TSB
screen printing => Equipment => Topic started by: dirkdiggler on April 01, 2014, 07:57:43 PM
-
Think its gonna be my next purchase.
-
I have one on order... I should be picking up at the end of the month, or very early in may
-
just showed up to my door yesterday...2 weeks early thanks to the Hoffenator....setting it up to start testing tomorrow, super excited
-
...TOTALLY dig ours. Alleviated a bottleneck for us, and we can count on consistency. In fact, I had set up 18 screens with film to burn yesterday (we image both screen ends with like colors, so this takes a little planning and time).....with one person exposing/removing film and another rinsing/racking....we were done at 5:40. For us that a BIG improvement over our previous system!
-
A small aside --- These guys have been out (along with other LED units) for some time now. Anyone YET to have any info on a discharge run of 2,000 or more pieces - if so, what emulsion? What did emulsion feel like at the end of the run? Breakdowns? Etc.? <insert cricket noise>
-
A small aside --- These guys have been out (along with other LED units) for some time now. Anyone YET to have any info on a discharge run of 2,000 or more pieces - if so, what emulsion? What did emulsion feel like at the end of the run? Breakdowns? Etc.? <insert cricket noise>
you'll have to Hassle the Hoff for that info, when I spoke to him, they were in the middle of a 1k piece dc run without any signs of wear....
to me -if you think about it, it's either exposed properly...or it's not...no matter the emulsion or exposing method.
-
Thanks homer - I'm sure. 244 will post results.. One would hope - with the pros or cons, but getting this info has been like pulling teeth to say the least. I'm curious for the sake of future buyers as a consideration, for if it can't hold on these dc runs, while it is certainly a step forward for some shops (e.g., with speed on plastisol and perhaps small dc runs) it's certainly a step backward for others, especially the way the "industry is going".
You are right about it either being exposed or not (thanks to the law of the excluded middle :-)) but 1) even some fully exposed emulsions will break down on dc, as you well know and 2) the only way to find out if it's fully exposed, at least fully exposed for decent size dc runs for the medium sized shop, is to throw it on press and run a decent size dc job to find out, not look through a loupe, alas.
-
Thanks homer - I'm sure. 244 will post results.. One would hope - with the pros or cons, but getting this info has been like pulling teeth to say the least. I'm curious for the sake of future buyers as a consideration, for if it can't hold on these dc runs, while it is certainly a step forward for some shops (e.g., with speed on plastisol and perhaps small dc runs) it's certainly a step backward for others, especially the way the "industry is going".
You are right about it either being exposed or not (thanks to the law of the excluded middle :-)) but 1) even some fully exposed emulsions will break down on dc, as you well know and 2) the only way to find out if it's fully exposed, at least fully exposed for decent size dc runs for the medium sized shop, is to throw it on press and run a decent size dc job to find out, not look through a loupe, alas.
During our testing we ran 1,000 shirts with no breakdown of emulsion. We ran the test with a full size back print with discharge and left chest front print with all plastisol. Virtually no difference. You will typically find better results with the Starlight than any mercury vapor unit we make. Just a FYI .
-
The next big DC run we do I plan on using the vastex LED unit at my supplier to expose a few screens and our MH unit to do the rest of the screens assuming it's a multicolored job and I'll have a direct comparison on press under the same conditions.
-
if any of you guys want me to test expose an emulsion you use, Id be happy to do it...send some films and a sample of emulsion, I have a few different exposure calculators here I am going to run first. have a few jobs to run first, then I'm off to fire this baby up..
-
Thanks homer - I'm sure. 244 will post results.. One would hope - with the pros or cons, but getting this info has been like pulling teeth to say the least. I'm curious for the sake of future buyers as a consideration, for if it can't hold on these dc runs, while it is certainly a step forward for some shops (e.g., with speed on plastisol and perhaps small dc runs) it's certainly a step backward for others, especially the way the "industry is going".
You are right about it either being exposed or not (thanks to the law of the excluded middle :-)) but 1) even some fully exposed emulsions will break down on dc, as you well know and 2) the only way to find out if it's fully exposed, at least fully exposed for decent size dc runs for the medium sized shop, is to throw it on press and run a decent size dc job to find out, not look through a loupe, alas.
