Anybody here got a Starlight exposure unit?

[ebscreen]

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.

[screenprintguy]

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

[Alex M]

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

[ZooCity]

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.

[patfinn]

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.

[RonH]

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.

[Rockers]

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:)

[dirkdiggler]

Thanks for that info everyone, I will be talking to 244 in Nashville in a few weeks.

[244]

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.

[Homer]

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!

[jsheridan]

What's the current status on Diazo exposure times and 55 line artwork.

[GraphicDisorder]

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.

[244]

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.

[jvanick]

Rich, do you guys have a chart that shows the emulsions / coating method / screen type / burn times that you've tested so far?

[IntegrityShirts]

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)