for 98% of the typical textile shop is going to do it will perform "ok". Not great, not bad, just ok. White mesh tends to hold up better on longer runs and overall exposure time (using a calculator) are short, but it doesn't do anything to my standard. I've run through a very detailed review before so I won't go into all that again, I just wonder what the hell happened or what the difference is between the unit Pierre tested versus the thing I'm currently looking at as I type this :). Over the last year we've not had many sim or 4c process jobs, maybe 20, but the effort we have to put forth to get any fine lines and halftones and then needing to post expose (plastisol...not WB, plastisol), is more than ridiculous when talking about a serious exposure unit that is being marketed as a top tier exposure unit. It really boils down to the analogy of a dog chasing his tail. The expo calculator tells us one thing, results on press tell us another. To get the detailed images, you expose for a very short time but then the screen breaks down after 100 shirts even if you're using 22 psi on the print heads. If you shoot the screens so that they can hold up on press you won't get any of the detail. It's a double edged sword.
I know i keep saying this, but tomorrow will definitely be slow since our purchasing employee didn't come in today so we won't be getting that much merch in tomorrow. Hopefully an update will be coming then.
-
Some food for thought...
http://hid.venturelighting.com/Literature/Technical_Brief-MH_vs_LED_Lifetime_And_Reliability_v6.pdf (http://hid.venturelighting.com/Literature/Technical_Brief-MH_vs_LED_Lifetime_And_Reliability_v6.pdf)
-
Some food for thought...
[url]http://hid.venturelighting.com/Literature/Technical_Brief-MH_vs_LED_Lifetime_And_Reliability_v6.pdf[/url] ([url]http://hid.venturelighting.com/Literature/Technical_Brief-MH_vs_LED_Lifetime_And_Reliability_v6.pdf[/url])
This article is written by someone who I biased toward mercury vapor industrial lighting and really has no merit in our industry. LED is much more reliable in exposing screens compared to mercury vapor. They do not speak of what the failure rate would be if the light source is continuously turned off and on hundreds of times per day for many years nor do they speak of the energy cost difference. IF the proper LED'S are used and the proper implementation into an exposure system is done there should be a life expectancy of well over 20 years. Our Starlight unit is a perfect example of proper usage and that is one of the reasons for zero failures to date.
-
Interesting: In the graph, their indoor lights are calculated at 6500 hours per year. That's on for almost 18 hours per day.....
-
Checked my Vastex unit this morning and have no bulb outages after about a year of use, this unit is far superior for us in several areas than the Amerigraph 150 we used for 20+ years.
I recently dug up some Lino out put films we had from years ago and found they reproduce far superior than the 4880 ink jet films we make. Could the issue of holding fine detail and small dots be as much the film quality as the light source? might this be a reason the DTS users have outstanding screen imaging? Are there any DTS users that question Vastex vs. M$R LED or is this a none issue.
I wounder if some are chasing cat tails or have expectations exceeding what the process reasonably allows.
-
Silver based film will always outperform anything with a print head. Period.
Dmax to dmin is amazing and resolution is far beyond what inkjet can ever get.
But that is not a feasible option for many printers. Nor is it actually needed by the great majority of our industry.
-
Yeah, I have to admit that I was blown away years ago when I got and examined a client-supplied Linotronic film. (the price from the output bureau also blew me away!)
I guess it was the best of both worlds, digitally output to a cousin of our camera's Ortho film.
-
Silver based film will always outperform anything with a print head. Period.
Dmax to dmin is amazing and resolution is far beyond what inkjet can ever get.
But that is not a feasible option for many printers. Nor is it actually needed by the great majority of our industry.
Colin I agree with your comments on lino film and although pricey and fewer suppliers of the fact is I can hold under 5% dots with a much wider latitude of exposure. The point I was making is that substandard films may be a bigger part of the LED short comings voiced here and need to be considered in the scope of discussion. Would my comment to CTS users not having LED issues be a relevant comparison to Lino vs. Inkjet films and how they perform with LED light sources..
-
Bottom line is that the olec olite metal halide light source will give a much higher quality than the starlight and we are happy to prove it. we have compared side by side at screen shops. We and our customers have seen the difference.
Mark
Douthitt Corporation
-
Mark:
My understanding is once you are at or above a 5k metal halide bulb, then you start to get better imaging/stencil development/stencil durability than LED.
What are you doing to compare the two different units that gives you better screens? What units did you compare?
You cant just drop a comment like that and not give details ;)
Farmer: The current comments on the LED bulbs are about them dying. As for LED being used to expose film, no one here who has one has made any complaints...
-
Mark:
My understanding is once you are at or above a 5k metal halide bulb, then you start to get better imaging/stencil development/stencil durability than LED.
What are you doing to compare the two different units that gives you better screens? What units did you compare?
You cant just drop a comment like that and not give details ;)
Farmer: The current comments on the LED bulbs are about them dying. As for LED being used to expose film, no one here who has one has made any complaints...
At least not in this thread
-
This thread is about LEDs dying on a Vastex basically. This may not be the thread to start getting this far off topic. I would love to see your info though Mark, in a new thread would make most sense.
-
Andy:
Again, prob best in a new thread, but I don't remember reading about issues. Do you remember something I don't?
-
Andy:
Again, prob best in a new thread, but I don't remember reading about issues. Do you remember something I don't?
Some time back, we had discussions of what emulsions were and were not working with certain units. That's where the proprietary nature of exact wavelength output of different LED's was broached.
-
Here's a huge thread from last year that I think touched on some emulsion compatibility/exposure issues. (http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,14300.msg138200/topicseen.html#msg138200)
-
All due respect, Danny Grunniger's printing is beating the competition and his screens are imaged with an M&R STE, which has a small strip of led's. So I don't see too much argument past that. If a starlight has even more juice, ummmmm, correct me if I'm wrong buuuut, wouldn't that be even more accuracy. The guys I know with Starlights do amazing work, won't have to buy bulbs and, none of them seem to be lacking detail. What am I missing?
-
All due respect, Danny Grunniger's printing is beating the competition and his screens are imaged with an M&R STE, which has a small strip of led's. So I don't see too much argument past that. If a starlight has even more juice, ummmmm, correct me if I'm wrong buuuut, wouldn't that be even more accuracy. The guys I know with Starlights do amazing work, won't have to buy bulbs and, none of them seem to be lacking detail. What am I missing?
Drops the mic....
-
All due respect, Danny Grunniger's printing is beating the competition and his screens are imaged with an M&R STE, which has a small strip of led's. So I don't see too much argument past that. If a starlight has even more juice, ummmmm, correct me if I'm wrong buuuut, wouldn't that be even more accuracy. The guys I know with Starlights do amazing work, won't have to buy bulbs and, none of them seem to be lacking detail. What am I missing?
Maybe it is the use of of CTS or good dmax films which allow for longer and more complete exposure of the emulsion. Does LEd work, yes, but why do we see manufacturers formulating emulsion specifically for LED light. My belief is a multi-spectral light source makes for optimal exposure no matter the emulsion type.
-
We run water base ink and only water base ink. We use a 6k nuarc and love it since some of our screens are 47x53 its perfect. I will roll the dice and take failure any day. Today the light unit reader was hit and i exposed my 230 mesh for a extra 3 mins before I realize what happen. Note our film is black black and the screen was still fine for the detail. Its the larger runs of 10k plus and more that matter. The diazo needs to be cooked on these screens. We call it baking. This is when single light source wins and good emulsion. I agree led is more reliable for not breaking but alan seems to disprove this theory but that is because I believe he got a old edition. I would beg Vastex to send you new lights or sell it get a vacuum table and 6k or higher for 1k to 2k. If others are have good luck on it than I think its the lights or some other hardware. Also there should be a serial number to trace what version it was and what changed... Good luck.
-
Bottom line is that the olec olite metal halide light source will give a much higher quality than the starlight and we are happy to prove it. we have compared side by side at screen shops. We and our customers have seen the difference.
Mark
Douthitt Corporation
On/off topic I know but I concur. For our purposes printing on textiles a high quality led like the starlight is acceptable, but not equal to 5k mh in either speed, resolution, heat on the glass or strength of exposure. If I had the space and electrical available we would still be on mh. It's all shop dependent on which is best fit.
The issues with the vastex units sound like a possible bad set of leds. If they are field replaceable, I'd recommend swapping them out to see if the issues can be repeated. The other reason that one unit is performing well and another poorly could well be the way the emulsions are responding. Ties into the above comments on spectral output and intensity therein.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
-
I feel there are a couple of things that need to be brought into the conversation about comparing LED to MH as a light source for exposing screens. Having worked with MH light sources since the 70's, I can tell you that not all MH lamps are equal. There are MH lamps that are designed to light up a warehouse or a parking lot and others designed for exposing screen print emulsions, these should not be compared to each other. I remember when NuArc introduced instant start MH technology to augment our shuttered MH units, and others said it was not a good idea and would not work well. Thousands of instant start MH units are in shops across the world, and we also continued to mfg shuttered MH units as well. There still remains the fact that there is a place for both types of units.
Just like the past where many have lumped all MH light sources into one category, the same is happening with LED exposure units. There are a lot of differences between the different models and to lump them all into one category is wrong. Like many things you can purchase, there are different types and qualities of LED's and there are different ways in which they can be powered, and positioned in an exposure unit. We have many customers that have been using our Starlight units very successfully for almost any application you can think of. In fact I have been travelling around the country doing live demos in shops where those owners can do their own tests by exposing their screens with their emulsions on our Starlight.
I think we all know the benefits of LED's from the standpoint of longevity, lower power usage, less heat output, and in many cases faster exposure. I know that our LED units are working great in many shops, but we are not saying that it is the only way to go. We still manufacture our MH units for those that prefer it or for feel it is a better fit for their application.
Ron Hopkins
NuArc Sales Mgr
M&R Sales and Service Co.
-
I feel there are a couple of things that need to be brought into the conversation about comparing LED to MH as a light source for exposing screens. Having worked with MH light sources since the 70's, I can tell you that not all MH lamps are equal. There are MH lamps that are designed to light up a warehouse or a parking lot and others designed for exposing screen print emulsions, these should not be compared to each other. I remember when NuArc introduced instant start MH technology to augment our shuttered MH units, and others said it was not a good idea and would not work well. Thousands of instant start MH units are in shops across the world, and we also continued to mfg shuttered MH units as well. There still remains the fact that there is a place for both types of units.
Just like the past where many have lumped all MH light sources into one category, the same is happening with LED exposure units. There are a lot of differences between the different models and to lump them all into one category is wrong. Like many things you can purchase, there are different types and qualities of LED's and there are different ways in which they can be powered, and positioned in an exposure unit. We have many customers that have been using our Starlight units very successfully for almost any application you can think of. In fact I have been travelling around the country doing live demos in shops where those owners can do their own tests by exposing their screens with their emulsions on our Starlight.
I think we all know the benefits of LED's from the standpoint of longevity, lower power usage, less heat output, and in many cases faster exposure. I know that our LED units are working great in many shops, but we are not saying that it is the only way to go. We still manufacture our MH units for those that prefer it or for feel it is a better fit for their application.
Ron Hopkins
NuArc Sales Mgr
M&R Sales and Service Co.