During our testing we ran 1,000 shirts with no breakdown of emulsion. We ran the test with a full size back print with discharge and left chest front print with all plastisol. Virtually no difference. You will typically find better results with the Starlight than any mercury vapor unit we make. Just a FYI .
That's great news! What type of emulsion? Mesh Count? Exposure time? Type of Hardener? Type of DC Ink (someone posted here recently saying the cci ink ate away at Aquasol more so than the other major brands out there)? Single stroking, or double? Durometer of squeegee? At least in my experience, all of those things had a major play before we fixed screens breaking down/having issues on press. If your tester was double stroking at 1k pieces (effectively making it a 2k piece run) with a 65 duro squeegees and used a NON-permanent hardener without a LONG exposure time (though that'd obviously be reflected in the type of emulsion used) then I'd say that the Starlight is a major contender with DC inks for most mid-sized shops. Again, great news -- hopefully you have a chance to post some of the other info shortly. Thanks 244.
-
Homer: what are your typical emulsions that you guys use?
We use Xenon Nova with and without diazo here... Alex at M&R told me he is guessing that exposure time for a 200mesh screen 1x1 should be around 40 seconds or so... I can't wait to try it out.
-
That was with SP-1400 on the 200 just for a reference of what we were doing at the T&J Open House.
-
testing right now. - I just did a 305 CCI TX-Discharge PP w/ diazo, coated 2/1 round edge for 10 seconds. over exposed, did another for 5 seconds, underexposed. so I'm trying 8 seconds and that should nail it. MacDermid calcultors. I have some HXT to try too but I need to get a rough idea before burning through a rack of screens... ;D
I am going to do a trial run here with DC ink, and dry cycle my other gauntlet fora few hours and see what happens....
btw, this thing is freakin SWEET....vacuum in about 7 seconds, exposure around 8, I took a piss longer this thing takes to do a whole screen..use THAT in your sales sheet....
-
Thanks Alex... I won that bucket of sp1400, so as soon as I get mine here, I'll have to get it a shot :)
-
Has there been any analysis on undercutting etc? Side by side comparison with a single point? Microscope?
That would be my main concern, we've had "multiple light sources produces undercutting" drilled into our heads
for so long.
If it's on par with MH in terms of detail I'm thinking MH lights may soon be a thing of the past.
-
That was with SP-1400 on the 200 just for a reference of what we were doing at the T&J Open House.
Alex, any chances one of these LED light bars, like the the STE could be kitted up to go on the slant model I-Image like we have? Just curious.
Thanks bro
Mike
-
That was with SP-1400 on the 200 just for a reference of what we were doing at the T&J Open House.
Alex, any chances one of these LED light bars, like the the STE could be kitted up to go on the slant model I-Image like we have? Just curious.
Thanks bro
Mike
No chance. Sorry.
Even the ST with out LED can not be made into STE.
The long story short here is while the two units look identical on the outside (minus control panel) the electronics are vastly different.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk
-
Has there been any analysis on undercutting etc? Side by side comparison with a single point? Microscope?
That would be my main concern, we've had "multiple light sources produces undercutting" drilled into our heads
for so long.
If it's on par with MH in terms of detail I'm thinking MH lights may soon be a thing of the past.
The German feller on here posted a side by side detailing an LED multiple light source and one of those fancy mirror refractor/point light deals and the point light that scanned over the screen was superior but I may be incorrect on the LED being multiple point. My gut says that multiple point will always be inferior if imaging with film. DTS? Whole different story there, no film or glass to refract the light so it may be a non-issue when multi point LED is tag teamed with DTS. M&R posted about the multi point LEDs being finely tuned for their purpose and it makes sense to me that this is not a whole lot different than how our Olec reflector redirects the light to stay as actnic as possible.
I think LED will absolutely replace new purchases of MH units but we have 2 complete 5kw MH units here that I bought used and combined with shipping and bulbs and parts 'n at, total cost is less than the crating/freight on an LED unit and the MH unit is running 7 years strong now, so until there's no more used MH units everywhere from the death of the platemaker I feel like it's a tougher sell.
New to new I agree and see little reason not to go LED, considering the juice and bulb costs you'll save in the long haul.
