how many screens/gallons of emulsion are you coating?

[Shanarchy]

I'm doing some cost analysis here. We are capillary film users here. I started using it very soon after I started to learn how to print. I've continue to use it as I have always liked the fact that it takes one of the variables away. I also like the fact that I can instantly coat the screen wet during reclaim. As we are getting busier, I am trying to look at everything in our process to determine weather or not I am doing things the most efficient (both time and money).

What emulsion are you using, and how many 23 x 31 screens are you coating per gallon? How much are you paying per gallon (if you don't feel comfortable listing that, no problem).

I use Ulano EZ film 50 orange capilalry film
$105.05/box of 50 sheets
cost per screen: $2.10

Comparatively, the Ulano orange emulsion is $60.25/gallon. So I would need to be able to coat more than 29 screens per gallon to see any cost savings. This is not counting possible tape savings, and of course I can consider other emulsion types.

[Frog]

To figure this accurately, you would need to compare the EOM of the coating, and the thickness of the particular film you are using.

One big difference and advantage with film is, you have your EOM or thickness as a constant, as you mentioned.  With emulsion, that varies with mesh/coating technique.

However, what seems strange or tricky at first, will soon become second nature. The glisten method,will give you good EOM.
I am fighting the urge to say "if Gilligan can master this, anyone can" but of course, that is assuming that he did, indeed, master it, LOL!

Oh, and even without any answers here for comparison, I'm sure that emulsion is way less. One generally pays for convenience.
Film is also far more limited in varieties.

[Shanarchy]

To figure this accurately, you would need to compare the EOM of the coating, and the thickness of the particular film you are using.

One big difference and advantage with film is, you have your EOM or thickness as a constant, as you mentioned.  With emulsion, that varies with mesh/coating technique.

However, what seems strange or tricky at first, will soon become second nature. The glisten method,will give you good EOM.
I am fighting the urge to say "if Gilligan can master this, anyone can" but of course, that is assuming that he did, indeed, master it, LOL!

Oh, and even without any answers here for comparison, I'm sure that emulsion is way less. One generally pays for convenience.
Film is also far more limited in varieties.

The screen coating part wasn't really the issue early on, it was more to the fact that I had to burn a dozen screens to get a good useable screen (inferior light source, no vaccuum, no exposure calculator, using transparencies for film - I was a mess!). Having about one print job a month as a hobbyist cap-film was a no brainer.

I know I have to be paying more per screen for the convenience, which is fine. I just want to gauge how much more per screen. 5 cents more a screen, don't fix what's no broken. $1/screen then I have to change how I'm doing things.

That said, I'll be posting next month complaining I can't coat a screen right! 

[mooseman]

we use an AWT coater that is modified to coat at just over 18 inches wide, (cut down from a wider coater), Ulano QTX.
With one full coater we can cover at least 7 screens coating each at least 2/2
the coater holds far less than one quart, most likely, (by estimate) less than a pint but even if it holds a pint we would be at @ 48 screens / gallon and actually I believe it to be even more than that.
Hope this helps some
mooseman

[jvanick]

we use SP1400 here... 

coating 1x1 round edge
typically running around 20-25% eom as measured with a thickness gauge

we get around 70 screens per gallon.. mix of 160S and 225S mesh counts.

cost per gallon = $31.50 == approx 45 cents per screen in emulsion cost.

[Gilligan]

To figure this accurately, you would need to compare the EOM of the coating, and the thickness of the particular film you are using.

One big difference and advantage with film is, you have your EOM or thickness as a constant, as you mentioned.  With emulsion, that varies with mesh/coating technique.

However, what seems strange or tricky at first, will soon become second nature. The glisten method,will give you good EOM.
I am fighting the urge to say "if Gilligan can master this, anyone can" but of course, that is assuming that he did, indeed, master it, LOL!

Oh, and even without any answers here for comparison, I'm sure that emulsion is way less. One generally pays for convenience.
Film is also far more limited in varieties.

My guy does ok... I'm not happy with having to so auto sized screens with one hand now., but he does ok.

Only reason for the switch to single hand is due to not having a table at the right height and no room to install something better... But I'm working on that.

[ZooCity]

Years ago I used cap film,  it can be great!  And you are absolutely right the fact that you can apply the cap film wet is great for the workflow.