Looking forward to our Starlight demo with you tomorrow Ron! Have safe travels. I'll line up some awesome donuts if you are a fan ;D ;D ;D
-
I feel there are a couple of things that need to be brought into the conversation about comparing LED to MH as a light source for exposing screens. Having worked with MH light sources since the 70's, I can tell you that not all MH lamps are equal. There are MH lamps that are designed to light up a warehouse or a parking lot and others designed for exposing screen print emulsions, these should not be compared to each other. I remember when NuArc introduced instant start MH technology to augment our shuttered MH units, and others said it was not a good idea and would not work well. Thousands of instant start MH units are in shops across the world, and we also continued to mfg shuttered MH units as well. There still remains the fact that there is a place for both types of units.
Just like the past where many have lumped all MH light sources into one category, the same is happening with LED exposure units. There are a lot of differences between the different models and to lump them all into one category is wrong. Like many things you can purchase, there are different types and qualities of LED's and there are different ways in which they can be powered, and positioned in an exposure unit. We have many customers that have been using our Starlight units very successfully for almost any application you can think of. In fact I have been travelling around the country doing live demos in shops where those owners can do their own tests by exposing their screens with their emulsions on our Starlight.
I think we all know the benefits of LED's from the standpoint of longevity, lower power usage, less heat output, and in many cases faster exposure. I know that our LED units are working great in many shops, but we are not saying that it is the only way to go. We still manufacture our MH units for those that prefer it or for feel it is a better fit for their application.
Ron Hopkins
NuArc Sales Mgr
M&R Sales and Service Co.
Well said Ron. I agree, we're comparing apples to bananas here at times. We sprung for the Olec bulbs when running 5kw MH for instance which makes are comparison much different than a shop running generic bulbs with less of the right metals and/or lower wattage. Toss in reflectors, distance, glass and vac draw down and it goes on and on...
-
Update. First screen we exposed this morning, failed right away. What I`ve noticed now is that the small blue light on the exposure unit that indicates exposure comes on and the countdown kicks in too but the LED lights start up 10 seconds later. And my guess is because the room temperature is too low. This should really not happen on an expensive piece of equipment like this.
-
If the timer isn't consistent this could explain your other issues too...
Do you know if there's a vacuum draw down sensor or some kind of sensor on the fans?
Seems really wierd that a digital timer would be affected by colder temps.
-
I don`t think the timer is affected. It`s rather a strange set up on the unit. Once the vacuum counter has reached zero the exposure timer kicks in regardless of the LEDs being on or not. There is just nothing that tells the timer if the LEDs are actually working.
-
What strikes me as extremely odd is that the vast majority of electronics not only work more efficiently, but tend to last longer at temperatures near but above freezing.
Almost sounds like you have an iffy power supply or driver...
-
What strikes me as extremely odd is that the vast majority of electronics not only work more efficiently, but tend to last longer at temperatures near but above freezing.
Almost sounds like you have an iffy power supply or driver...
I thought that we might have had some sort of power issue because the north end of our screen printing building was underpowered in the summer months when we'd start running the personal AC units. We had the electricians in and we essentially let them do everything they suggested and that included having a line ran dedicated specifically to the expo unit and only it. So if there was a problem before, there isn't one now. That day with the electricians ended up costing about $5K with all of the things they did.
Oh, and nothing changed with the expo unit unfortunately.
-
What strikes me as extremely odd is that the vast majority of electronics not only work more efficiently, but tend to last longer at temperatures near but above freezing.
Almost sounds like you have an iffy power supply or driver...
I thought that we might have had some sort of power issue because the north end of our screen printing building was underpowered in the summer months when we'd start running the personal AC units. We had the electricians in and we essentially let them do everything they suggested and that included having a line ran dedicated specifically to the expo unit and only it. So if there was a problem before, there isn't one now. That day with the electricians ended up costing about $5K with all of the things they did.
Oh, and nothing changed with the expo unit unfortunately.
Power should not be an issue. The LED's run off of a power supply that should keep the power constant. Just a FYI
-
Power should not be an issue. The LED's run off of a power supply that should keep the power constant. Just a FYI
I'd agree most every power supply should keep the power constant, most especially constant current drivers used for LEDs.
I guess, it's not like the timer section couldn't screw things up when it's cold, would just seem like a much less likely possibility, IMHO.
FWIW, I wish I had some 'oh, probably a bad this or that' theory on Alan's board, but that just sounds like poor assembly or driver QC to me...
edit: Just realized there are TWO threads here, and I'm in the wrong one.
Sorry Alan, didn't mean to confuse you. :)
-
We were grasping at straws honestly. I can say I've tried everything in my power to make sure we weren't the problem.
No problem, I was wondering what was going on but don't worry, I hadn't gone full-confused yet.
-
We were grasping at straws honestly. I can say I've tried everything in my power to make sure we weren't the problem.
No problem, I was wondering what was going on but don't worry, I hadn't gone full-confused yet.
what about getting replacement strips from Vastex to see what that does?
pierre
-
Pierre -- with all your testing goodies, do you know of a (low cost) device that will give a spectral output of a light from say 300nm up to 450nm ???
heck, what's even the name of a device like that?
-
Depending on the transformer or power supply the output voltage can vary. Just a basic transformer that's wound for let's say 120vac in/ 4vac out may only be putting out 3.5vac when connected to 110vac. There may be another set of taps to connect the primary for different voltage ranges. Or use a "smart" power supply that can produce a constant output voltage by monitoring it self.
As far as Rockers, may have a two fold issue. The higher voltage and lower frequency of the power being supplied in Japan. This may not have been figured in the design.
Small flucations in voltage may cause the UV wave length to out of the ideal range of your emulsion.
-
Pierre -- with all your testing goodies, do you know of a (low cost) device that will give a spectral output of a light from say 300nm up to 450nm ???
heck, what's even the name of a device like that?
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/ml8511-uv-sensor-hookup-guide
Been meaning to get around to it.
-
Pierre -- with all your testing goodies, do you know of a (low cost) device that will give a spectral output of a light from say 300nm up to 450nm ???
heck, what's even the name of a device like that?
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/ml8511-uv-sensor-hookup-guide
Been meaning to get around to it.
that's pretty cool. while it only measures intensity, you could likely use this to build a light integrator.
I'm more looking for something that maps the output/intensity in NM
kinda like:
380nm = 0%
381nm = 2%
..
.
.
390nm = 100%
.
.
.
400nm = 0%
etc...
that way you could actually figure out if the spectral output is changing over time as the LEDs or light source ages.
would also be helpful for reverse-engineering why some of these units are providing such different (poor) results.
-
I'd imagine something that maps the spectrum ain't coming cheaply.
You could likely use physical filters to narrow your readings to the desired spectrum, and then measure intensity.
At the very least it would be useful for hot/cold spots.
-
I was thinking filters would be the way too--but I couldn't find any. Then I started looking at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence_spectroscopy
I keep thinking if you could find the proper responsive dyes/pigments to 'map' the different wavelengths, all you'd need is some geometry in a jig, a nice camera, and some PS chops.
-
Pierre -- with all your testing goodies, do you know of a (low cost) device that will give a spectral output of a light from say 300nm up to 450nm ???
heck, what's even the name of a device like that?
https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/ml8511-uv-sensor-hookup-guide
Been meaning to get around to it.
that's pretty cool. while it only measures intensity, you could likely use this to build a light integrator.
I'm more looking for something that maps the output/intensity in NM
kinda like:
380nm = 0%
381nm = 2%
..
.
.
390nm = 100%
.
.
.
400nm = 0%
etc...
that way you could actually figure out if the spectral output is changing over time as the LEDs or light source ages.
would also be helpful for reverse-engineering why some of these units are providing such different (poor) results.
the intensity should remain constant for the life of the LED if its of good quality and the power source is constant. We have done extensive testing on our units and have seen virtually no drop in output or variance in wavelength. There are a couple other things that would shorten the life and/or output but that's another story.
-
Depending on the transformer or power supply the output voltage can vary. Just a basic transformer that's wound for let's say 120vac in/ 4vac out may only be putting out 3.5vac when connected to 110vac. There may be another set of taps to connect the primary for different voltage ranges. Or use a "smart" power supply that can produce a constant output voltage by monitoring it self.
As far as Rockers, may have a two fold issue. The higher voltage and lower frequency of the power being supplied in Japan. This may not have been figured in the design.
Small flucations in voltage may cause the UV wave length to out of the ideal range of your emulsion.
Actually we are on lower Voltage here, which we took care of by buying a transformer as recommended by Vastex.
-
Today`s observations.
Room temperature around 50F. Vacuum time around 20 sec, exposure time set to 25 sec. First exposure of the day and the LEDs kick in 15 sec. late. Which leaves the screen with a real exposure of 10 sec.
Little break of 10 minutes, same test again. Same result. Next only a break of max 2-3 minutes between exposures and the LEDs kick in faster.
Then raising room temperature to almost 68F and the LEDs come on instantly .
Clearly this can`t be right.
-
I would recommend shooting a quick video (even with your iphone camera) demonstrating this, and posting it both here and to youtube. followed by forwarding it to vastex.
Include in the picture a thermometer so you can see all the steps... don't edit... it, and make sure if possible the digits on the timer are somewhat visible...
-
I would recommend shooting a quick video (even with your iphone camera) demonstrating this, and posting it both here and to youtube. followed by forwarding it to vastex.
Include in the picture a thermometer so you can see all the steps... don't edit... it, and make sure if possible the digits on the timer are somewhat visible...
I would reach out to Vastex before doing any posting. No point in stirring the pot before trying to sort it out. . .
pierre
-
I heard that Vastex have a policy on not engaging in any online banter/complaints/etc. I can't decide if it's smart to stay off that slippery slope, or if it's stupid to ignore this part of modern business and networking.
-
I heard that Vastex have a policy on not engaging in any online banter/complaints/etc. I can't decide if it's smart to stay off that slippery slope, or if it's stupid to ignore this part of modern business and networking.
I know this is policy for other companies as well, dumbest possible move if you ask me. If there is a problem with your service/product why not show the public that you stand behind what you do or put out?
-
Vastex guys where always great people and we have nothing but good things to say about the company. I would be shocked if they told you to pound sand if you were having provable bad results with the LED unit.
-
Hello Alan,
This is Mark Vasilantone, sorry for the slow response we honestly don't monitor the forums enough. I actually had to re-register my self to login. Please give us a call and we will ship a replacement light bar to you, today. The install is easy, two screws and a quick disconnect is all that is needed. The biggest pain will be sliding out the glass. My tech guy, Steve, can offer any advice if needed.
Also, I may be wrong but I don't think you ever took my offer for an upgraded vacuum pump. That offer still stands, we changed out the pumps a while ago and will upgrade you, just mention that when you call.
regards Mark
-
I heard that Vastex have a policy on not engaging in any online banter/complaints/etc. I can't decide if it's smart to stay off that slippery slope, or if it's stupid to ignore this part of modern business and networking.
I know this is policy for other companies as well, dumbest possible move if you ask me. If there is a problem with your service/product why not show the public that you stand behind what you do or put out?
In all fairness, even if a company is active on a forum or FB group, what about about the other half dozen forums and two dozen FB groups that crop up as well? While we like to think of ourselves as the place to be, and be seen, a discussion like this one could have sprung up anywhere.