-
Thanks homer - I'm sure. 244 will post results.. One would hope - with the pros or cons, but getting this info has been like pulling teeth to say the least. I'm curious for the sake of future buyers as a consideration, for if it can't hold on these dc runs, while it is certainly a step forward for some shops (e.g., with speed on plastisol and perhaps small dc runs) it's certainly a step backward for others, especially the way the "industry is going".
You are right about it either being exposed or not (thanks to the law of the excluded middle :-)) but 1) even some fully exposed emulsions will break down on dc, as you well know and 2) the only way to find out if it's fully exposed, at least fully exposed for decent size dc runs for the medium sized shop, is to throw it on press and run a decent size dc job to find out, not look through a loupe, alas.
During our testing we ran 1,000 shirts with no breakdown of emulsion. We ran the test with a full size back print with discharge and left chest front print with all plastisol. Virtually no difference. You will typically find better results with the Starlight than any mercury vapor unit we make. Just a FYI .
That's great news! What type of emulsion? Mesh Count? Exposure time? Type of Hardener? Type of DC Ink (someone posted here recently saying the cci ink ate away at Aquasol more so than the other major brands out there)? Single stroking, or double? Durometer of squeegee? At least in my experience, all of those things had a major play before we fixed screens breaking down/having issues on press. If your tester was double stroking at 1k pieces (effectively making it a 2k piece run) with a 65 duro squeegees and used a NON-permanent hardener without a LONG exposure time (though that'd obviously be reflected in the type of emulsion used) then I'd say that the Starlight is a major contender with DC inks for most mid-sized shops. Again, great news -- hopefully you have a chance to post some of the other info shortly. Thanks 244.
Here's some more info on the run we did.
8 color sim process design: The base was a 150S and top was 230's. We used a water resistant emulsion. Exposure is around 30 sec. No hardener on screens, and not a lick of difference between a MH and LED, when run was completed. No breakdown on emulsion with plastisol or discharge. When it was all said and done there were around 1150 prints on screens, and when we rinsed out the discharge screens they looked as good as new.
-
Thanks homer - I'm sure. 244 will post results.. One would hope - with the pros or cons, but getting this info has been like pulling teeth to say the least. I'm curious for the sake of future buyers as a consideration, for if it can't hold on these dc runs, while it is certainly a step forward for some shops (e.g., with speed on plastisol and perhaps small dc runs) it's certainly a step backward for others, especially the way the "industry is going".
You are right about it either being exposed or not (thanks to the law of the excluded middle :-)) but 1) even some fully exposed emulsions will break down on dc, as you well know and 2) the only way to find out if it's fully exposed, at least fully exposed for decent size dc runs for the medium sized shop, is to throw it on press and run a decent size dc job to find out, not look through a loupe, alas.
During our testing we ran 1,000 shirts with no breakdown of emulsion. We ran the test with a full size back print with discharge and left chest front print with all plastisol. Virtually no difference. You will typically find better results with the Starlight than any mercury vapor unit we make. Just a FYI .
That's great news! What type of emulsion? Mesh Count? Exposure time? Type of Hardener? Type of DC Ink (someone posted here recently saying the cci ink ate away at Aquasol more so than the other major brands out there)? Single stroking, or double? Durometer of squeegee? At least in my experience, all of those things had a major play before we fixed screens breaking down/having issues on press. If your tester was double stroking at 1k pieces (effectively making it a 2k piece run) with a 65 duro squeegees and used a NON-permanent hardener without a LONG exposure time (though that'd obviously be reflected in the type of emulsion used) then I'd say that the Starlight is a major contender with DC inks for most mid-sized shops. Again, great news -- hopefully you have a chance to post some of the other info shortly. Thanks 244.
Here's some more info on the run we did.
8 color sim process design: The base was a 150S and top was 230's. We used a water resistant emulsion. Exposure is around 30 sec. No hardener on screens, and not a lick of difference between a MH and LED, when run was completed. No breakdown on emulsion with plastisol or discharge. When it was all said and done there were around 1150 prints on screens, and when we rinsed out the discharge screens they looked as good as new.
