Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
That was with SP-1400 on the 200 just for a reference of what we were doing at the T&J Open House.
Quote from: Alex M on April 02, 2014, 03:13:05 PMThat 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 broMike
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 headsfor 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.
Quote from: 244 on April 02, 2014, 09:46:28 AMQuote from: ScreenPrinter123 on April 02, 2014, 09:01:33 AMThanks 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.
Quote from: ScreenPrinter123 on April 02, 2014, 09:01:33 AMThanks 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 .
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.
Quote from: ScreenPrinter123 on April 02, 2014, 02:04:00 PMQuote from: 244 on April 02, 2014, 09:46:28 AMQuote from: ScreenPrinter123 on April 02, 2014, 09:01:33 AMThanks 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.
Quote from: patfinn on April 02, 2014, 05:38:20 PMQuote from: ScreenPrinter123 on April 02, 2014, 02:04:00 PMQuote from: 244 on April 02, 2014, 09:46:28 AMQuote from: ScreenPrinter123 on April 02, 2014, 09:01:33 AMThanks 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 HopkinsNuArc Sales ManagerM&R Sales and Service Co.
Thanks for that info everyone, I will be talking to 244 in Nashville in a few weeks.
Quote from: dirkdiggler on April 02, 2014, 08:29:27 PMThanks 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.
What's the current status on Diazo exposure times and 55 line artwork.
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!