That said, we always do encourage our sponsors and potential sponsors to be active and double down on their visibility.
-
There have been arguments made as to why we should discuss the wavelength of the bulbs and they are all valid. The highest intensity is in the low 400s however they do output throughout the spectrum at varying intensities. The emulsions that expose in that range would give you the best results but we have tried dozens of emulsions with great results for what is need for screen printing on garments. We did hold 75 and 85LPI even though a 305 mesh screen is not meant to hold much higher than a 55LPI halftone. LDTronix supplies us with the bulbs, and we did quite a bit of testing with the Baby Joe 2000 before making the E-2000. There have been quite a few improvements that were made to the bulbs before we began putting them in our exposure units.
As a side note, I just wanted to give you all a little info about myself. I have been printing for over 10 years and was a Vastex customer long before I was an employee so I use the this equipment regularly in my own shop. I will make it a point to try to spend more time sharing my knowledge on the forum, not as a salesman, but a screen printer.
-Paul
-
There have been arguments made as to why we should discuss the wavelength of the bulbs and they are all valid. The highest intensity is in the low 400s however they do output throughout the spectrum at varying intensities. The emulsions that expose in that range would give you the best results but we have tried dozens of emulsions with great results for what is need for screen printing on garments. We did hold 75 and 85LPI even though a 305 mesh screen is not meant to hold much higher than a 55LPI halftone. LDTronix supplies us with the bulbs, and we did quite a bit of testing with the Baby Joe 2000 before making the E-2000. There have been quite a few improvements that were made to the bulbs before we began putting them in our exposure units.
As a side note, I just wanted to give you all a little info about myself. I have been printing for over 10 years and was a Vastex customer long before I was an employee so I use the this equipment regularly in my own shop. I will make it a point to try to spend more time sharing my knowledge on the forum, not as a salesman, but a screen printer.
-Paul
Please! Grab a chair make yourself at home, we like to hear from you often.
;)
-
Guess I my sources of gossip aren't that legit then :P
Hi Paul...
-
Update,
we are currently working on all the issues right now with Vastex. The guys at Vastex have been exceptional in dealing with this problem/s. just wish it would not have happened in the first place.
-
Update,
we are currently working on all the issues right now with Vastex. The guys at Vastex have been exceptional in dealing with this problem/s. just wish it would not have happened in the first place.
Thank you for the kind words. We wish this didn't happen in the first place as well, especially seeing as you are halfway around the world. It's a law of nature to run into issues with customers that are as far away as possible.
-
Hello Alan,
This is Mark Vasilantone, sorry for the slow response we honestly don't monitor the forums enough. I actually had to re-register my self to login. Please give us a call and we will ship a replacement light bar to you, today. The install is easy, two screws and a quick disconnect is all that is needed. The biggest pain will be sliding out the glass. My tech guy, Steve, can offer any advice if needed.
Also, I may be wrong but I don't think you ever took my offer for an upgraded vacuum pump. That offer still stands, we changed out the pumps a while ago and will upgrade you, just mention that when you call.
regards Mark
Hello Again Alan,
We have another chance to get a new light bar out to you today. I know you are a busy man but I promise a quick call to us, or the TX dealer River City, and we can make this happen fast.
Mark Vasilantone
-
ALL of the other manufacturers, if you ask, will share that info.
Out in the wild - no they do not, clearly not all.
-
To get the detailed images, you expose for a very short time but then the screen breaks down after 100 shirts even if you're using 22 psi on the print heads. If you shoot the screens so that they can hold up on press you won't get any of the detail. It's a double edged sword.
It always is a double edged sword...
Part of it comes from the fact that you can’t get two industry companies or printers to agree on simple definitions of what they talk about.
Fudging detail by exposing for lower time ends up with softness you have to deal with - this brings up the entire issue of “post exposure” and the physical/chemical issues of each emulsion (note just emulsion).
Then - mesh choice, EOM, and positives (because we all know ink-jet positives will not spit out 2% dots from the file as we deal with splatter and absorption).
-
I heard that Vastex have a policy on not engaging in any online banter/complaints/etc. I can't decide if it's smart to stay off that slippery slope, or if it's stupid to ignore this part of modern business and networking.
Actually that would be me, and not Vastex in particular, as you see some responses.
Most of you know that I work with the Vastex folks the most out of the industry and they have ended up as a second family to me over the years (and yes you will always have arguments with your brothers from time to time - just ask me about press configurations sometime at a show).
Two things here, in the past (and thankfully the far past now) we have had to deal in our industry with some particular problems - Solipsistic narcissism and the grandiose flow of arrogance and BS that flows, and a good share of predatory individuals and companies.
I was warned years ago that “Crusading” for the industry on-line was similar to “casting pearls” and was told in exact terms by three very respected compatriots in the industry “get the hell off the internet and stop trying to whack-a-troll with the creeps and armchair commanders and giving away time” - so I did.
I may well regret even getting in on things, but I’ve never been one to avoid risky behavior.
I do want to bring up two ideas: confirmation and selection bias...
How many LED units (from any of the top makers) are out there and how many “issues” with them are there and how out of the numbers do we see problems?
-
To get the detailed images, you expose for a very short time but then the screen breaks down after 100 shirts even if you're using 22 psi on the print heads. If you shoot the screens so that they can hold up on press you won't get any of the detail. It's a double edged sword.
It always is a double edged sword...
Part of it comes from the fact that you can’t get two industry companies or printers to agree on simple definitions of what they talk about.
Fudging detail by exposing for lower time ends up with softness you have to deal with - this brings up the entire issue of “post exposure” and the physical/chemical issues of each emulsion (note just emulsion).
Then - mesh choice, EOM, and positives (because we all know ink-jet positives will not spit out 2% dots from the file as we deal with splatter and absorption).
Over the last year with the exposure unit we've been able to find ways to squeeze out additional performance but I won't lie and say it's just a part of the process, it's sucked. And even though I've been told our Richmond really wasn't THAT good of an exposure unit, that doesn't bode well for the ones that can't hold a candle to it in performance. A huge perception problem for us was the fact that even when we didn't really know what we were doing, we rarely had any stencil issues. Screens didn't break down on press and getting acceptable halftones in the outer ranges wasn't difficult. And having been humbled now it's made more of an impression on how good (or not so good depending on who I talk to) the old metal halide unit was.
I finally got to call Vastex this morning and have a new strip coming along with a new vacuum pump. I'm very pleased with the Vastex crew in the way they treated me this morning. When it comes to whether or not manufacturers should have an active role on the forums...it can be done, but not many can do it right.
I don't expect much to change with our exposures with the new strip but I hope we'll see our vacuum times drop from 65-70 seconds to at least half of that. And 30 screens per day average that time savings will add up over the week.
-
Alan, sorry if it's been mentioned but what emulsion are you using? I've tested close to 200 emulsions on LED and I will say that some worked exceptional on our MH prior to going led but on led they were absolutely horrible. We've had some big name/popular emulsions that we couldn't hold a 20% dot on to save our asses after using led. So I would be curious to know what emulsion your using.
-
To get the detailed images, you expose for a very short time but then the screen breaks down after 100 shirts even if you're using 22 psi on the print heads. If you shoot the screens so that they can hold up on press you won't get any of the detail. It's a double edged sword.
It always is a double edged sword...
Part of it comes from the fact that you can’t get two industry companies or printers to agree on simple definitions of what they talk about.
Fudging detail by exposing for lower time ends up with softness you have to deal with - this brings up the entire issue of “post exposure” and the physical/chemical issues of each emulsion (note just emulsion).
Then - mesh choice, EOM, and positives (because we all know ink-jet positives will not spit out 2% dots from the file as we deal with splatter and absorption).
But fact is that screens that have been coated the same way for years and exposed on a MH unit come out just fine while burning the same screens on the LED unit you get not as good results. How often we found ourselves in the situation of having the remake screens because the fine lines are just gone but the screen itself is still not exposed completely. Using a exposure calculator from Saati gave us shocking results. Exposure times would have been above the recommended ones by the emulsion manufacturer but I can promise you there would be no useable fine details left on a screen. All I`m saying is I can hold a lot more fine lines on a 150-s by exposing it on a MSP3140 then on the LED unit. And believe me we have not changed the way we make film positives over the last few years.
-
Alan, sorry if it's been mentioned but what emulsion are you using? I've tested close to 200 emulsions on LED and I will say that some worked exceptional on our MH prior to going led but on led they were absolutely horrible. We've had some big name/popular emulsions that we couldn't hold a 20% dot on to save our asses after using led. So I would be curious to know what emulsion your using.
I can tell you what we use or used to use.
ChromaBlue
Murakami SP-1400
Murakami Aquasol TS
Now we use ChromaLime which is made for LEDs apparently.
There were some other emulsions too but they made just short "guest appearances" at our shop.
Next week we have some Kiwo emulsions coming in that are as well formulated for LEDs
-
Alan, sorry if it's been mentioned but what emulsion are you using? I've tested close to 200 emulsions on LED and I will say that some worked exceptional on our MH prior to going led but on led they were absolutely horrible. We've had some big name/popular emulsions that we couldn't hold a 20% dot on to save our asses after using led. So I would be curious to know what emulsion your using.
I feel like I've tested hundreds but it's really only been about a dozen. All of the usual suspects, but the best overall emulsion has been Chromaline's Prototype 16-17i(2). I know we could squeeze some smaller halftones (under 200 microns) out of a dual cure and in the past I've been absolutely against going in that direction but I understand I don't need to be so close-minded on these types of things. Depending on how much faster the new vacuum drawdown time is, and the burn times for the dual cures we might be able to use them without losing that much time versus what we're doing now. I've got a part timer handling the reclaiming, coating and burning of our screens and the addition of 30-45 seconds per shoot isn't a total deal-breaker if it means more detail and durability of the stencil.
To be totally honest, I haven't seen a huge difference between the different photopolymer emulsions. Sure, some are a little better than others here and there, but overall we haven't been able to get near as much out of the stencils as I expected. When I tested I tried to use a gallon at least but I've found that unless an emulsion is total junk, sometimes a gallon just wasn't enough to get a solid assessment.
-
Gentlemen, admittedly I am no artist so I may not be able to debate this, but here are test images we have done. This one is a Chromaline DZ dual cure, 2/1 coat-round side, on a 305 mesh, at one minute exposure. More images to follow. FYI, all positives were pressure washed aggressively from shirt side. So I can't say how many prints these positives will hold up to because they were test screens, but we also did post curing in the sun. Then we did a point high velocity pressure wash test and found no difference in breakdown time.
Mark Vasilantone
-
Here is another test image.
MVas
-
mark -- how thick was the emulsion (measured) on those?
It looks quite thin?
just curious as we've seen major differences depending on emulsion thickness in how well any LED unit works.
-
mark -- how thick was the emulsion (measured) on those?
It looks quite thin?
just curious as we've seen major differences depending on emulsion thickness in how well any LED unit works.
All of those tests were coated twice on the shirt side and then once on the print side with the round edge of the scoop coater. We've played around with some crazy thick coats like the attached image which is a 3/5 coat with Ulano Orange at 30 seconds. They aren't too practical but it was more because a lot of people said that LEd can't expose a thicker stencil.