An important thing to keep in mind as you try comparing LED units to MH units is that just like MH units, not all LED units are the same. There are many different types of LED's, the spacing, quality, and quantity of the LED's also make a lot of difference. So when you hear different reports concerning speed and quality, don't assume that the exposure numbers and quality are going to be the same for every unit that is exposing with LED's.
Ron Hopkins
NuArc Sales Manager
M&R Sales and Service Co.
-
Thanks homer - I'm sure. 244 will post results.. One would hope - with the pros or cons, but getting this info has been like pulling teeth to say the least. I'm curious for the sake of future buyers as a consideration, for if it can't hold on these dc runs, while it is certainly a step forward for some shops (e.g., with speed on plastisol and perhaps small dc runs) it's certainly a step backward for others, especially the way the "industry is going".
You are right about it either being exposed or not (thanks to the law of the excluded middle :-)) but 1) even some fully exposed emulsions will break down on dc, as you well know and 2) the only way to find out if it's fully exposed, at least fully exposed for decent size dc runs for the medium sized shop, is to throw it on press and run a decent size dc job to find out, not look through a loupe, alas.
During our testing we ran 1,000 shirts with no breakdown of emulsion. We ran the test with a full size back print with discharge and left chest front print with all plastisol. Virtually no difference. You will typically find better results with the Starlight than any mercury vapor unit we make. Just a FYI .
That's great news! What type of emulsion? Mesh Count? Exposure time? Type of Hardener? Type of DC Ink (someone posted here recently saying the cci ink ate away at Aquasol more so than the other major brands out there)? Single stroking, or double? Durometer of squeegee? At least in my experience, all of those things had a major play before we fixed screens breaking down/having issues on press. If your tester was double stroking at 1k pieces (effectively making it a 2k piece run) with a 65 duro squeegees and used a NON-permanent hardener without a LONG exposure time (though that'd obviously be reflected in the type of emulsion used) then I'd say that the Starlight is a major contender with DC inks for most mid-sized shops. Again, great news -- hopefully you have a chance to post some of the other info shortly. Thanks 244.
Here's some more info on the run we did.
8 color sim process design: The base was a 150S and top was 230's. We used a water resistant emulsion. Exposure is around 30 sec. No hardener on screens, and not a lick of difference between a MH and LED, when run was completed. No breakdown on emulsion with plastisol or discharge. When it was all said and done there were around 1150 prints on screens, and when we rinsed out the discharge screens they looked as good as new.
An important thing to keep in mind as you try comparing LED units to MH units is that just like MH units, not all LED units are the same. There are many different types of LED's, the spacing, quality, and quantity of the LED's also make a lot of difference. So when you hear different reports concerning speed and quality, don't assume that the exposure numbers and quality are going to be the same for every unit that is exposing with LED's.
Ron Hopkins
NuArc Sales Manager
M&R Sales and Service Co.
That`s what I thought too. The Lawson units seem to be significantly slower then the Starlight, as a matter of fact I would never make the switch from our MSP3140 to a Lawson LED. If it would have not been for the guy who wanted to buy our "old"MSP3140 I would have ordered the Starlight already:)
-
Thanks for that info everyone, I will be talking to 244 in Nashville in a few weeks.
-
Thanks for that info everyone, I will be talking to 244 in Nashville in a few weeks.
the unit will be in Nashville. Seeing is believing.
-
this thing truly is an amazing unit...110 S mesh was around 20 seconds, the longest time so far... seems like 8-12 seconds will be our go-to times for our every day stuff...
If I had to point out one thing to change/improve -it would be the hinge clamps. Not that they are bad -but I can see that those hinge pins may be the first things to go, being all plastic....but I am super happy with it, worth every penny!
-
What's the current status on Diazo exposure times and 55 line artwork.
-
Thanks for that info everyone, I will be talking to 244 in Nashville in a few weeks.
the unit will be in Nashville. Seeing is believing.
I may come out and see that unit at Nashville. Screen area is our next area to upgrade I think.
-
What's the current status on Diazo exposure times and 55 line artwork.
depending on mesh and coats probably around 30 seconds or less. Cant say for sure unless we have tested the brand you are referring to.
-
Rich, do you guys have a chart that shows the emulsions / coating method / screen type / burn times that you've tested so far?
