Author Topic: M&R Starlight  (Read 3263 times)

Offline ABuffington

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
M&R Starlight
« on: June 16, 2014, 01:38:24 PM »
Hello Everyone,

I recently was able to shoot some screens on the new Starlight exposure unit.  I gotta say I was impressed with the exposure speed and apparent strength.  Has anyone run long discharge runs on screens made with this unit?  Any HSA printers using this unit?  If so what was the longest run quantity?

Al
Alan Buffington
Murakami Screen USA  - Technical Support and Sales
www.murakamiscreen.com


Offline dirkdiggler

  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1803
Re: M&R Starlight
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2014, 03:06:04 PM »
tests have been done on ALL of your emulsions, don't think they make it public but it has been done.
If he gets up, we'll all get up, IT'LL BE ANARCHY!-John Bender

Offline DannyGruninger

  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1220
Re: M&R Starlight
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2014, 03:53:59 PM »
Using our I image ste I ran 2500 pcs of discharge last week. Screens were exposed on the I image with the led light bar. Since the starlight is much more powerful then our light bar I imagine that there would be less chance of breakdown with that. Our screens with our led are superior to our 3140 unit for sure.
Danny Gruninger
Denver Print House / Lakewood Colorado
https://www.instagram.com/denverprinthouse

Offline jsheridan

  • !!!
  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2130
Re: M&R Starlight
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2014, 04:23:53 PM »
Al,
Get ahold of Lon

He has all the details you're looking for.
Blacktop Graphics Screenprinting and Consulting Services

Offline 244

  • Gonzo Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1368
Re: M&R Starlight
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2014, 05:00:24 PM »
Hello Everyone,

I recently was able to shoot some screens on the new Starlight exposure unit.  I gotta say I was impressed with the exposure speed and apparent strength.  Has anyone run long discharge runs on screens made with this unit?  Any HSA printers using this unit?  If so what was the longest run quantity?

Al
the Starlight should be the same or better than screens ran off of a Trilight or MSP3140 single point light source. We ran shirt runs of 1,000 plus with plastisol and discharge at the same time. There was no difference.
Rich Hoffman

Offline Dottonedan

  • Administrator
  • Ludicrous Speed Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5891
  • Email me at art@designsbydottone.com
Re: M&R Starlight
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2014, 10:17:23 PM »
I, for one, have install customers that are using discharge with the LED bars and have been with no issues. I can say, "They love, love, love them". That is with various emulsion brands. They typically do not change emulsions due to having an STE installed. Most like what they use, not just for exposure times, but for other reasons like durability ets. That alone, says that they are good with what they (have been) using for emulsions and their choice for emulsion has little to do with the LED lights itself. We know that some emulsions are faster or slower and over time, can make a $ difference, but more often than not, the customers stick with what they have been using. In other words, our LED's work with what they (the customer) prefers to use.


If some change emulsion for any reason, it would be after I've long left and they decided to try something else. That might be for less cost or faster times or more durability. I wouldn't know, as I don't have any info on my customers actually doing so.


I cannot provide any info on stats for quantities per a single order. We don't really need to focus our attention to our customers average quantity per order. Just the total screens done per day on average.


I would think the strength or lack thereof, comes from an emulsion itself, and not the intensity of the LED's or type of light used to expose. A properly exposed screen...is a properly exposed screen as one might say. Once it's "properly exposed" it's reached it's optimum point of what the light source and time can do.  The "life" of that screen may rest in (the emulsion), or rather (the stuff that's in it). I could be wrong on that. There could be more too it than I see on the surface. It seems to make sense thus far.


Emulsion "durability" over long production runs may not be a focus for many printers due to other reasons beyond just durability.  For most shops, for example, a 10,000 piece order does not come along every day. Maybe the big shops do 1-3 a week if they are lucky. Much of that is all speculation but we all know of (some shop) out there that is said to do 10,000 (on average). Hard to imagine, but there are some. How much of that (is with dual cure) is another question.


For the more common large volume print shops that might do one-10,000 order a week if they are lucky enough, I would say that the multiple benefits of using LED for the remaining orders in the week...far outweigh the cost of changing out screens at the 5000 mark (for a 10,000 piece order) of one job per week.  That is an (if) they need to.  I don't know. Like you, I don't have any feedback on that yet.  It's an interesting question tho. I would like to hear more on that if you gather any additional info.
Artist & Sim Process separator, Co owner of The Shirt Board, Past M&R Digital tech installer for I-Image machines. Over 28 yrs in the apparel industry. Apparel sales, http://www.designsbydottone.com  e-mail art@designsbydottone.com 615-821-7850

Offline ABuffington

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
Re: M&R Starlight
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2014, 12:52:46 PM »
Thanks everyone for your comments.  Since I do sell Murakami emulsions I realize I come here with some bias for this product, but then I used it as well for years printing discharge in the 80's and 90's.  The durability of the screen and the resolution of the print does involve both light quality as well as emulsion quality IMO.  I liked what I saw with the Starlight exposure, but the real test comes with the 20k-80k print runs.  Those print runs tend to go offshore, which is another subject entirely and one we as US screen printers can compete on.  My travels have taken me to shops where a 10k order would be small.  If we only had some of that back in the states!  When I sourced for Nike we beat the offshore pricing in LA by eliminating freight since shipping is a substantial cost from offfshore.  I had my printers pick up at my shirt manufacturer and deliver to the distribution center in pre-paks in So Cal.  I also believe that with better screens running at non-stop press production we can get some of this business back in the states.  Some of my Socal customers are seeing some return of the larger orders since they hit maximum press yields and shorter turn times.  But it is kind of hard to compete with countries where a month's salary for labor can be 300.00, but it's not impossible due to US advantages in shorter shipping routes, faster turns.  But back to the Starlight.

I view the light source and emulsion quality as both crucial to non stop production.  Like car lots there are good cars, and then there are better cars.  The proof is in the bottom line benefits and retained earnings at the end of the year.  The graphics side of the industry who print 4/C process definitely get locked in to a mesh and emulsion recipe whereas large apparel companies survive on minor performance improvements to be competitive.  Emulsions and good exposure are the key to this. The starlight represents a great alternative to metal halide, yet a 5k and 6k metal halide with a fresh bulb is pretty hard to beat in terms of press performance.

Thanks for the replies.
Al
Alan Buffington
Murakami Screen USA  - Technical Support and Sales
www.murakamiscreen.com