LED Exposure unit first impressions. . .

[ScreenFoo]

Thanks for the info Pierre--Doesn't sound too bad if it holds up well.

It's too bad you didn't get a chance to try 125-200 mesh count screens for all the athletic printers out there, I'd think that would be the sticking point for most start-ups if it takes forever, or just won't cure the whole film.

[inkstain]

Thank you Pierre for taking the time to provide us with some info on the product!
I'm all ears!

I'm close to getting one myself!
Aloha!

[blue moon]

Thanks for the info Pierre--Doesn't sound too bad if it holds up well.

It's too bad you didn't get a chance to try 125-200 mesh count screens for all the athletic printers out there, I'd think that would be the sticking point for most start-ups if it takes forever, or just won't cure the whole film.

we did test it on a 110, it took only 10 seconds to expose. No problems there. So if it can do 110's and 330's I am sure ti will do fine with anything in between.

pierre

[JBLUE]

Real test will be screens for waterbase. If it exposes those in 30 sec thats a game changer.

[blue moon]

Real test will be screens for waterbase. If it exposes those in 30 sec thats a game changer.

we tested with Aquasolv HV which is pretty popular with waterbased printing. I think with the right emulsion you could get 230 mesh to expose at 30 seconds with a dual cure.

pierre

[ScreenFoo]

Thanks for the info Pierre--Doesn't sound too bad if it holds up well.

It's too bad you didn't get a chance to try 125-200 mesh count screens for all the athletic printers out there, I'd think that would be the sticking point for most start-ups if it takes forever, or just won't cure the whole film.

we did test it on a 110, it took only 10 seconds to expose. No problems there. So if it can do 110's and 330's I am sure ti will do fine with anything in between.

pierre

It seems surprising a 110 would be that fast.   I'm guessing white mesh coated 1/1?   Was 230 the lowest mesh attempted with a diazo or dual cure?

Interesting stuff.

[blue moon]

Thanks for the info Pierre--Doesn't sound too bad if it holds up well.

It's too bad you didn't get a chance to try 125-200 mesh count screens for all the athletic printers out there, I'd think that would be the sticking point for most start-ups if it takes forever, or just won't cure the whole film.

we did test it on a 110, it took only 10 seconds to expose. No problems there. So if it can do 110's and 330's I am sure ti will do fine with anything in between.

pierre

It seems surprising a 110 would be that fast.   I'm guessing white mesh coated 1/1?   Was 230 the lowest mesh attempted with a diazo or dual cure?

Interesting stuff.

that's the cool part! It was a 2+1 with 50% EOM and I think 10 seconds was too long!!! We were looking at it and thinking 9 would be about right.

the low mesh count with dual cure is looking like several minutes (with similar EOM), but remember, I have not a clue 1 when it comes to dual cure. I think we were coating it too thick, I can't really tell if the stencil is fully exposed just by looking at it and so on. This might be a good question for somebody who is using it with dual cure already.

pierre

[Screened Gear]

Thanks for the info Pierre--Doesn't sound too bad if it holds up well.

It's too bad you didn't get a chance to try 125-200 mesh count screens for all the athletic printers out there, I'd think that would be the sticking point for most start-ups if it takes forever, or just won't cure the whole film.

we did test it on a 110, it took only 10 seconds to expose. No problems there. So if it can do 110's and 330's I am sure ti will do fine with anything in between.

pierre

It seems surprising a 110 would be that fast.   I'm guessing white mesh coated 1/1?   Was 230 the lowest mesh attempted with a diazo or dual cure?