-
this thing truly is an amazing unit...110 S mesh was around 20 seconds, the longest time so far... seems like 8-12 seconds will be our go-to times for our every day stuff...
If I had to point out one thing to change/improve -it would be the hinge clamps. Not that they are bad -but I can see that those hinge pins may be the first things to go, being all plastic....but I am super happy with it, worth every penny!
That's a photopolymer emulsion with diazo, right? Which brand emulsion? I'm around 24lu/seconds on a 110 white mesh with aquasol hvp (no diazo)
-
I LIED - -hold up, I grabbed PP screens thinking they were diazo, I grabbed from the wrong rack....totally my fault., that's why my times were so damn fast haha....we have some diazo screens drying in the racks now.
this thing truly is an amazing unit...110 S mesh was around 20 seconds, the longest time so far... seems like 8-12 seconds will be our go-to times for our every day stuff...
If I had to point out one thing to change/improve -it would be the hinge clamps. Not that they are bad -but I can see that those hinge pins may be the first things to go, being all plastic....but I am super happy with it, worth every penny!
That's a photopolymer emulsion with diazo, right? Which brand emulsion? I'm around 24lu/seconds on a 110 white mesh with aquasol hvp (no diazo)
yes it is, CCI makes it., we have two buckets in use at all times, one sensitized, one non for standard plastisol quicky stuff. But we are going to switch to all diazo and hopefully land in the 20/30 second range. I have some 65 lpi designs lined up ready to expose but it will have to wait until tomorrow.
we are in the process of coming up with a chart for mesh count /coating method- DC vs Plastisol and I'll post up our times once completed. next day or two
-
Holy crap. I just got notified that mine is ready for pickup!!!
Rich: thank you thank you thank you.
I'll post results with xenom nova tomorrow afternoon.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
-
Rich, do you guys have a chart that shows the emulsions / coating method / screen type / burn times that you've tested so far?
We have multiple but that is proprietary. We will test for you or give you information on our test of your brand but we really have no idea how it will work in your shop. Too many variables.
-
Holy crap. I just got notified that mine is ready for pickup!!!
Rich: thank you thank you thank you.
I'll post results with xenom nova tomorrow afternoon.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Happy to help!
-
we received our Starlight 2331 today... (picked it up at the Niles warehouse... I saw a bunch of BIG presses crated up... I jokingly asked the dock guy if he'd load a challenger 3d into the back of my truck for me.. LOL)
this thing is awesome... we're upgrading from a compression FL unit (no vacuum drawdown), so I'm sure my results are much more awesome to me than some of you...
For comparison: the majority of our screens are 200 count... and we primarily use Xenon Nova emulsion with Diazo added. On our old FL unit, exposure times for a 200 screen were around 5-6 minutes.... we always had issues with fine detail, and halftones over 45lpi were never achievable with any repeatable results. Now we're running 200 mesh screens at 52 seconds with perfect 45lpi halftones
vacuum drawdown is around 5-10 seconds... the 2331 unit doesn't have a timer for the drawdown like the 3140, and I haven't sat there with a stop watch, but it's very fast.
I can't say enough good things about what this unit is going to do to our prints... as well as lower our frustration levels :)
if you have a FL unit, you owe it to yourself to upgrade... it is worth every penny.
-
we received our Starlight 2331 today... (picked it up at the Niles warehouse... I saw a bunch of BIG presses crated up... I jokingly asked the dock guy if he'd load a challenger 3d into the back of my truck for me.. LOL)
this thing is awesome... we're upgrading from a compression FL unit (no vacuum drawdown), so I'm sure my results are much more awesome to me than some of you...
For comparison: the majority of our screens are 200 count... and we primarily use Xenon Nova emulsion with Diazo added. On our old FL unit, exposure times for a 200 screen were around 5-6 minutes.... we always had issues with fine detail, and halftones over 45lpi were never achievable with any repeatable results. Now we're running 200 mesh screens at 52 seconds with perfect 45lpi halftones
vacuum drawdown is around 5-10 seconds... the 2331 unit doesn't have a timer for the drawdown like the 3140, and I haven't sat there with a stop watch, but it's very fast.
I can't say enough good things about what this unit is going to do to our prints... as well as lower our frustration levels :)
if you have a FL unit, you owe it to yourself to upgrade... it is worth every penny.
