TSB

General => General Discussion and ??? => Topic started by: Binkspot on May 21, 2014, 10:08:29 AM

Title: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: Binkspot on May 21, 2014, 10:08:29 AM
My mind was wandering this morning while coating screens and I started thinking about why 23x31 screens are the standard? Does this go back to wood frames where 10 linear feet of lumber would yield a 23x31 or was mesh only available in 24" widths or it just works out that is the perfect size for a 9"x15" print, cost savings for manufacturing, easier to fabricate, etc? Why not 24"x30", 23x31 just seems to be an odd size randomly selected.

Just curious and was wondering if any one had an answer where this standard came from.
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: Frog on May 21, 2014, 10:43:24 AM
After kicking around this industry for more years than I really care to remember, and meeting more folks than I can remember, I would venture to say that some guru, for whatever reason, had a bunch of frames this size to sell, and wrote an article extolling the virtues of this particular size.

Where is that emoticon for a tongue slightly in a cheek? (but I stress slightly)
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: tonypep on May 21, 2014, 10:45:08 AM
Came from Precision Screen Machines and American M&M. The ovals and multi printers could only accept one size frame
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: Zelko-4-EVA on May 21, 2014, 10:59:23 AM
Came from Precision Screen Machines and American M&M. The ovals and multi printers could only accept one size frame

interesting

but i assume that the frame size was designed before the printing press...   

i cant image that an entire press was made only to find that their 24x32 frames were too big and their 22x30 frames too small.

why would precision and american settle upon the odd 23x31 frame size?

Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: IntegrityShirts on May 21, 2014, 11:10:46 AM
If Precision created the 23x31 then I'd guess they just "winged it" and laid out some pieces of steel on the floor that were 24" and 36", built a frame to hold screens, then made the screens to fit the frame lol
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: tonypep on May 21, 2014, 11:18:26 AM
Having worked for Precision I can tell you they started with desired image size, then pallet size, thus determining frame size. The original frames were steel alloy and you bought them from Precision.
Title: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: StuJohnston on May 21, 2014, 11:27:34 AM
I don't know about american multiprinter's being part on this, mine only takes 36" long frames.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: ScreenFoo on May 21, 2014, 11:31:58 AM
Seems like a reasonable image size @ a reasonable free mesh dimension for most shirt work. 

Doing 15" wide to 23" frame, 19" tall to a 31" frame, you're in that 60% or so sweet spot that makes it easy.  (well, easier ;) )
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: tonypep on May 21, 2014, 11:32:47 AM
I know our multi printers and Challengers used the same 23x 31s
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: tonypep on May 21, 2014, 11:36:19 AM
The 23" width came from using a max imprint of 17" wide with a free mesh area of 1-1/2" and frame width of 1-1/2". Adds up to 23. From that the specs of the main frame were reverse engineered
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: Croft on May 21, 2014, 11:57:57 AM
have seen at least 3 new "standard" size screens from suppliers in my area since 1990. no particular reason given other than makes them more money?
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: tonypep on May 21, 2014, 12:35:34 PM
Usually for larger image area. The reason so many adopted the 23/31 is they wanted some similarity, so existing auto people would not have to buy all new frames. Same with platen extrusions, squeegees/ floodbars, etc. Now not so much.
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: ABuffington on May 21, 2014, 03:22:52 PM
I have always wondered about sizing, thanks Tony for the Precision insight.  Only press in the world where a hammer is your micro register tool!
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: Printficient on May 21, 2014, 05:27:29 PM
I have always wondered about sizing, thanks Tony for the Precision insight.  Only press in the world where a hammer is your micro register tool!
Not so.  The only press in the world where the hammer is NOT your micro registration tool are the second generation and forward MHM's.
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: 244 on May 21, 2014, 05:47:44 PM
I have always wondered about sizing, thanks Tony for the Precision insight.  Only press in the world where a hammer is your micro register tool!
Not so.  The only press in the world where the hammer is NOT your micro registration tool are the second generation and forward MHM's.
Care to elaborate on that statement Sonny?
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: alan802 on May 21, 2014, 05:57:05 PM
I have always wondered about sizing, thanks Tony for the Precision insight.  Only press in the world where a hammer is your micro register tool!
Not so.  The only press in the world where the hammer is NOT your micro registration tool are the second generation and forward MHM's.

What's in that pot you're stirring Sonny?  Fine machines, those MHM's, but I'm sure you're being facetious. 
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: Frog on May 21, 2014, 06:09:02 PM
Funny thing is, though I added Antec Micros to my old Hopkins, damned if I didn't have the tap tap action down pretty good! The straight vertical in-out adjustment on the heads helped a lot.
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: Sbrem on May 21, 2014, 06:22:29 PM
Came from Precision Screen Machines and American M&M. The ovals and multi printers could only accept one size frame

Ditto, they just became the standard somehow. So everyone who made frames made them to fit the machines that were installed. All in all, still a good size.