-Paul
-
Exposure times would have been above the recommended ones by the emulsion manufacturer but I can promise you there would be no useable fine details left on a screen. All I`m saying is I can hold a lot more fine lines on a 150-s by exposing it on a MSP3140 then on the LED unit. And believe me we have not changed the way we make film positives over the last few years.
Is not the point right there? You are apples and orange-ing this...
I have a brand new truck and it is the same brand (UV exposure) but one has dual back wheels and and a big block and the newer less expensive one is small block standard - but I don’t get why they won’t do the same job...
Tubes 15-17% loss (but I can still get more and better halftone imaging than 60% of the industry with base level equipment)
LED - 7-8% loss
MH - 3-5% loss
Then the size, features, active life, maintenance, price, energy use....
All different - not bad just different.
I cannot expect my Jeep to be able to keep up with a Mustang now can I? Does that make my trashy Jeep bad?
-
I know we could squeeze some smaller halftones (under 200 microns) out of a dual cure and in the past I've been absolutely against going in that direction but I understand I don't need to be so close-minded on these types of things....
To be totally honest, I haven't seen a huge difference between the different photopolymer emulsions. Sure, some are a little better than others here and there, but overall we haven't been able to get near as much out of the stencils as I expected.
Is this not again trying to race a pickup truck (SBQ) where a corvette is more proper (Diazo Dual-Cure - and we are talking about detail imaging BTW)?
-
this is probably a better discussion for a new thread... however I think it's relevant as to how LEDs generate light.
SBQ's like wavelengths in the 385-405nm light range (most sensitive around 395nm, but due to the 'searing' vs 'roasting' argument, prefers to be 'cured' in the areas around each size).
Diazo's like wavelengths down in the 360nm range.
When you're exposing an emulsion such as a diazo which is slower anyways, with a light source that's not in the optimal range, you're looking at much longer exposure times, etc.
I have successfully developed (and do so every day) some extremely fine detail 65+lpi 3% and up with LEDs on the newer SBQs without loss of detail, and in fact would say that my SBQ screens hold better detail than our older Dual Cure emulsions. I believe this to be more due to the fact that the light source is better suited to the SBQ emulsion wavelengths.
-
this is probably a better discussion for a new thread... however I think it's relevant as to how LEDs generate light.
SBQ's like wavelengths in the 385-405nm light range (most sensitive around 395nm, but due to the 'searing' vs 'roasting' argument, prefers to be 'cured' in the areas around each size).
Diazo's like wavelengths down in the 360nm range.
When you're exposing an emulsion such as a diazo which is slower anyways, with a light source that's not in the optimal range, you're looking at much longer exposure times, etc.
I have successfully developed (and do so every day) some extremely fine detail 65+lpi 3% and up with LEDs on the newer SBQs without loss of detail, and in fact would say that my SBQ screens hold better detail than our older Dual Cure emulsions. I believe this to be more due to the fact that the light source is better suited to the SBQ emulsion wavelengths.
That is great information and we have noticed that the LED could hold detail on the SBQ that we didn't think we could hold. We are continuing to perform tests and getting some new emulsions that we haven't tried yet. Now that emulsion companies are beginning to make LED specific emulsions, we will probably notice quite a few new emulsions in the coming years. We may need to create a new thread specifically to chat about LED and what emulsions everybody is having great results or issues with.
-
in fact would say that my SBQ screens hold better detail than our older Dual Cure emulsions.
Just to be clear we are comparing old performance with new SBQ to DC not SBQ to DC new performance tested side by side same (tested measured) new vs. new as well?
-
in fact would say that my SBQ screens hold better detail than our older Dual Cure emulsions.
Just to be clear we are comparing old performance with new SBQ to DC not SBQ to DC new performance tested side by side same (tested measured) new vs. new as well?
Comparing properly exposed sp1400 to saati phu2 on both my starlight and saati 300w "multisource" led unit.
For reference:
160/48S 20% eom on both emulsions. Screen tension 22nm.
Both were exposed to a solid 7, both run on our i-image with the same file.
Exposed to a solid 7 on the stouffer strip.
Starlight times (no glass)
Sp1400 - 48 seconds
Phu2 - 12 seconds
Saati 300w times
sp1400 - 1 minute 50 seconds
Phu2 - 26 seconds.
The difference between the screens was very slight, up in the 90% and above (which honestly was not really printable as the dot gain fills in everything), the dots fell off the screen on the sp1400. Down in the 3 to 4 percent range both looked fine.
I may have some 200x microscope pics of the dots floating around, I'll see if I can dig them up.
-
Comparing properly exposed sp1400 to saati phu2 on both my starlight and saati 300w "multisource" led unit.
Both were exposed to a solid 7, both run on our i-image with the same file.
Exposed to a solid 7 on the stouffer strip.
I was going to ask about what is “properly exposed” then I continued and did see the “solid 7” bit.
That brings up how do we know then we are being proportional with each emulsion using the “solid step” level when the “solid step” always changes from emulsion to emulsion?
-
Comparing properly exposed sp1400 to saati phu2 on both my starlight and saati 300w "multisource" led unit.
Both were exposed to a solid 7, both run on our i-image with the same file.
Exposed to a solid 7 on the stouffer strip.
I was going to ask about what is “properly exposed” then I continued and did see the “solid 7” bit.
That brings up how do we know then we are being proportional with each emulsion using the “solid step” level when the “solid step” always changes from emulsion to emulsion?
I've been told solid 7 from both Murakami and Saati.
What do you mean regarding solid step changing?
-
The linking of the chemicals and speed of each emulsion and reaction to exposure changes, that much is obvious, the “step/strip method” to get the same linking depth from emulsion to emulsion has to have the “step/strip method” calibrated for each emulsion.
Doing this with the strip is not the same as using an exposure calculator.
(I think I fixed it, been a while with the tags on-line).
-
Understood.. you also have to take into stencil durability into the equation as well...
So "getting detail" at say a 4 or 5 on the strip isn't good either.
On both of the previous examples, those stencils were durable... (sp1400 moreso, but with post expose, the phu2 was just as good)
-
Understood.. you also have to take into stencil durability into the equation as well...
So "getting detail" at say a 4 or 5 on the strip isn't good either.
On both of the previous examples, those stencils were durable... (sp1400 moreso, but with post expose, the phu2 was just as good)
The problem is we then start to compare apples to oranges, it is one of the reasons I have such a problem with the strip because it is easier to just say “hit a solid (insert a random number that will print 150 shirts without delamination) and you are good” it continues the problem of not having a standard definition of... of well anything in this industry in particular emulsion and subsequent screen exposure.
Going the route of using an exposure calculator in the same way (eliminating the issue of the subjective nature) same linking percentage to same the DC will always hold a shocking amount more high and low end resolution as the very nature of the chemicals indicate.
-
it continues the problem of not having a standard definition of... of well anything in this industry
1000% agree!
-
it continues the problem of not having a standard definition of... of well anything in this industry
1000% agree!
Try this one on for size...
A Full and Complete Exposure: Where the entire depth of the coated emulsion from face to well side is linked completely as measured with a transmission density scale (exposure calculator).
Note the word “correct” is not in there... but trying to get in a conversation with folks in this industry and have them define the terms “correct” anything (this issue in particular) is maddening.
Without the elimination of the subjective, without repeatable objective testing procedures - how can we continue?
-
My use of the strip test had been to pressure wash from both sides... does that count for exposure calculation.
-
My use of the strip test had been to pressure wash from both sides... does that count for exposure calculation.
If I could figure out how to use the strips as an exposure calculator and get repeatable results across all of the emulsions I would be writing an article for the magazines about how and shouting it out everywhere.
Why? because the strip is inexpensive and that would make the use of that helpful across the industry (because screen printers are a notorious bunch of superstitious cheep tight-wads).
I have not so no the strip will not be able to give you objective results in the same way a good quality exposure calculator will - I recommend the most expensive one - the one with ten steps on the large background.
-
I have one of those...
When exposing for best resolution, I was FAR under cured.
-
I have one of those...
When exposing for best resolution, I was FAR under cured.
And then delamination!
Resolution excellence is nothing if it all falls off at 10 impressions!
Mesh count and thread thickness also play a part in useable resolution, you have to have threads to hold the dots in place and the emulsion stencil has to survive the required number of impressions or... well fail and that costs money.
-
I have one of those...
When exposing for best resolution, I was FAR under cured.
And then delamination!
Resolution excellence is nothing if it all falls off at 10 impressions!
Mesh count and thread thickness also play a part in useable resolution, you have to have threads to hold the dots in place and the emulsion stencil has to survive the required number of impressions or... well fail and that costs money.
10... try 2 lol. We could hear it failing on the first print.
You havent lived until you hear the emulsion crackling with the squeegee stroke.
-
I have one of those...
When exposing for best resolution, I was FAR under cured.
And then delamination!
Resolution excellence is nothing if it all falls off at 10 impressions!
Mesh count and thread thickness also play a part in useable resolution, you have to have threads to hold the dots in place and the emulsion stencil has to survive the required number of impressions or... well fail and that costs money.
10... try 2 lol. We could hear it failing on the first print.
You havent lived until you hear the emulsion crackling with the squeegee stroke.
And we have officially dragged the thread off topic, but it’s nice to see some good come of all of this.
Good customer service, points on some anomalous problems and I get to “spread some technical love” as it were. Win-Win.
-
I have one of those...
When exposing for best resolution, I was FAR under cured.
And then delamination!
Resolution excellence is nothing if it all falls off at 10 impressions!
Mesh count and thread thickness also play a part in useable resolution, you have to have threads to hold the dots in place and the emulsion stencil has to survive the required number of impressions or... well fail and that costs money.
10... try 2 lol. We could hear it failing on the first print.
You havent lived until you hear the emulsion crackling with the squeegee stroke.
And we have officially dragged the thread off topic, but it’s nice to see some good come of all of this.
Good customer service, points on some anomalous problems and I get to “spread some technical love” as it were. Win-Win.
not so sure about off topic. -- as the delamination, detail and emulsion 'cure' DEFINITELY play into LED exposure unit testing.
-
Exposure times would have been above the recommended ones by the emulsion manufacturer but I can promise you there would be no useable fine details left on a screen. All I`m saying is I can hold a lot more fine lines on a 150-s by exposing it on a MSP3140 then on the LED unit. And believe me we have not changed the way we make film positives over the last few years.
Is not the point right there? You are apples and orange-ing this...
I have a brand new truck and it is the same brand (UV exposure) but one has dual back wheels and and a big block and the newer less expensive one is small block standard - but I don’t get why they won’t do the same job...
Tubes 15-17% loss (but I can still get more and better halftone imaging than 60% of the industry with base level equipment)
LED - 7-8% loss
MH - 3-5% loss
Then the size, features, active life, maintenance, price, energy use....
All different - not bad just different.
I cannot expect my Jeep to be able to keep up with a Mustang now can I? Does that make my trashy Jeep bad?
If that is the case why not being told so right away before the purchase and have the equipment shipped half around the world. Why not say right away you have to expect loss in image quality or you can`t hold as fine detail as on your MH unit, and I`m not talking only halftones here but as well lines which I would expect to hold on a 225-s yellow mesh. Unless of course everyone in my shop`s gone totally stupid coinsidently around the same time as we installed this unit.
