LED Bulbs Already Failing

[Sbrem]

I guess I can't see how the wavelengths would be a secret, it's not news that different emulsions react differently to different wavelengths. I mean, if you have a Metal Halide, you need to buy the  proper bulb. That would be one of my first questions to a salesperson, "How am I supposed to expect it to work if you don't tell what the wavelength is so I can see if it will work with my favorite emulsions?" It's not like I'm about to build one and compete...

Steve

[jvanick]

When asked M&R supplied the info to me, as did Saati I will add that Saati also added their reasoning for their choice into the discussion.

[GraphicDisorder]

I guess I can't see how the wavelengths would be a secret, it's not news that different emulsions react differently to different wavelengths. I mean, if you have a Metal Halide, you need to buy the  proper bulb. That would be one of my first questions to a salesperson, "How am I supposed to expect it to work if you don't tell what the wavelength is so I can see if it will work with my favorite emulsions?" It's not like I'm about to build one and compete...

Steve

Someone else might though...

[jvanick]

Someone else might though...

there's a LOT more to creating a UV exposure unit than just a wavelength.  beam scatter, power, etc all play a role.  I can understand manufacturers not wanting to divulge that information, but properly matching wavelength to emulsion is pretty critical if you want a solid screen, especially with these devices being very narrow wavelength devices (unlike a MH bulb which has a spectrum that's quite wide).

[GraphicDisorder]

Someone else might though...

there's a LOT more to creating a UV exposure unit than just a wavelength.  beam scatter, power, etc all play a role.  I can understand manufacturers not wanting to divulge that information, but properly matching wavelength to emulsion is pretty critical if you want a solid screen, especially with these devices being very narrow wavelength devices (unlike a MH bulb which has a spectrum that's quite wide).

Sorry I should have been more specific. Some may not want to give any info away as some ARE trying to copy to a T even.

[Sbrem]

Someone else might though...

there's a LOT more to creating a UV exposure unit than just a wavelength.  beam scatter, power, etc all play a role.  I can understand manufacturers not wanting to divulge that information, but properly matching wavelength to emulsion is pretty critical if you want a solid screen, especially with these devices being very narrow wavelength devices (unlike a MH bulb which has a spectrum that's quite wide).

Sorry I should have been more specific. Some may not want to give any info away as some ARE trying to copy to a T even.

Yeah, but a few hours on the inter web will tell you all that, so what's the big deal? By the way, I like Vastex, it was the first press I used, and we have a little Red for our numbering machine.

Steve

[SoccerMom]

    Stealing that idea would go beyond a few calls to reps, That more reverse engineering, But while trying to sell these things to a hardcore old school market, one would think that would be a selling point not facts to hide, unless it just doesn't measure up than I could see that... But this goes beyond that, warranty's, and customer service and the fact he bought one on good faith should in fact supersede. "That's odd" and good luck with that is not really what someone wants to hear on such a critical piece of equipment coming into busy season.... I have nothing against Vastex, nothing at all, But really hope they help this guy out, for obviously He WAS very proud of his machine.

[alan802]

Update:  There ain't one.  Had another crazy day with lot's of product coming in so I spent the entire day in receiving. 

There are a few people on this forum that if they say they tested something I trust that they did just as I would have, just want to put that out there first.  Now, I would say with my results and seeing Rockers basically having the exact same issues essentially with the performance of the unit literally halfway across the earth, this thing is not for "high-end use".  Meaning, for 98% of the typical textile shop is going to do it will perform "ok".  Not great, not bad, just ok.  White mesh tends to hold up better on longer runs and overall exposure time (using a calculator) are short, but it doesn't do anything to my standard.  I've run through a very detailed review before so I won't go into all that again, I just wonder what the hell happened or what the difference is between the unit Pierre tested versus the thing I'm currently looking at as I type this .  Over the last year we've not had many sim or 4c process jobs, maybe 20, but the effort we have to put forth to get any fine lines and halftones and then needing to post expose (plastisol...not WB, plastisol), is more than ridiculous when talking about a serious exposure unit that is being marketed as a top tier exposure unit.  It really boils down to the analogy of a dog chasing his tail.  The expo calculator tells us one thing, results on press tell us another.  To get the detailed images, you expose for a very short time but then the screen breaks down after 100 shirts even if you're using 22 psi on the print heads.  If you shoot the screens so that they can hold up on press you won't get any of the detail.  It's a double edged sword.

I know i keep saying this, but tomorrow will definitely be slow since our purchasing employee didn't come in today so we won't be getting that much merch in tomorrow.  Hopefully an update will be coming then.

[Orion]

Some food for thought...

http://hid.venturelighting.com/Literature/Technical_Brief-MH_vs_LED_Lifetime_And_Reliability_v6.pdf

[244]

Some food for thought...

http://hid.venturelighting.com/Literature/Technical_Brief-MH_vs_LED_Lifetime_And_Reliability_v6.pdf

This article is written by someone who I biased toward mercury vapor industrial lighting and really has no merit in our industry. LED is much more reliable in exposing screens compared to mercury vapor. They do not speak of what the failure rate would be if the light source is continuously turned off and on hundreds of times per day for many years nor do they speak of the energy cost difference. IF the proper LED'S are used and the proper implementation into an exposure system is done there should be a life expectancy of well over 20 years. Our Starlight unit is a perfect example of proper usage and that is one of the reasons for zero failures to date.

[Colin]

Interesting:  In the graph, their indoor lights are calculated at 6500 hours per year.  That's on for almost 18 hours per day.....

[T Shirt Farmer]

Checked my Vastex unit this morning and have no bulb outages after about a year of use, this unit is far superior for us in several areas than the Amerigraph 150 we used for 20+ years.

I recently dug up some Lino out put films we had from years ago and found they reproduce far superior than the 4880 ink jet films we make. Could the issue of holding fine detail and small dots be as much the film quality as the light source? might this be a reason the DTS users have outstanding screen imaging? Are there any DTS users that question Vastex vs. M$R LED or is this a none issue.

I wounder if some are chasing cat tails or have expectations exceeding what the process reasonably allows.

[Colin]

Silver based film will always outperform anything with a print head.  Period.

Dmax to dmin is amazing and resolution is far beyond what inkjet can ever get.

But that is not a feasible option for many printers.  Nor is it actually needed by the great majority of our industry.

[Frog]

Yeah, I have to admit that I was blown away years ago when I got and examined a client-supplied Linotronic film. (the price from the output bureau also blew me away!)
I guess it was the best of both worlds, digitally output to a cousin of our camera's Ortho film.

[T Shirt Farmer]

Silver based film will always outperform anything with a print head.  Period.

Dmax to dmin is amazing and resolution is far beyond what inkjet can ever get.

But that is not a feasible option for many printers.  Nor is it actually needed by the great majority of our industry.

Colin I agree with your comments on lino film and although pricey and fewer suppliers of the fact is I can hold under 5% dots with a much wider latitude of exposure. The point I was making is that substandard films may be a bigger part of the LED short comings voiced here and need to be considered in the scope of discussion. Would my comment to CTS users not having LED issues be a relevant comparison to Lino vs. Inkjet films and how they perform with LED light sources..