Author Topic: Newman vs Shur-Loc  (Read 5146 times)

Offline BorisB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 377
Re: Newman vs Shur-Loc
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2015, 03:35:36 PM »
In my shop we use both type of frames. Newman's for 95% of direct printing and static frames for transfer printing.

Static frames are not Shur-loc, but of high quality producer. For statics we use Sefar 1500 PET mesh and good stretching service who is providing excellent service to us. We experience no delaminating of glue, and only minor loss of tension. Of 150 screens roughly 30 get new mesh each year. Some frames are few years on same mesh. On those tension drops from 25+N to 22-23N, for 150 mesh.
All ink removal is done in automatic machine, meaning a lot of exposure to chemicals for adhesive. I want to say that proper choice and application of adhesive is durable solution.
I think choosing right partner that stretches your screens is crucial. Good stretching service is better than what you can produce in house.

We use Newman's just like most of us. We use Roller table for fast and easy uniform stretching...No need to explain much.

If I compare both systems today vs. 10 years ago, tables have changed. 10 years ago, plastisol were more challenging to print than today. We needed higher mesh tension. S mesh was too fragile, and not so tension constant after being stretched. There were no water based HSA inks. Both inks and meshes are improving and there is less need for tension in 40-50N range. Properly stretched static frames keep tension.

When we started using roller frames all stretching services we tried were not performing the way we needed. Rollers were logical path. If I started buying screens today I would only buy statics. Opinion I present here is based on my shop only. So it's very subjective.

Boris