-
Exposure times would have been above the recommended ones by the emulsion manufacturer but I can promise you there would be no useable fine details left on a screen. All I`m saying is I can hold a lot more fine lines on a 150-s by exposing it on a MSP3140 then on the LED unit. And believe me we have not changed the way we make film positives over the last few years.
Is not the point right there? You are apples and orange-ing this...
I have a brand new truck and it is the same brand (UV exposure) but one has dual back wheels and and a big block and the newer less expensive one is small block standard - but I don’t get why they won’t do the same job...
Tubes 15-17% loss (but I can still get more and better halftone imaging than 60% of the industry with base level equipment)
LED - 7-8% loss
MH - 3-5% loss
Then the size, features, active life, maintenance, price, energy use....
All different - not bad just different.
I cannot expect my Jeep to be able to keep up with a Mustang now can I? Does that make my trashy Jeep bad?
If that is the case why not being told so right away before the purchase and have the equipment shipped half around the world. Why not say right away you have to expect loss in image quality or you can`t hold as fine detail as on your MH unit, and I`m not talking only halftones here but as well lines which I would expect to hold on a 225-s yellow mesh. Unless of course everyone in my shop`s gone totally stupid coinsidently around the same time as we installed this unit.
Where has anyone said that any LED unit would hold the same or work the same as a MH? No LED multi-bulb unit will work the same as a MH.
There are some testing, coating, emulsion and mesh choices all going on at the same time, I wonder about the requested or desired results and capacity of all of the above.
I observe "in the wild" almost every shop out there will under-link (far lower than capacity of the emulsion) screens and live with a much lower life and durability thinking that is how detail will get to the print (and it some cases it can - at a cost).
Most students and shops I help are shocked at how much detail can be had even with the low-cost FL tube units when the component parts are matched, clearly not a MH, but lots of other choices are going on.
I am most concerned that I’m seeing the “solid step” listed on this thread and it of course is only showing resistance to a particular level of delamination.
Ninety nine out of a hundred garment screen printing shops will find all of the features of an LED unit a great match - speed of a MH unit, size of a FL tube unit, and lower price and much lower energy use.
At the start of the thread the issue was one of technical service, once everyone got on the phone and started talking solutions started to flow, that is what I expected. My second issue was then illuminated when we clearly started to see the mis-application of a “test” and the subsequent problems.
-
This is all educational (to a small few I suspect} but I prefer to come in and get product out the door. Sorry but this thread has little to do with the 99% of shops that have figured it out long ago. I'm all for process improvement but theres laboratory, and boots on the ground. I prefer the latter. To be sure, I am open to beta test products and equipment but with a high degree of reservation. Sorry but its not rocket science.
-
Whether or not anyone ever said to expect results below a good metal halide unit, the LED unit that I'm looking at didn't live up to expectations. I can promise you all the hours I spend reading and researching, I NEVER SAW ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO "don't expect the LED to be as good as your metal halide". When we bought our LED there was almost nothing out there about our specific unit. Now some will say I was banking on the different brands being pretty close in performance because there was enough info about the Starlight and honestly, I WAS. That's my fault, and I can promise you it won't happen again and I'll make sure that others don't make the same mistake.
I'm going to go back and re-read the last few pages just to make sure I'm not misinterpreting anything and make an ass out of myself.
I'll say this again, we've managed to get detail that in the beginning we couldn't get, but if you have to throw all the cargo off the ship to get it to float it's not really a cargo ship is it? Meaning, the screens aren't usable for anything over 100 pieces due to the need to underexpose to achieve the detail. I wish we had imagesetter quality film and not just the Epson stuff because there is a pretty noticeable difference between the results from the Chromaline expo calculator and our own calculator we made. At least the expo calculator allows us to burn longer without as much undercutting and risk for overexposure behind the image. Of course the D-min and D-max of our film doesn't match the quality of an imagesetter and I suppose one could blame that on us for not using the best film possible.
I've been looking at my latest expo calculator results and I'm fine with what we got, but unfortunately I know if we put this screen on press the real proof is in THOSE results. I've had conversations with guys who have forgotten more than I'll ever know about stencil development who have basically all told me the same thing that match perfectly with what I've seen with real world results.
-
I think plenty of people pointed out that it sounded too good to be true and probably was. Over at t-shirtforums the "baby joe" guy was telling everyone their MH units were worthless, and his unit was better in every way. I was not the only person who disagreed with him.
As mentioned in this thread, he went on to make light bars for Vastex.
Funny thing is, LDtronix's account got nuked, so you will never get to read the bat-crap crazy stuff he was claiming.
And the internet marches on...
-
This is all educational (to a small few I suspect} but I prefer to come in and get product out the door. Sorry but this thread has little to do with the 99% of shops that have figured it out long ago. I'm all for process improvement but theres laboratory, and boots on the ground. I prefer the latter. To be sure, I am open to beta test products and equipment but with a high degree of reservation. Sorry but its not rocket science.
That’s not exactly fair, it is similar to “nuff said” to try and end any conversation.
I know you remember all the grief Don Newman got for his ideas and frames, how he had to fight for just about every inch, at a time when "boots on the ground” was wooden frames. A time when rope and groove screens were still common and we both remember how that was back then.
I have been telling people that just like the massive contribution Don had for our industry, the LED technology (regardless of who) is going to have an impact as similar as that was.
-
This is all educational (to a small few I suspect} but I prefer to come in and get product out the door. Sorry but this thread has little to do with the 99% of shops that have figured it out long ago. I'm all for process improvement but theres laboratory, and boots on the ground. I prefer the latter. To be sure, I am open to beta test products and equipment but with a high degree of reservation. Sorry but its not rocket science.
That’s not exactly fair, it is similar to “nuff said” to try and end any conversation.
I know you remember all the grief Don Newman got for his ideas and frames, how he had to fight for just about every inch, at a time when "boots on the ground” was wooden frames. A time when rope and groove screens were still common and we both remember how that was back then.
I have been telling people that just like the massive contribution Don had for our industry, the LED technology (regardless of who) is going to have an impact as similar as that was.
I'm all about hyperbole but I'm going to have to step in here and disagree A LOT. First off, LED could very well be great...one day, and some units may be close to greatness but some are not. I'll list a few that are way above LED when it comes to being a huge game-changer. Automatic presses (and all the advancements that have come along within them), roller frames, metal halide, CTS, and how about the dinky little $200 Epson inkjet printer?, thin thread mesh, advancements in ink technology, and I'm sure there are a few more. I don't want to get in a debate about how good roller frames are or how many on this forum are able to do award winning work with statics, that's not the point. When it comes to industry game-changers LED isn't in the top 5. I don't see how it could even come close to having the same impact that roller frames can have for those who chose to use them to their potential.
-
I am again going to chime in here. . .
Rockers, the LED unit is different from the standpoint that when compared to MH it will have a very small amount of undercutting. Adjusting your RIP to compensate for this should sort out your thin line issues.
Alan, when I reported, I clearly said that it "was very close to MH and for 99% of the shops it will not make a difference." Only thing we could see in testing was the we were holding a 3% dot with MH and 5% dot with LED. As mentioned above, adjustment in the RIP should address that.
ScreenFoo, Lou's LED units are the only ones I am aware of that have all the features properly designed unit should have. Most manufacturers did not disclose all the details he did so it is possible they have them too, but as of right now I know of faults in many other units on the market that he (and Vastex) are addressing in their design. While I don't know anything about the manufacturer of the LEDs and their standards, information Lou shared on the wavelength, power supply, cooling, proper light field distribution and so on is on par or better than anything else I've seen. While many other units might have equivalent or even one feature that is better than the LDTronix/Vastex setup, every one of them I've measured and tested had at least one significant (at least to me) downfall.
I realize there is an issue with Alan's and Rockers units and obviously I don't know why and what it is, but the one we tested for two months was rock solid and I would not hesitate to use it for our main light.
As Douglas says, measuring and adjustments have to be made when new piece of equipment is introduced into the workflow. We adjusted the exposure times on few occasions, in some cases depending on the mesh color (were surprised to see the 305Y needing as much light as 110W for example), screen placement and with current unit the distance to glass. . .
pierre
-
My take on LED's in general. (and I mean the bulbs in general, not exposure units)
They are definitely the light source of tomorrow. Almost there for home use as soon as they are available in the $1 range like CFL's became whether with rebates, or subsidies, or mere competition. They will be come a near necessity for conservation and economics.
Except perhaps for shops are burning all day long, I don't think that the conservation thing is the driving force here in our industry.
As more and more emulsion makers start tailoring their products to working with the different light sources, they will definitely grow in popularity to eventually become the norm.
Like was mentioned, the possible exposure power of an MH along with the flat compact design of a fluorescent unit is a dream.
That said, there will be growing pains.
-
Rockers, the LED unit is different from the standpoint that when compared to MH it will have a very small amount of undercutting. Adjusting your RIP to compensate for this should sort out your thin line issues.
Alan, when I reported, I clearly said that it "was very close to MH and for 99% of the shops it will not make a difference." Only thing we could see in testing was the we were holding a 3% dot with MH and 5% dot with LED. As mentioned above, adjustment in the RIP should address that.
ScreenFoo, Lou's LED units are the only ones I am aware of that have all the features properly designed unit should have. Most manufacturers did not disclose all the details he did so it is possible they have them too, but as of right now I know of faults in many other units on the market that he (and Vastex) are addressing in their design. While I don't know anything about the manufacturer of the LEDs and their standards, information Lou shared on the wavelength, power supply, cooling, proper light field distribution and so on is on par or better than anything else I've seen. While many other units might have equivalent or even one feature that is better than the LDTronix/Vastex setup, every one of them I've measured and tested had at least one significant (at least to me) downfall.
First off, I didn't mean to imply the guy hadn't done his homework on the EE/ME side of the issue. It was just another pitch that sounded to me just like the "Sell your presses, DTG is here" BS that we've all read a million times now.
Second, when you say "Light field distribution" do you mean you measured how close the light is to collimated, or that you measured to make sure one area of LED's wasn't brighter than some other area of LED's?
IMHO the former is at least as important as the latter for a quality stencil.
Anyway, keep up the R&D guys. ;)
-
Rockers, the LED unit is different from the standpoint that when compared to MH it will have a very small amount of undercutting. Adjusting your RIP to compensate for this should sort out your thin line issues.
Alan, when I reported, I clearly said that it "was very close to MH and for 99% of the shops it will not make a difference." Only thing we could see in testing was the we were holding a 3% dot with MH and 5% dot with LED. As mentioned above, adjustment in the RIP should address that.
ScreenFoo, Lou's LED units are the only ones I am aware of that have all the features properly designed unit should have. Most manufacturers did not disclose all the details he did so it is possible they have them too, but as of right now I know of faults in many other units on the market that he (and Vastex) are addressing in their design. While I don't know anything about the manufacturer of the LEDs and their standards, information Lou shared on the wavelength, power supply, cooling, proper light field distribution and so on is on par or better than anything else I've seen. While many other units might have equivalent or even one feature that is better than the LDTronix/Vastex setup, every one of them I've measured and tested had at least one significant (at least to me) downfall.
