TSB

screen printing => Equipment => Topic started by: Rockers on February 19, 2012, 12:56:01 AM

Title: Diamondback S
Post by: Rockers on February 19, 2012, 12:56:01 AM
Quick question, on the new Diamondback, are all the heads still chopping even if you print only on 3 of them for example?
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: jasonl on February 19, 2012, 08:37:22 AM
no.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: Rockers on February 19, 2012, 09:58:52 AM
Thanks,
that's the answer I was hoping for.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: inkbrigade on February 19, 2012, 10:39:47 PM
NICE!
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: Nation03 on February 20, 2012, 12:18:48 AM
I was wondering the same thing. Glad to hear that they aren't doing that anymore. Looks like a sweet press.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: Admiral on February 20, 2012, 03:34:03 AM
Quick question, on the new Diamondback, are all the heads still chopping even if you print only on 3 of them for example?

It took me only a few jobs on the Diamondback R to realize how terrible of a design it was, it's almost a non issue when doing 1 pass of each color and only 1 revolution(often the case for 200+ shirt jobs), but anything else and it can create problems.  Also it's always an issue with tack and starting the printing - if tack on the boards and the head chops the screen can stick to the platen.  Easy fixes to avoid but time waster for sure.  I stopped using waterbase tack (carding method) because of it.  Don't like loading a ton of scrap shirts to start the print either.

Such a silly thing to implement to save a few bucks on producing it.  I wonder how much air it wastes too.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: 244 on February 20, 2012, 06:04:10 AM
Try turning the squeegee pressure regulator down to zero on the heads you are not using.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: Rockers on February 20, 2012, 07:48:45 AM
Try turning the squeegee pressure regulator down to zero on the heads you are not using.
That is in regard to Admiral's reply or to my original question?
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: jasonl on February 20, 2012, 08:09:14 AM
Doesnt matter for you Rocker, that problem doesnt exist on the S.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: 244 on February 20, 2012, 08:14:59 AM
Try turning the squeegee pressure regulator down to zero on the heads you are not using.
That is in regard to Admiral's reply or to my original question?
That is a reply to Admiral. The Diamondback S has additional outputs on the processor and independent valves for each head.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: Rockers on February 20, 2012, 07:23:57 PM
Great. That`s all I needed to know. Order for a 10/8 will be placed later this week. Unless I still change my mind and make it a Sportsman 10/8.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: Admiral on February 20, 2012, 09:49:23 PM
Try turning the squeegee pressure regulator down to zero on the heads you are not using.

I don't do that because then they still actuate and the floodbars go very hard if the squeegee is set to 0 psi.

heads not in use are usually set down to 20-25psi for starting point of test printing.

Anyway that stuff wasn't really an issue because there isn't a squeegee in there to mess with you during the run.

Looks like the Diamondback S solved all of the issues I can think of with the one we have. Now just to get A/C heads on such a low priced machine haha.

Does the Diamondback S go faster than the older R since it's a server index?

Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: 244 on February 21, 2012, 06:28:56 AM
The new Diamondback S is rated at 840per hour compared to 560 per hour rating on the Diamondback. I just ran the one in our showroom with a 16" image stroke and it was running at 972 pieces per hour. These are dry cycle speeds.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: Rockers on February 21, 2012, 06:44:15 AM
Gosh, I better grow another couple of arms in order to keep up with the speed of press.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: Prosperi-Tees on April 17, 2012, 11:09:41 PM
Is ac heads an option for the dback s?
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: chubsetc on April 17, 2012, 11:34:03 PM
I think you have to move up to the sportsman for that.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: Prosperi-Tees on April 17, 2012, 11:44:39 PM
Thats what I was thinking, I wonder what the entry level sportsman goes for.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: Rockers on April 20, 2012, 07:50:55 PM
The new Diamondback S is rated at 840per hour compared to 560 per hour rating on the Diamondback. I just ran the one in our showroom with a 16" image stroke and it was running at 972 pieces per hour. These are dry cycle speeds.
Rick, just emailed me the Diamondback S manuel pdf on my request. Want to get to know the machine better before it arrives here in 4 weeks. Now I`m wondering in section 5. Specifications the air requirements are totally different to what is stated on the M&R website. According to the website the 10/8 needs 765L/min while the manuel shows a required air supply of 1019L/min so a good 33% more. Which is the right amount of air that machine needs?  Good I have not purchased a compressor yet, even though I bet it`s closer to 765L/min.
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: chubsetc on April 21, 2012, 12:09:24 AM
Not sure on the specifics but there was a mistake in the initially advertised CFM requirements for the Daimondback S.  It was fixed on their website but possibly wasn't changed in the manual.  I posed this question in a previous thread, hopefully this helps.

http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,2638.0.html (http://www.theshirtboard.com/index.php/topic,2638.0.html)
Title: Re: Diamondback S
Post by: 244 on April 21, 2012, 07:58:46 AM
The new Diamondback S is rated at 840per hour compared to 560 per hour rating on the Diamondback. I just ran the one in our showroom with a 16" image stroke and it was running at 972 pieces per hour. These are dry cycle speeds.
Rick, just emailed me the Diamondback S manuel pdf on my request. Want to get to know the machine better before it arrives here in 4 weeks. Now I`m wondering in section 5. Specifications the air requirements are totally different to what is stated on the M&R website. According to the website the 10/8 needs 765L/min while the manuel shows a required air supply of 1019L/min so a good 33% more. Which is the right amount of air that machine needs?  Good I have not purchased a compressor yet, even though I bet it`s closer to 765L/min.
I know Rick has answered you on the compressor a couple of times. The higher spec is for the press running wide open all the time which we must state but you will never do. Use the spec Rick sent you and you will be fine.