Steve
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: ABuffington on May 21, 2014, 06:38:48 PM
It is also kind of interesting that in high quality graphics and electronics the frames are square.  Seems to help the mesh print more accurately.  I always felt that if someone could come up with a frame with a 45 degree 3-4 inch angled tube on the back corners of the screen frame we could print with a wider screens.  Some presses give very little room at the back corners on a carousel where screen corners clear by an inch, sometimes less if the screen room guy didn't pin register the art and didn't center it right.
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: Printficient on May 21, 2014, 06:57:11 PM
I have always wondered about sizing, thanks Tony for the Precision insight.  Only press in the world where a hammer is your micro register tool!
Not so.  The only press in the world where the hammer is NOT your micro registration tool are the second generation and forward MHM's.
Care to elaborate on that statement Sonny?
No problem.  As anyone who has seen an E type or S type or a 4000 or 3000 or 2000 will attest to the method of holding the frame precludes moving it by hitting it with a hammer.  The frame is not held by a clamp pushing down on it from the top but it is held from the outside ends via bushings or pins and squeezed into place.  So hitting it with a hammer does nothing but make noise.  The MHM and to some extent the S Roque are the only presses to hold screens this way.  This feature started on the MHM S2000 circa 1992.
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: ABuffington on May 21, 2014, 07:05:47 PM
I had a few MHM's.  What I liked about this screen capture method was I could use it for 'on contact' water base printing.  The shirt has some capillary action to it
when a water base screen is able to make contact with the fabric,  the squeegee just finishes the print process.  Off contact requires more squeegee pressure which can wear holes in the stencil.  On contact printing avoids excessive pressure.  Also helps discharge get into the fabric and do it's job.

Al
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: 244 on May 22, 2014, 06:41:58 AM
I have always wondered about sizing, thanks Tony for the Precision insight.  Only press in the world where a hammer is your micro register tool!
Not so.  The only press in the world where the hammer is NOT your micro registration tool are the second generation and forward MHM's.
Care to elaborate on that statement Sonny?
No problem.  As anyone who has seen an E type or S type or a 4000 or 3000 or 2000 will attest to the method of holding the frame precludes moving it by hitting it with a hammer.  The frame is not held by a clamp pushing down on it from the top but it is held from the outside ends via bushings or pins and squeezed into place.  So hitting it with a hammer does nothing but make noise.  The MHM and to some extent the S Roque are the only presses to hold screens this way.  This feature started on the MHM S2000 circa 1992.
there are presses manufactured in Brazil as well as Turkey that hold the screen with attachments on the ends of the screens.
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: Printficient on May 22, 2014, 07:06:16 AM
I have always wondered about sizing, thanks Tony for the Precision insight.  Only press in the world where a hammer is your micro register tool!
Not so.  The only press in the world where the hammer is NOT your micro registration tool are the second generation and forward MHM's.
Care to elaborate on that statement Sonny?
No problem.  As anyone who has seen an E type or S type or a 4000 or 3000 or 2000 will attest to the method of holding the frame precludes moving it by hitting it with a hammer.  The frame is not held by a clamp pushing down on it from the top but it is held from the outside ends via bushings or pins and squeezed into place.  So hitting it with a hammer does nothing but make noise.  The MHM and to some extent the S Roque are the only presses to hold screens this way.  This feature started on the MHM S2000 circa 1992.
there are presses manufactured in Brazil as well as Turkey that hold the screen with attachments on the ends of the screens.
Cool to know.  What manufacturers?
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: Sbrem on May 22, 2014, 08:56:10 AM
We have both an S-Type MHM and  '94 Gauntlet S; we don't tap either. But yes, the hammer, or Dynamic Excitement Tool as we called it, was invaluable on the Precision Starter Oval we had...

Steve
Title: Re: Why 23x31 screens are the standard?
Post by: 244 on May 22, 2014, 10:22:16 AM
I have always wondered about sizing, thanks Tony for the Precision insight.  Only press in the world where a hammer is your micro register tool!
Not so.  The only press in the world where the hammer is NOT your micro registration tool are the second generation and forward MHM's.
Care to elaborate on that statement Sonny?
No problem.  As anyone who has seen an E type or S type or a 4000 or 3000 or 2000 will attest to the method of holding the frame precludes moving it by hitting it with a hammer.  The frame is not held by a clamp pushing down on it from the top but it is held from the outside ends via bushings or pins and squeezed into place.  So hitting it with a hammer does nothing but make noise.  The MHM and to some extent the S Roque are the only presses to hold screens this way.  This feature started on the MHM S2000 circa 1992.
there are presses manufactured in Brazil as well as Turkey that hold the screen with attachments on the ends of the screens.
Cool to know.  What manufacturers?
There are three in Turkey. Sulfet ,levent baski, and Ozmakmakina. I don't remember the name of the one in Brazil.