First off, I didn't mean to imply the guy hadn't done his homework on the EE/ME side of the issue. It was just another pitch that sounded to me just like the "Sell your presses, DTG is here" BS that we've all read a million times now.
Second, when you say "Light field distribution" do you mean you measured how close the light is to collimated, or that you measured to make sure one area of LED's wasn't brighter than some other area of LED's?
IMHO the former is at least as important as the latter for a quality stencil.
Anyway, keep up the R&D guys. ;)
I have no means to measure the light collimation, but the field distribution so far has been better than anything else we tested (and few manufacturers declined to have us measure it).
Biggest problem with Lou was that he was so jaded that nobody would listen to what he was saying so he started arguing with ppl. Once he brought the unit to our place and we tested it, it turned out that his claims appeared to be true. We were getting significantly shorter exposure times and the stencil held up to the printing and washout just as he claimed. He was on the site here and discussed things pleasantly for months. It started off shake before the testing, but everything calmed down afterwards.
Lou and I talked about several changes to his unit that were addressed in the Vastex model we tested. Then after we used the Vastex version for a couple of months, several updates to the unit were suggested (the vacuum pump being one of them) by Richard Greaves and myself. To their credit, anything related to performance of the unit was changed pretty quickly. We brought the meters and took some measurements few months after returning our unit and confirmed it all in person. From what I can remember there were two suggestions that were not changed, one hand operation of the lid and digital timer (rather than the analog version they use).
pierre
pierre
-
I'm all about hyperbole but I'm going to have to step in here and disagree A LOT.
It happens - and yes we are going to disagree.
First off, LED could very well be great...one day, and some units may be close to greatness but some are not.
I’m not saying great, identifying it as a “game changer” a “black swan” in it’s ability to force us to look at things with exposure we have never seen before (like the queer bits about linking acceleration).
I’m not even saying the roller frames are “all that” (have a major place yes) I’m saying that we learned a LOT about mesh and tension directly from a singe NEW innovation/technology - LED is just like that. Automatic presses a continuation (impact yes but not the same) there is no former pathway for the LED technology as with much of your list - All big impact yes, but I stand by my prediction that by the very nature of LED it will be a game changer for many reasons including what we are going to learn about emulsions and exposure.
We had mesh already, we learned about tension with the aid of Don and his product, and that I what I am pointing out - it is the same with the LED, and I am convinced this will play out in a similar way.
-
I'll make sure that others don't make the same mistake.
I wonder what this portends...
I'll say this again, we've managed to get detail that in the beginning we couldn't get, but if you have to throw all the cargo off the ship to get it to float it's not really a cargo ship is it? Meaning, the screens aren't usable for anything over 100 pieces due to the need to underexpose to achieve the detail.
So the emulsion is not linking enough past the knuckles of the mesh (clearly you identify this as underexposure and I agree).
Detail resolution is always a combination of mesh choice, emulsion choice/EOM, exposure, and positives (CTS)
Multi-Bulb creates more light scatter (halation is a word you will see) the tubes, LED, and MH all have some, and they shake out in a very obvious step of this from - tubes - LED - MH.
The underexposure for detail and the subsequent problems are worrisome.
I of course am known for pushing a full and complete exposure as the starting point, making adjustments in mesh choice and emulsion to take up the rest - a no-fail policy.
Im just now finishing pressure washing out the last of the screens I have been helping my client here in the UK with all day - all with this LED unit. I use three French Emulsions here of three different types. I have not had a single fail of any screen with any of the emulsions I use with this unit. As above all by the starting point of complete linking as measured my an exposure calculator, all of them would even pass the Ulano pressure washer timed/measure abuse test and of course thousands upon thousands of trouble free impressions.
This client is a dealer in Europe and I brought this up:
Any manufacturers defects - no
Any units not preforming as the clients need... no
Any customers not happy with the speed and ability to expose all five of the basic emulsions - no
-
In fact "in the wild" the only problems I have run in to on this LED unit are all here on the boards.
That's why I was so happy to see you and Mark jump on board here again as well
-
We need to change the title here.
LED bulbs already WINNING!!!
::)
-
I of course am known for pushing a full and complete exposure as the starting point, making adjustments in mesh choice and emulsion to take up the rest - a no-fail policy.
Possibly the most important bit of information for anyone following this meandering thread is the complete exposure of an emulsion prior to development. There are no shortcuts to the exposure process without compromise to other aspects or variables of said process.
-
I know of faults in many other units on the market that he (and Vastex) are addressing in their design.
For starters they should address that the little light that indicates "exposure" really only comes on if the LED s are actually on.That would be a good place for improvement .
-
As with cars, we all chose different ones. We adjust to how they 'drive'. As an emulsion manufacturer we did not buy into LED in the beginning. Metal Halide wasn't broke, but LED has created a new screen making dynamic that is different from Metal Halide. Both work, but with some adjustments needed. I now sell LED mesh! OK that's just a marketing slogan, but what I have found is that LED likes higher mesh counts. A 150S vs a 110T, a 225/40 Yellow vs a 160W. Our analysis of the exposure is this. LED's do undercut a bit, but by moving mesh counts up a little the details are still decent. Are the halftones as good as a Metal Halide, well no, they are a bit soft on the inside, but with a fast SBQ emulsion, complete exposure, (Thanks Greg, this needs reinforcement in our industry.) and an alternative mesh count that is higher but with similar print quality, your results will be fine. Again, like cars, a new one may require rethinking on how you drive it, but it will take you where you want to go.
I recently dialed in a 24 auto shop with 2 STEII's, auto develop and more importantly auto reclaim. Speed? So fast a Metal Halide user could work 7 days a week and not equal what an STEII with multiple heads and exposure can output. What helps is post exposure on SBQ products. Without post exposure on LED you risk break down on discharge and water base, and more importantly any screen opener or solvents used in plastisol printing will lock in the emulsion without post exposure. Auto reclaming machines aren't very strong IMO. But with the right emulsion, post exposure, it works beautifully. Post Exposure sources by strength and light quality: Sun from 10-3, 8k Metal Halide, 5k Metal Halide, LED. The reason for LED in last here? Spectral output. Emulsions like mulit-spectral to completely cross link. Will the LED work for Post Exposure? Yes for the majority of our print runs. For 90K runs? not sure yet, untested.
As Pierre mentioned, you can control your haltones with curves. Choke the tonal spread, 5-95, or even 8-92% still looks great, add some contrast and the print is excellent.
Long Runs? - I still prefer Metal Halide here. But for me that is 60-90k range, and we rarely see this in the states. LED is so fast. Great improvement on Vacuum drawdown speed, and instantaneous release of vacuum. And lets face it $300-500 MH bulbs every year gets costly.
Here is where I see some issues on LED exposure: Emulsion types: SBQ is the best, followed by diazo (which will undercut a bit more due to longer exposure time), and dual cures I don't recommend, although you can get an exposure and an image, its the time needed for both SBQ and diazo that are present in a dual cure with a short LED exposure that is underserved. SBQ is exposed long before the diazo in a dual cure. So the exposure is marginal for long runs, and post exposure doesn't help much. I have a new emulsion. I have buried this in the post on purpose. PM me if you want to know more about the emulsion I used to dial in the 24 auto shop with completely clean screens through an auto reclaim using all ink systems.
-
As with cars, we all chose different ones. We adjust to how they 'drive'. As an emulsion manufacturer we did not buy into LED in the beginning. Metal Halide wasn't broke, but LED has created a new screen making dynamic that is different from Metal Halide. Both work, but with some adjustments needed. I now sell LED mesh! OK that's just a marketing slogan, but what I have found is that LED likes higher mesh counts. A 150S vs a 110T, a 225/40 Yellow vs a 160W. Our analysis of the exposure is this. LED's do undercut a bit, but by moving mesh counts up a little the details are still decent. Are the halftones as good as a Metal Halide, well no, they are a bit soft on the inside, but with a fast SBQ emulsion, complete exposure, (Thanks Greg, this needs reinforcement in our industry.) and an alternative mesh count that is higher but with similar print quality, your results will be fine. Again, like cars, a new one may require rethinking on how you drive it, but it will take you where you want to go.
I recently dialed in a 24 auto shop with 2 STEII's, auto develop and more importantly auto reclaim. Speed? So fast a Metal Halide user could work 7 days a week and not equal what an STEII with multiple heads and exposure can output. What helps is post exposure on SBQ products. Without post exposure on LED you risk break down on discharge and water base, and more importantly any screen opener or solvents used in plastisol printing will lock in the emulsion without post exposure. Auto reclaming machines aren't very strong IMO. But with the right emulsion, post exposure, it works beautifully. Post Exposure sources by strength and light quality: Sun from 10-3, 8k Metal Halide, 5k Metal Halide, LED. The reason for LED in last here? Spectral output. Emulsions like mulit-spectral to completely cross link. Will the LED work for Post Exposure? Yes for the majority of our print runs. For 90K runs? not sure yet, untested.
As Pierre mentioned, you can control your haltones with curves. Choke the tonal spread, 5-95, or even 8-92% still looks great, add some contrast and the print is excellent.
Long Runs? - I still prefer Metal Halide here. But for me that is 60-90k range, and we rarely see this in the states. LED is so fast. Great improvement on Vacuum drawdown speed, and instantaneous release of vacuum. And lets face it $300-500 MH bulbs every year gets costly.
Here is where I see some issues on LED exposure: Emulsion types: SBQ is the best, followed by diazo (which will undercut a bit more due to longer exposure time), and dual cures I don't recommend, although you can get an exposure and an image, its the time needed for both SBQ and diazo that are present in a dual cure with a short LED exposure that is underserved. SBQ is exposed long before the diazo in a dual cure. So the exposure is marginal for long runs, and post exposure doesn't help much. I have a new emulsion. I have buried this in the post on purpose. PM me if you want to know more about the emulsion I used to dial in the 24 auto shop with completely clean screens through an auto reclaim using all ink systems.
There is a new unit called the Starlight Gemini that exposes as well as post cures the emulsion for those super long runs. One of the largest printers in the country has tested it and ordered one for each of his plants. You will be seeing a lot of them in big shops shortly!!
-
I'll make sure that others don't make the same mistake.
I wonder what this portends...
It means when someone asks me what I think of it I'll be honest and tell them the unit isn't near as good as our 15 year old Richmond Solarbeam with an 18 month old, aging bulb. I know it's being subtly stated that there is probably something wrong with the people operating the unit and I'm sure there are some at Vastex, you included, that know more than I do about stencil development, but honestly, I've shot thousands of screens and take my education and knowledge of the processes very seriously and if I can't get a 10% dot from a 50lpi on a 280/34, 10%EOM, and numerous emulsions tested, bla bla bla, it's not the fault of the user in THIS SITUATION.
I've thought about plugging the Richmond back in and even with the old bulb, crappy scratched up glass and awful control panel, and testing the units side by side and documenting it all for everyone on the forum to see. But I'm sure there will be plenty of skepticism that the test was biased and most importantly the guy doing the testing is not near as smart as he thinks he is :). Have a good weekend folks.
-
I'll make sure that others don't make the same mistake.
I wonder what this portends...