The higher end cap films cost more than direct emulsion but the  easy film is about the same in cost is what I remember finding. But I wouldn't consider cost too heavily in this do what works best for your workflow and for your screens in your shop.

In moving to using direct emulsion you're going to need to set things up so that you have a good work flow for drying the screens it's a lot easier to dry cap film screens.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Shanarchy]

Years ago I used cap film,  it can be great!  And you are absolutely right the fact that you can apply the cap film wet is great for the workflow.

The higher end cap films cost more than direct emulsion but the  easy film is about the same in cost is what I remember finding. But I wouldn't consider cost too heavily in this do what works best for your workflow and for your screens in your shop.

In moving to using direct emulsion you're going to need to set things up so that you have a good work flow for drying the screens it's a lot easier to dry cap film screens.

Thanks Chris. Good points on setting up the work flow.

Right now we take one day a week where we clean and coat all screens. As we are going through more screens, I'm considering cleaning screens one day, and coating the next. This is one of the reason I'm re-considering emulsion.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[starchild]

Is it really cost per screen or cost per unit being produced? If a screen cost 45 cents to coat, how much does it cost over a 75pc 1 color job.. And if cap is @ 2.50 a screen, how much will it cost over the same 75pc job? How much does time cost to dry coat cure as oppose to just cure? (Both technologies has to make the trip to the reclamation only one can leave there coated)

How much will both the 45 cents screen cost and the $2.50 screen cost be for a 300pc production run?

Surely we can find fatter cost savings in various areas of production unique to each shop.

In any case the customer pays for everything- including down time and smoke breaks..

Sent using Tapatalk

[Itsa Little CrOoked]

WR 25 sharp edge 2 over 2. I've not figured how many screens exactly since moving to an auto. I used to get 120 per gallon of my normal mix of manual screens. 110, 156, 195, 230, and 305. With the bulk of them being 156 and 230...all standard thread thickness. I'm going to guess I'm in the ~75 yield now, of 23x31's per gallon. I've added some smartmesh and that is going to change the yield perhaps. Dunno...

At my price per gallon shipped, I'm about 45 cents per screen also...maybe a touch under that.

I wish I could learn to use the round edge. I just don't feel like I have any control. I'm a "one hander" with the scoop coater. My other hand is holding the screen.

[Gilligan]

...

Surely we can find fatter cost savings in various areas of production unique to each shop.

...

Like masking tape.

[jvanick]

...
Surely we can find fatter cost savings in various areas of production unique to each shop.

Like masking tape.

There ya go bringing tape back into the equation...

*fwiw... with the I-Image and permanent blockout screens, we have yet to use a registration mark or have to mask the screens.  *ducking* ...

[Gilligan]

...
Surely we can find fatter cost savings in various areas of production unique to each shop.

Like masking tape.

There ya go bringing tape back into the equation...

*fwiw... with the I-Image and permanent blockout screens, we have yet to use a registration mark or have to mask the screens.  *ducking* ...

J' that joke comes up at least once a month around here, and usually not by me.

[jvanick]

There ya go bringing tape back into the equation...

*fwiw... with the I-Image and permanent blockout screens, we have yet to use a registration mark or have to mask the screens.  *ducking* ...

J' that joke comes up at least once a month around here, and usually not by me.

I know... just being a pita.

*returning you to your regularly scheduled thread about emulsion coverage...

BTW... when you switch to liquid emulsion, do get yourself a thickness gauge... you'll want to compare various coating techniques in your shop and figure out what works best... above 30% eom, you're just wasting emulsion...  below 10% you may have print issues with plastisol....

[alan802]

We average about 60 screens per gallon of emulsion.  We use the glisten method, round edge of scoop coater, 23x31 screens, mostly thin thread mesh.  I've measured this many times over the years and we've used mostly pure photopolymer emulsions with fairly high solids content and it's always hovered around 60/gal. 

I love cap film, but my guys couldn't spray them out without peeling the film from the mesh and I even had some issues from time to time which I'm sure goes back to improper adhesion to the mesh due to bad technique.  Unfortunately we don't use cap film very often so we haven't mastered the usage just yet.  I do like how fast cap film reclaims and some of the other time savings you see when using it and those things should come into play when trying to decide whether or not cap film is right for your shop.