...I don't know much about that emulsion, but we have been using CCI WR-14, and we have kinda settled on an exposure time of 35 seconds for pretty much everything. Maybe a bit long for some higher meshes, but we haven't had any problems resolving detail. Its nice for us having A) a standard exposure time, which means no hassles or underexposed screens, and B) knowing that all screens are fully exposed, should I decide at the last minute to throw on some hardener and run a discharge base or something.
-
we received our Starlight 2331 today... (picked it up at the Niles warehouse... I saw a bunch of BIG presses crated up... I jokingly asked the dock guy if he'd load a challenger 3d into the back of my truck for me.. LOL)
this thing is awesome... we're upgrading from a compression FL unit (no vacuum drawdown), so I'm sure my results are much more awesome to me than some of you...
For comparison: the majority of our screens are 200 count... and we primarily use Xenon Nova emulsion with Diazo added. On our old FL unit, exposure times for a 200 screen were around 5-6 minutes.... we always had issues with fine detail, and halftones over 45lpi were never achievable with any repeatable results. Now we're running 200 mesh screens at 52 seconds with perfect 45lpi halftones
vacuum drawdown is around 5-10 seconds... the 2331 unit doesn't have a timer for the drawdown like the 3140, and I haven't sat there with a stop watch, but it's very fast.
I can't say enough good things about what this unit is going to do to our prints... as well as lower our frustration levels :)
if you have a FL unit, you owe it to yourself to upgrade... it is worth every penny.
...I don't know much about that emulsion, but we have been using CCI WR-14, and we have kinda settled on an exposure time of 35 seconds for pretty much everything. Maybe a bit long for some higher meshes, but we haven't had any problems resolving detail. Its nice for us having A) a standard exposure time, which means no hassles or underexposed screens, and B) knowing that all screens are fully exposed, should I decide at the last minute to throw on some hardener and run a discharge base or something.
You are exposing wr-14 for 35 seconds on the starlight? That's what I am looking for, if that's possible.
-
Anybody care to comment on why it seems that you can 'overcook' the screens and still not lose detail? Is this due to the lack of undercutting, or is it due to the extremely focused UV light frequency?
I noticed this too when playing around with our exposure times... except for the 1-5% and 90-100% halftones, there was no discernible difference once the screen got to a certain point to 2x that time.
-
we received our Starlight 2331 today... (picked it up at the Niles warehouse... I saw a bunch of BIG presses crated up... I jokingly asked the dock guy if he'd load a challenger 3d into the back of my truck for me.. LOL)
this thing is awesome... we're upgrading from a compression FL unit (no vacuum drawdown), so I'm sure my results are much more awesome to me than some of you...
For comparison: the majority of our screens are 200 count... and we primarily use Xenon Nova emulsion with Diazo added. On our old FL unit, exposure times for a 200 screen were around 5-6 minutes.... we always had issues with fine detail, and halftones over 45lpi were never achievable with any repeatable results. Now we're running 200 mesh screens at 52 seconds with perfect 45lpi halftones
vacuum drawdown is around 5-10 seconds... the 2331 unit doesn't have a timer for the drawdown like the 3140, and I haven't sat there with a stop watch, but it's very fast.
I can't say enough good things about what this unit is going to do to our prints... as well as lower our frustration levels :)
if you have a FL unit, you owe it to yourself to upgrade... it is worth every penny.
...I don't know much about that emulsion, but we have been using CCI WR-14, and we have kinda settled on an exposure time of 35 seconds for pretty much everything. Maybe a bit long for some higher meshes, but we haven't had any problems resolving detail. Its nice for us having A) a standard exposure time, which means no hassles or underexposed screens, and B) knowing that all screens are fully exposed, should I decide at the last minute to throw on some hardener and run a discharge base or something.
You are exposing wr-14 for 35 seconds on the starlight? That's what I am looking for, if that's possible.
...Yessir! Some higher meshes even seemed to be well exposed at as little as 20 seconds. So if you are one that is reeeeeally trying to maximize time, then you could probably do some testing and put together some sort of mesh-to-time scale, but for us that was completely unnecessary. We burn thru maybe 6-10 a day here, so its no a huge issue.