It means when someone asks me what I think of it I'll be honest and tell them the unit isn't near as good as our 15 year old Richmond Solarbeam with an 18 month old, aging bulb. I know it's being subtly stated that there is probably something wrong with the people operating the unit and I'm sure there are some at Vastex, you included, that know more than I do about stencil development, but honestly, I've shot thousands of screens and take my education and knowledge of the processes very seriously and if I can't get a 10% dot from a 50lpi on a 280/34, 10%EOM, and numerous emulsions tested, bla bla bla, it's not the fault of the user in THIS SITUATION.
I've thought about plugging the Richmond back in and even with the old bulb, crappy scratched up glass and awful control panel, and testing the units side by side and documenting it all for everyone on the forum to see. But I'm sure there will be plenty of skepticism that the test was biased and most importantly the guy doing the testing is not near as smart as he thinks he is :). Have a good weekend folks.
You know what, I was pissed off when I wrote the original post a few days back and honestly I was mad at myself and spouted off something that really isn't fair to Vastex and not what I'm about. I apologize for that, and I also got a little hot after reading Douglas's reply to that statement because quite frankly the whole situation has me miffed and at a few different things. When I read the posts on the last few pages I couldn't help but feel like there were things being said that I feel were a bit disrespectful but really how does anyone that isn't in my circle know what I don't know or what my level of knowledge is with stencil development. So I have to realize who I'm reading and why it is they are saying what they are saying and try to put it in proper perspective. I'm not going to start a campaign to talk about how bad something is, I will give people my opinion if I"m asked and if I start a thread with a comparison I mentioned earlier I can promise everyone out there that it will be done as professionally as possible, as fair as possible and if am anything in this world from here to my end it will be honest.
So with that out of the way, I'll state a few things that might help people understand that although there may be a few guys on the forum that know more than I do about this subject, I have been fortunate enough to have had guys, that some in the industry might recognize, in the shop that have witnessed testing screens with an exposure calculator and I'll mention a few of those names but the higher ups from a competitor I'll not mention. Joe Clarke spent 4 days at our shop and I don't think anyone here would claim that he's lacking the knowledge and experience to not develop stencils properly. Technical guys (not sales guys) from Kiwo and Chromaline and M&R have been in the shop. John Deihl with Douthitt also spent some time visiting the shop and I also was fortunate to spend a lot of time at the ISS show last year. And while I had the ears and eyes of these people we weren't spending all our time talking about the weather. I realize it might be a bit douchie to name drop like that given the circumstances but I do feel like it's important to help some understand that a bunch of goons aren't farting around with an exposure unit and not getting good results.
-
I'll make sure that others don't make the same mistake.
I wonder what this portends...
It means when someone asks me what I think of it I'll be honest and tell them the unit isn't near as good as our 15 year old Richmond Solarbeam with an 18 month old, aging bulb. I know it's being subtly stated that there is probably something wrong with the people operating the unit and I'm sure there are some at Vastex, you included, that know more than I do about stencil development, but honestly, I've shot thousands of screens and take my education and knowledge of the processes very seriously and if I can't get a 10% dot from a 50lpi on a 280/34, 10%EOM, and numerous emulsions tested, bla bla bla, it's not the fault of the user in THIS SITUATION.
I've thought about plugging the Richmond back in and even with the old bulb, crappy scratched up glass and awful control panel, and testing the units side by side and documenting it all for everyone on the forum to see. But I'm sure there will be plenty of skepticism that the test was biased and most importantly the guy doing the testing is not near as smart as he thinks he is :). Have a good weekend folks.
So let’s get down to it Alan - you and I have met face to face at least a few times so you have at least a bit of a read on what my personality is like and what I do in the industry.
In effect I get paid by my customers, shops like your’s, to tell them they are doing things wrong...
By that I improve efficiency, clear or adjust constraints, and educate - I actually do not like using the words “wrong” or “correct” or anything so open ended because it is not ACCURATE. To be straight with you accurate is all I am concerned with!
I apologize for that, and I also got a little hot after reading Douglas's reply to that statement because quite frankly the whole situation has me miffed and at a few different things. When I read the posts on the last few pages I couldn't help but feel like there were things being said that I feel were a bit disrespectful
This is where problems start, there is disrespectful and then there is concern...
If I find things that do not fit in a shop because they are doing it “wrong” there is always a chance that pointing that out will be construed as offensive - this is where I have things above anyone in sales - I can just bypass that emotion and go right for the issue - logic and reason AND PROFIT over emotions. Emotions don’t make us money, they cost us money most of the time. This is why, and you and I have talked face to face about this, that I have a hard personal policy of FACT over even my own emotions - If I am doing something “wrong” then I want to know about it and change it ASAP. My classes are on version 32 now - in that as new things pop up and we in the industry learn more I change immediately with the new information.
What you have to know here is that I was concerned about “axe-grinding” and you know without a doubt - I want to HELP FIX any problems. Parading a list of luminaries to me is a grocery list, it’s not that I don’t know people it is that it does not get to the technical issue.
Just about anyone here (possibly you included) knows that I am most concerned about helping you FIX or identify your problem. There is a very good chance that you may well be going outside of the capabilities of the machine I have already pointed out that comparing a MH to LED is apples and oranges - of course they are different.
Don’t think that I am thinking or calling you an idiot - far from it - the problem is that we are somehow missing something - somewhere because 2+2=4 but somehow we are getting 3 or 5 - that means we are missing a number or two somewhere...
I want to find out what that is - and make sure we fix things and accurately identify problems.
I hope that helps you understand that I am NOT trying to be offensive, I want to help.
-
All due respect, Danny Grunniger's printing is beating the competition and his screens are imaged with an M&R STE, which has a small strip of led's. So I don't see too much argument past that. If a starlight has even more juice, ummmmm, correct me if I'm wrong buuuut, wouldn't that be even more accuracy. The guys I know with Starlights do amazing work, won't have to buy bulbs and, none of them seem to be lacking detail. What am I missing?
Maybe it is the use of of CTS or good dmax films which allow for longer and more complete exposure of the emulsion. Does LEd work, yes, but why do we see manufacturers formulating emulsion specifically for LED light. My belief is a multi-spectral light source makes for optimal exposure no matter the emulsion type.
I'm not sure really, why some are designing emulsions specifically for LED. It's not D-Max. It might be that if a current supplier only sells a specific brand...and that didn't fit exactly with their customer wants for exposure (times) on an LED device, then the emulsion manufacturer may want to create an emulsion brand with a faster time just for LED. Not sure.
I know I've not come across an emulsion that does not work at all. All work, but at different exposure times. That's the difference and may be what drives the emulsion Co's to create one for LED that they don't currently have. Some customers hear of these great exposure times and it's true (for another type of emulsion). They can be super fast exposures and many shops just want fast, and don't want or need "the best" or the finest image quality.
I've tested the D-Max on our basic every day ink coverage on the I-Image and has been tested and ran at the 3.75 D-max That's good enough and often better than many Epson films. In worse case scenario's, some of the printers out there have been using films where you can hold them up to the light and read a newspaper through them. You can even get heavier coverage than that with more passes, more heads, slower speed, high ink output resolution etc.
-
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?
(http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/SRI%20Pics/IMG_20160229_092631_zpsxzrjbtlk.jpg) (http://s485.photobucket.com/user/alan802/media/SRI%20Pics/IMG_20160229_092631_zpsxzrjbtlk.jpg.html)
-
I had a demo with the starlight 23x31 2 weeks ago with Ron Hopkins in our shop. I literally put my 2,000 psi power washer on the squeegee side of halftones and "tried" to blow them out and it just would not happen. We held detail in those screens on a job we have printed several times over the past few years that we were not getting with our tri light. I know there must be some "scientific" stuff that can be debated, but I think, depending on the unit in question, LED is the real deal. 4 second exposures on a I-Image CTS imaged screens that held the lowest % halftones that we've seen yet, and haaaaaaaaad to be exposed and cross linked through and through to be able to take the beating of a pressure washer and not blow out those dots. Producing a final print better than we have in the past, arguing becomes a moot point. I have a couple friends in Orlando, primarily all water based printing, one uses murikami 7500 diazo, the other sp1400 diazo. Both use Starlights, neither have issues with emulsion break down, neither use hardeners. The guy using 7500 diazo does very large runs, 10,000 and above and never has issues. Loves his starlight and is NOT a bs'er. I mean just look at Danny G's work, not many can compete with his quality of printing and correct me if I'm wrong, but he images and exposes with an STE CTS LED, how much more could one want. The awards speak for themselves. Just my 2 cents, not trying to ruffle feathers but it just seems like the point is being missed that some of these other LED brands are just not up to the same standard as the Starlight.
-
come on guys, somebody in texas has to have a Starlight that they can load in the back of their car and take to Alan's shop... (or even let him bring some screens to image in their shop)
Anybody in my neck of the woods (chicago) is more than welcome to bring your screens, film, emulsion, etc to our shop to test with.
-
agree totally Mike!
-
come on guys, somebody in texas has to have a Starlight that they can load in the back of their car and take to Alan's shop... (or even let him bring some screens to image in their shop)
Anybody in my neck of the woods (chicago) is more than welcome to bring your screens, film, emulsion, etc to our shop to test with.
from what I recall, Al had a starlight in there for a while? thought he did some testing before.
Starlight + DTS = move on to other areas, you have screens covered.
this is turning comical. I can't believe this is still an issue..sell that turd and buy a real unit.
-
Alan, maybe put in a request with Ron H for a demo, he's really cool, has been in the imaging industry for dam near a life time and would show up right at your shop with a unit to use as you want for the afternoon.
-
([url]http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/SRI%20Pics/IMG_20160229_092631_zpsxzrjbtlk.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s485.photobucket.com/user/alan802/media/SRI%20Pics/IMG_20160229_092631_zpsxzrjbtlk.jpg.html[/url])
Exposure calculators, test strips, percent dot held & lost, D-max, all that crap doesn't mean anything right now based on THAT picture. That's just unacceptable unless the emulsion is bad.
-
Exposure calculators, test strips, percent dot held & lost, D-max, all that crap doesn't mean anything right now based on THAT picture. That's just unacceptable unless the emulsion is bad.
I agree... that's SEVERE under exposure, even up at 60 seconds...
I'm wondering if Vastex got a bad batch of LEDs in your unit.
-
OK, when you can't find something where you expect to find it, you start looking everyplace else.
Gonna take a pointer from the 'puter tech support guys, "Is it plugged in?" is the first question when it won't run. Second question is what is the power company giving you, get out your multimeter and check voltage. Are you getting 110, or 102, or 114? Lets cover the basics....
Then the question becomes if voltage is not correct how does that effect UV output, what happens? Is voltage drop directly proportionally to UV output? 5% drop would be 104 volts = 385 UV, not so good for our photopolymers I would guess.
Does the problem only happen when the compressor is running, could be changing the leg on 3 phase could eliminate that variable if your service is close to maxed out.
Pierre you were a voltage jockey in the Navy, your opinion?
Remember, looking for reasons other than the obvious...
-
come on guys, somebody in texas has to have a Starlight that they can load in the back of their car and take to Alan's shop... (or even let him bring some screens to image in their shop)
Anybody in my neck of the woods (chicago) is more than welcome to bring your screens, film, emulsion, etc to our shop to test with.
