CTS and Setups

[ZooCity]

See above.  Pin lock + tri-lock.  M&R Autos both old (1992) and new (2013).

Fwiw, the system is highly accurate on our manual press with air clamps.  Typically just needs a bump left/right, pure linear move which the Anatol manual does very well.   

There is room for user error/differences in applying the film to the screen with the pin lock system but it requires nothing on your glass which was important to us in the past.  It's the weak point of that system for sure but the tri lock film system is similar.  Any system with carriers has to address the film hanging below it being applied identically on the screens.

[alan802]

Is there much difference in micro work between the two autos or is it roughly the same?

[alan802]

I meant when you do your first test print on either machine do they require the same amount of work to get registered or is the newer machine much more accurate when it comes to the initial setup?

[ZooCity]

I meant when you do your first test print on either machine do they require the same amount of work to get registered or is the newer machine much more accurate when it comes to the initial setup?

I'd say the newer would have to be faster at initial.  Micros are the same on both.  Our old press is very clean so the micros aren't gummy on that one or anything.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Sbrem]

Is anyone here running CTS with an MHM setup? All the conversation regarding Tri-loc and it's assorted issues muddies the waters a bit, those issues don't factor in for me. (no disrespect to the Tri-loc, if you're an all M&R shop, it makes perfect sense) Dropping a screen onto the press is literally a couple of seconds. And I know we can get a piece of film on the frame and set to expose in about 10 seconds, so I'm not totally convinced, but I want to be convinced...

Steve

[ZooCity]

I think CTS has the greatest impact on the setups that don't have built in screen alignment and a dedicated FPU system, i.e., everything but MHM and. S.Roque. 

If all screens have their art perfectly aligned it really doesn't matter what you use to line em up on the press so long as it's consistent and the press clamps without knocking the screens out.  As Danny mentioned there's even an advantage to tri lock style systems when it comes to CTS over the machines with built in screen alignment as a tri lock style platen doesn't need zeroed out.  John Sheridan backed this up in a post about never getting perfect with the MHMs and CTS due to a desire not to zero out heads after all jobs. 

With the MHM and other S.Roque options I think CTS benefits will be applied more to other areas of the shop. 

[BorisB]

Is anyone here running CTS with an MHM setup? All the conversation regarding Tri-loc and it's assorted issues muddies the waters a bit, those issues don't factor in for me. (no disrespect to the Tri-loc, if you're an all M&R shop, it makes perfect sense) Dropping a screen onto the press is literally a couple of seconds. And I know we can get a piece of film on the frame and set to expose in about 10 seconds, so I'm not totally convinced, but I want to be convinced...

Steve

We use CTS with MHM. It's Epson based unit, we built MHM's FPU in CTS base construction. One MHM with GoTo (automatically all heads go to zero) it works very good. If screens (Newmans) are flat we touch micro maybe with one screen and even this not in all jobs. The other MHM S-type needs
to be exactly zeroed after each job in which you moved micros. Despite manual zeroing, on that machine we need more time to get job in register.

[ZooCity]

Do you have a 4000 Boris? CTS+go to reg sounds amazing.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[BorisB]

it's older version: 3000 with goto, slower computer, mostly same hardware as 4000

[jsheridan]

  John Sheridan backed this up in a post about never getting perfect with the MHMs and CTS due to a desire not to zero out heads after all jobs. 

Yes I ran some MHM's with a CTS and it was never just right, for this exact reason that boris states, move the knob and zero is gone.

One MHM with GoTo (automatically all heads go to zero) it works very good. If screens (Newmans) are flat we touch micro maybe with one screen and even this not in all jobs. The other MHM S-type needs
to be exactly zeroed after each job in which you moved micros. Despite manual zeroing, on that machine we need more time to get job in register.

I much prefer the Tri Loc style of setup as the reg pallet is what becomes zero no matter if last job had a micro adjust.

[Sbrem]

  John Sheridan backed this up in a post about never getting perfect with the MHMs and CTS due to a desire not to zero out heads after all jobs. 

Yes I ran some MHM's with a CTS and it was never just right, for this exact reason that boris states, move the knob and zero is gone.

