Uh Oh.... Not sure how to print this much detail with white plastisol...

[jsheridan]

T
I think I'll grab a 195 (static, ~22 newtons---I know. I know.---2 over 2 with the sharp edge) and see what  happens.

fine detail on a sloppy thick stencil screen is just asking for trouble.

coat 1x1 and try and find a screen with better tension.

[mimosatexas]

I would disagree to a point.  I know my 2/1 coats with round on a 225S have some serious eom.  I find that the higher walls of the stencil combined with the S mesh allow a significant amount of opacity with minimal pressure and the detail is nice and crisp as a result.

[Screened Gear]

John is right about the thick stencil not being a good choice for high detail. Its just not what you reach for when needing high detail. Can it be done, sure. Can it be done every time. No. I have printed white ink on a 305 manually and got great opacity and detail. I have even printed 45 lpi dots on a 123 with great results. You really need to look at your goal. The fastest, easiest, normal way does not always result in the best results. Each shop is different and even our definition of good opacity and high detail will differ.

[Frog]

The question is, what are you guys considering "sloppy thick"? My everyday glisten method coatings, which Alan802 measures at close to 20% EOM, are thick compared to what I typically used twenty years ago, but not what I would use if shooting for a specifically thick deposit.

Myself, printing manually with statics on hand, I'd go with a 160 or 140 (standard mesh) and probably get fine coverage on these little guys without a flash and second print. That said, next time I re-stock, I'lll be adding some s-mesh.

[inkman996]

It seems like there is to much concern about opacity. But when you are printing such thin lines with white opacity is nothing to really worry about in my opinion. Like Alan said hit it and send it down the dryer, the difference between 100% opaque under a loupe and 70% under a loupe is not really going to be noticeable by eye.

[ScreenFoo]

You have a 195-55, you're looking at about 80-85 microns mesh thickness, 100 microns with 20% EOM.  1x1 that and get 5% EOM and you'll likely clear a 10-15% smaller detail than a 2x1.
AFAIK, Stencil thickness=maximum dot or detail dimension that clears well....

The thing is:  Unless I read you wrong, your smallest positive detail is .018--this is over 450 microns... not sure why this should be any sort of problem.

Kinda wondering though, a point is around .014, and that's cake for me on a 160 standard thread with no special handling... it's the NEGATIVE details that usually catch me.   

[alan802]

I don't think he'll have any worries at all with this, he just needed a little reassurance.  If you do have time though, and this is the way I learned a ton, make a few screens with this image and do some test printing and measure, analyze, repeat till you get a grasp of what each change in parameter does to the print.  Next time you'll make decisions based off what you learned while test printing for 30 minutes.  Print the image through the same screen with different blades, and obviously compare like blades with different mesh counts, fast stroke, slow stroke, hard flood, light flood, push stroke, pull stroke, etc.  This is a great opportunity to learn more in 30 minutes than you would all day searching this forum.

[Sbrem]

On coating techniques, I've always used the sharp edge, whether it was to be a thick or thin stencil was in the touch (very scientific, I know). I used what Andy and others refer to as the glisten method for my heavier meshes, and thinner, not so "glisteny" for finer meshes. I seem to recall that Joe Clarke, fairly venerable, wrote that thinner coats are better for high detail...

Steve

[alan802]

On coating techniques, I've always used the sharp edge, whether it was to be a thick or thin stencil was in the touch (very scientific, I know). I used what Andy and others refer to as the glisten method for my heavier meshes, and thinner, not so "glisteny" for finer meshes. I seem to recall that Joe Clarke, fairly venerable, wrote that thinner coats are better for high detail...

Steve

Joe typically goes by "just thick enough" so that can mean a lot of different things depending on the application being used.  So in his method you'd shoot for being right on the verge of the stencil being too thin to do it's job properly.  We usually miss on the thicker side of "thick enough" just because we spent years printing through really thin stencils and if for nothing else other than avoiding all those old headaches I err on the side of new problems .  And add in the fact that we haven't had many issues with a stencil being too thick we lean towards the thicker side than thin and always coat with the rounded edge.  I just feel like it's easier to get a thick stencil with the round edge and if I want a thin stencil it will do that great too.  Even with some of our really thick stencils we've managed to shear the ink with one pass but I'll admit that a softer blade, slower print speeds and higher pressure was needed to do it.

[Sbrem]

The funny thing is, I never noticed the rounder edge other than as a warning to use the other edge, LOL. For me, my thicker coatings for heavier meshes came just after filling the coater, usually 2 screens, 2 coats shirt side, 1 coat print side, dry horizontally to let gravity help a little. Yes, they do "glisten".

Steve