I'm fixing to end this and just go buy alan a new unit LOL....... Who is with me and is willing to pitch in ;D ;D
-
If I could, I would jump in with ya Danny.
-
Since a couple of you have suggested that I take the Starlight into Alan's shop,I have to speak up and let you know that I took the Starlight into Alan's shop several months ago and he made several screens on it. He seemed to be very pleased with the results, even when really hitting it with the pressure washer and rubbing the emulsion to see if any of the color would rub off on a white t-shirt. He checked it very thoroughly and said it was holding dots that he had not been able to hold before. He seemed to be impressed with the speed, saying that even at one screen at a time on the Starlight that he could easily get more throughput on the Starlight. I have taken the Starlight to many shops across the country and into Canada and it does the job. We still manufacture MH units, have been since the early 70's, so I am not trying to say that MH is old school or fading away. There could be areas where the MH is a better choice, but there are a lot of things to like about the Starlight. From many demos that I have done and followups with customers, I can tell you that the Starlight is doing a great job in many shops across the globe.
Ron Hopkins
NuArc Sales Mgr.
M&R Sales and Service Co.
ron.hopkins@mrprint.com
847-997-2487
-
We were a little curious with the rub test on the squeegee side of the screen so we threw a screen outside in direct sunlight for 2.5 minutes with Murakami Aquasol. I rubbed 3 times with relatively light pressure. The photo attached is what we ended up with. Luckily we have a nice, sunny day today to give this a shot. Nothing came off on the shirt side that was directly facing the sun. This was not by far any kind of scientific test, but we wanted to put it out there anyway.
-Paul
-
I'll chip in on the new machine. ;)
-
I'll chip in on the new machine. ;)
Mark, Mark, Rich, Richard how about your opinions on my voltage questions?
-
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.
-
I just ran the swab test on a screen here with Saati PHU2... until I rubbed super hard, i got no color transfer.
-
We were a little curious with the rub test on the squeegee side of the screen so we threw a screen outside in direct sunlight for 2.5 minutes with Murakami Aquasol. I rubbed 3 times with relatively light pressure. The photo attached is what we ended up with. Luckily we have a nice, sunny day today to give this a shot. Nothing came of on the shirt side that was directly facing the sun. This was by far any kind of scientific test, but we wanted to put it out there anyway.
-Paul
I have done this test (and others like 21 step test) a few times exposing HV outside before I had my large vacuum frame when it was my only option for exposing my flag screens. With Aquasol HV exposed outside under film and a sheet of 1/4 plexi (all I had at the time to hold the film down) here in Austin on a "normal" sunny day I got zero rub off full exposure after around 30-45 seconds of exposure. I was usually able to get usable screens anywhere from 15 to 45 seconds, but going for a full minute or longer would almost always cause issues with washout of the image as the UV would simply expose through the dark areas of the film. I was hardly scientific about it as the art was massive spot colors (not a halftone or fine line in site) and printed purposefully distressed on rough canvas, but rub test results did not result in blue at 30ish seconds or more (usually). I can't imagine a 2.5 minute exposure outside on a sunny day resulting in that kind of rub test failure. I wouldn't even get that kind of rub test failure on my DIY flo bulb unit after 2.5 minutes...
Not doubting your results or implying anything, just commenting that the HV is a fairly fast exposing emulsion in my experience, especially in direct sunlight.
-
We were a little curious with the rub test on the squeegee side of the screen so we threw a screen outside in direct sunlight for 2.5 minutes with Murakami Aquasol. I rubbed 3 times with relatively light pressure. The photo attached is what we ended up with. Luckily we have a nice, sunny day today to give this a shot. Nothing came of on the shirt side that was directly facing the sun. This was by far any kind of scientific test, but we wanted to put it out there anyway.
-Paul
I have done this test (and others like 21 step test) a few times exposing HV outside before I had my large vacuum frame when it was my only option for exposing my flag screens. With Aquasol HV exposed outside under film and a sheet of 1/4 plexi (all I had at the time to hold the film down) here in Austin on a "normal" sunny day I got zero rub off full exposure after around 30-45 seconds of exposure. I was usually able to get usable screens anywhere from 15 to 45 seconds, but going for a full minute or longer would almost always cause issues with washout of the image as the UV would simply expose through the dark areas of the film. I was hardly scientific about it as the art was massive spot colors (not a halftone or fine line in site) and printed purposefully distressed on rough canvas, but rub test results did not result in blue at 30ish seconds or more (usually). I can't imagine a 2.5 minute exposure outside on a sunny day resulting in that kind of rub test failure. I wouldn't even get that kind of rub test failure on my DIY flo bulb unit after 2.5 minutes...
Not doubting your results or implying anything, just commenting that the HV is a fairly fast exposing emulsion in my experience, especially in direct sunlight.
How was your screen coated? Mine was actually relatively thick because the Aquasol is a fairly thin emulsion. I had a 3/2 coat with the rounded edge of the scoop coater. I'm sure the sun is a little brighter as well since you are in Texas. We are in Pennsylvania so our intensity will be a lot different.
-
HA! In PA, the weather forecast was "Partly cloudy in the Allegheny county. (EVERY DAY). Er was it Partly Sunny. 50.50.
-
maybe the sun wasn't putting out the proper UV spectrum? *DUCKING*...
LOL. This is seriously curious tho...
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
([url]http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/SRI%20Pics/IMG_20160229_092631_zpsxzrjbtlk.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s485.photobucket.com/user/alan802/media/SRI%20Pics/IMG_20160229_092631_zpsxzrjbtlk.jpg.html[/url])
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
Done, I'll have it back to Kevin as soon as I have something to burn screens with.
-
Oh, and I have mentioned several times about why I didn't want to send it back, although not directly because it was one private conversation between Mark and I. It was offered, then the pump replacement was offered and to be perfectly honest, I felt guilty about doing that. I felt that I made the decision, I bought the machine, I screwed up so where I grew up, you take accountability and move on. But now that the offer is being made publicly, let's get on with it.
-
I have to think that once the machine is returned, the folks at Vastex will be very interested in checking it out to see if indeed, there is something wrong.
Myself, the few times that something failed with a product of mine, I was a little miffed that a custy did not point it out immediately so that i could see if rather than operator error, I had some bad ink, vinyl, or an equipment issue that needed to remedy ASAP.
It's part of the process of constant improvement.
-
I have to think that once the machine is returned, the folks at Vastex will be very interested in checking it out to see if indeed, there is something wrong.
Myself, the few times that something failed with a product of mine, I was a little miffed that a custy did not point it out immediately so that i could see if rather than operator error, I had some bad ink, vinyl, or an equipment issue that needed to remedy ASAP.
It's part of the process of constant improvement.
I don't think that technically there is anything "wrong" with it. It is what it is, and that "IS" doesn't do what I NEED it to do. I think there are 3 of us active on the forum that owns one? Does anyone know for sure how many of us are here? I've said this before but it gets glossed over and not spoken about, but for a good portion of the work we do the unit is fine, it will burn an average screen for the average shop. The unit that is sitting right beside me as I type this will not do what we need it to do about 20% of the time and I have nothing else to offer to try and get it to do more.
-
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.
Oh, well, I wasn't really mentioning that to be part of the exposure discussion. Just a funny thought. I've grown up in the Pittsburgh and Wva area. Literally, the forecast was always "partly cloudy" I know that, because (Joe DeNardo) from channel 11 still rings in my ear.
As for this discussion, for me personally, I still do and I've always said early on this forum, that Vastex is and was a great Co. Good people.
I think Allen was not coming on here intended "to bash" but he has been known to come on and give a detailed experience with new products or chemicals and techniques (in great detail). More specifically as it pertains to screens/coating and emulsion. So this is nothing new due to your product specifically, however, I can see that some comments from some members may have not set well but I'm positive nobody meant any harm or offense. Often times, it's better to just get the machine or product ordered back from them and let it die. On the other hand, I would expect (like me), there is a side of you that wants to clear the air and protect the integrity of the machine and service.
You and I both know that one persons complaint or different experience does not make a bad product. It is however, typical of what members/owners of the shops do here. They discuss experience both good and bad. Sometimes, when a business is on the receiving end, it feels harder than it really is on the surface. I'm sure everyone knows there will be some people who do not have the same experience as the majority has. It happens even with all that we do to prevent such.
-
I decided to try the sun test today but it's fairly late in the day. I wasn't expecting to get any color on the shirt and got a little, so I'm surprised by that. Specs: sun exposure, 5 minutes, 4pm, 120/54 with a 20%EOM, 120 microns total thickness.
The sun sample is below the other two from yesterday. I remember doing the swab test many times with the Richmond when we'd test new emulsions or something else in the process and rarely getting anything to show on the shirt. I'm also wondering if some of the color is coming from the post exposure dip tank that I soak the screens in. It's blue tinted and I tried to rinse it really thorough before swiping with the shirt but I can still see a transfer or maybe even some soaking in. I may try this again tomorrow during high noon without soaking, both using the sun and expo unit so I can make sure there was no contamination.
(http://i485.photobucket.com/albums/rr211/alan802/SRI%20Pics/IMG_20160301_163630_zpsfjofcnn6.jpg) (http://s485.photobucket.com/user/alan802/media/SRI%20Pics/IMG_20160301_163630_zpsfjofcnn6.jpg.html)
-
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.
All you need is an vac frame and integrator with a photocell--regulation via quantity of UV.
Clouds are the only reason we need an exposure lamp....
-
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.
just wondering if you have fixed the problems you had with the pump?
I noticed on our unit after we had to change the power supply/ transformer that we could not get a good blanket draw down as we had before. It took a good 2 minutes or more for a a fairly OK vacuum. What I did notice now is that this was caused by the glass not being locked down completely even though all screws and clamps that hold it in place were pushing it against the sealing strips and were tight. We repositioned the glass a little bit further to the right locked it all down and boom complete blanket draw down in 20-25 seconds. I`m wondering if this was the cause for your slow vacuum times.
-
just wondering if you have fixed the problems you had with the pump?
I noticed on our unit after we had to change the power supply/ transformer that we could not get a good blanket draw down as we had before. It took a good 2 minutes or more for a a fairly OK vacuum. What I did notice now is that this was caused by the glass not being locked down completely even though all screws and clamps that hold it in place were pushing it against the sealing strips and were tight. We repositioned the glass a little bit further to the right locked it all down and boom complete blanket draw down in 20-25 seconds. I`m wondering if this was the cause for your slow vacuum times.
That was the 1st thing we tried. I've had the glass off and cleaned about 6 times and unfortunately it wasn't the issue. The upgraded pump is a good bit larger than the 2 pumps in the unit now. I didn't get a chance to put the new pump in so I can't say exactly how much faster it would be versus the original system, but I'd venture to guess it's at least twice as fast. Our draw down time for 2 screens was about 70 seconds for a full draw but often times we'd start before it reached it's maximum draw down.
-
Wanting to see the news - see new post.
-
FYI, Sun exposure light strength is best between 10 and 2. Works best in the South. Northern areas of the US can only use it in the summer, not much UV when it's low on the horizon, or after 2-3 o'clock. IF you can get a sunburn you can burn a screen. Exposure times between 10-2, are predictable in bright sunlight. Any other time of the day is a guesstimate.
Al