One MHM with GoTo (automatically all heads go to zero) it works very good. If screens (Newmans) are flat we touch micro maybe with one screen and even this not in all jobs. The other MHM S-type needs
to be exactly zeroed after each job in which you moved micros. Despite manual zeroing, on that machine we need more time to get job in register.

I much prefer the Tri Loc style of setup as the reg pallet is what becomes zero no matter if last job had a micro adjust.

OK, but why is zero-ing out the heads considered a major time suck or deal breaker? It's only a couple of seconds. Also, wouldn't the manufacturers of the units take MHM into consideration when building them? Lastly, if the idea is to not have to use the micros, how far out can they be at the end of a job? I'm pretty sure we zero out any heads that were moved (I don't run presses anymore, but the policy is in place for the printer running the press, and he's on board with the concept) so that set-ups are already pretty easy, and there are no clamps that could possibly push the screen out of register as can happen on older machines like our '94 Gauntlet, or older presses I've been involved with. By the way, ours is a 12 year old S-Type. Keep in coming guys, I really appreciate the input.

Steve

[alan802]

I've always been very observant of MHM users, as well as others but we're talking about them here, and John's negative comments on the MHM system is the first I've ever heard of it being inferior in any way.  Do any of the MHM users have the same issues that John had at Jak?

To get back on track somewhat, I think there are little things like screen clamping and print head calibration that can affect the registration system and I've seen them here.  We've had a screen holder inexplicably get out of calibration by a good margin and had much more of a negative affect on registration than I would have ever thought.  I know Chris has more knowledge of press calibration than the average shop owner so I would be surprised if bad calibration is the/a culprit of regi issues, but you never know, like I said, it's happened here and I have been very diligent on press calibration.  I also very much prefer the half-dollar sized feet on a screen clamping system over the concave shaped bar as on several occasions I've seen screens move considerably once the screen is clamped down.  The placement of the screen holders is very important when using the bar and they can't be out beyond the perpendicular to the screen frame by a large degree or you'll get screen shift.  The clamp feet on our press hold our newmans so tight you can't move a screen by hand and it would take a hammer and a strong blow to knock a screen out of reg. 

[ZooCity]

Right on the money again Alan. 

Calibration can in fact be an issue for us even though it's done regularly our presses get ran pretty hard and they go back out just as regularly.  I've seen the random screen holders or platen that is just way off compared to the others.  I'm going to start using an impact driver to do the print heads and I guess a small torque wrench for the platen bolts and see if it helps.  My guess is uneven torque is why most presses go out of whack randomly, these machines are built well enough that it shouldn't happen regularly. 

And yes, the newer style M&R clamp bars require precise location with rollers.  The tech who set our machine up said that some shops will clamp down the manual clamps on the front as well when using rollers, which I think is self defeating to the overall system so we just locate very carefully and go without the manual clamps or any clamp adapters. 

[Underbase37]

In short, Yes.

We have been CTS for close to three months now. Setup was a big part of us going CTS.

 As far as setups go, yes things are faster ( I would say we were pretty good with setup before CTS ) but yes things have been quicker. For me, yes work flow has become great with CTS, almost effortless, in some ways,.....some effort is still needed.  ( but again work flow before CTS was pretty good ).

I think Danny said it best with "consistency", across press ops on press, & pre-press. Before CTS, using carrier sheets press ops could tell when person X burned screens or when person Y burned, now its much more constant across users.
 Even when things went as good as they could with the old system, on press, things are much more constant with the CTS across the board. Press to press, op to op.

We keep a lot on screen.
 Now when the press ops go for old screens they cringe, it's gotten to the point that it's just better to reburn the screens and know things are all dialed in, and if at some point I need to reburn a screen, it triloc's right in, same as it ever was. Very Nice!

We've had some hiccups here and there, very minor, and very quick fixes. But as of now, and what I can see in the future. We really like our CTS. ( M&R STE II )

Murphy37

[ZooCity]

This has been a great thread.  Thx for all the replies.

Just to stir it up a little- if you had the option, would you get a CTS unit or instead use the funds to go from an M&R style press to something with built in reg and more accurate micros, like an s.roque or MHM.   Or, to be more precise, which assists more with setups, the right press/printheads or a CTS?