Interesting stuff.

that's the cool part! It was a 2+1 with 50% EOM and I think 10 seconds was too long!!! We were looking at it and thinking 9 would be about right.

the low mesh count with dual cure is looking like several minutes (with similar EOM), but remember, I have not a clue 1 when it comes to dual cure. I think we were coating it too thick, I can't really tell if the stencil is fully exposed just by looking at it and so on. This might be a good question for somebody who is using it with dual cure already.

pierre

A 110 with 50% EOM is crazy thick. If it does that in 10 seconds then there is nothing faster then that exposure unit on the market. The one thing about LEDs is they are instant on. Many of us are comparing this to a Metal Hydride. Unless you have a Metal Hydride with a shutter like my Workhorse Photosharp you are exposing screens with a bulb that is heating up for the first 20 to 30 seconds. (that is if it ever gets to full power before the exposure time is done)

[blue moon]

Thanks for the info Pierre--Doesn't sound too bad if it holds up well.

It's too bad you didn't get a chance to try 125-200 mesh count screens for all the athletic printers out there, I'd think that would be the sticking point for most start-ups if it takes forever, or just won't cure the whole film.

we did test it on a 110, it took only 10 seconds to expose. No problems there. So if it can do 110's and 330's I am sure ti will do fine with anything in between.

pierre

It seems surprising a 110 would be that fast.   I'm guessing white mesh coated 1/1?   Was 230 the lowest mesh attempted with a diazo or dual cure?

Interesting stuff.

that's the cool part! It was a 2+1 with 50% EOM and I think 10 seconds was too long!!! We were looking at it and thinking 9 would be about right.

the low mesh count with dual cure is looking like several minutes (with similar EOM), but remember, I have not a clue 1 when it comes to dual cure. I think we were coating it too thick, I can't really tell if the stencil is fully exposed just by looking at it and so on. This might be a good question for somebody who is using it with dual cure already.

pierre

A 110 with 50% EOM is crazy thick. If it does that in 10 seconds then there is nothing faster then that exposure unit on the market. The one thing about LEDs is they are instant on. Many of us are comparing this to a Metal Hydride. Unless you have a Metal Hydride with a shutter like my Workhorse Photosharp you are exposing screens with a bulb that is heating up for the first 20 to 30 seconds. (that is if it ever gets to full power before the exposure time is done)

I know! I did not believe him when he said 5 seconds for a 305. I thought he was full of it!

pierre

[balloonguy]

5 seconds seems too short to me. It leaves very little room for adjusting exposure time. I know sometimes if I am running low on screens and I am putting something on a 280 that should be on a 305 I may under expose slightly to make washout of the finer detail easier and then hit with a post expose. Can you set the time on this to 4.72 seconds if you want to do this?

[LDTRONIX]

Hi everyone
I would 1st like to thank Pierre for taking the time out of his busy schedule to test the BJ2K, and confirm the unit’s performance for the people of this forum.
Pierre had so many tools for checking the quality of screen printing, that at one point I felt like he might be the Batman of screen printing.  “Where does he get all those wonderful toys?”

I now understand why he is so highly regarded!  The quality control of his product says it all!
You’re a great screen printer, but a better person. Thanks again Pierre, it was an honor to meet you.
Lou
www.LDTronix.com

[blue moon]

5 seconds seems too short to me. It leaves very little room for adjusting exposure time. I know sometimes if I am running low on screens and I am putting something on a 280 that should be on a 305 I may under expose slightly to make washout of the finer detail easier and then hit with a post expose. Can you set the time on this to 4.72 seconds if you want to do this?

Agreed! The latitude at such small numbers needs to be infractions of a second!

this was one of the things Lou and I discussed and will be implemented in the future. I have a feeling it is not a big deal and can be available right now, but he will have to confirm.

pierre

[JBLUE]

Thanks for the info Pierre--Doesn't sound too bad if it holds up well.

It's too bad you didn't get a chance to try 125-200 mesh count screens for all the athletic printers out there, I'd think that would be the sticking point for most start-ups if it takes forever, or just won't cure the whole film.

we did test it on a 110, it took only 10 seconds to expose. No problems there. So if it can do 110's and 330's I am sure ti will do fine with anything in between.

pierre

It seems surprising a 110 would be that fast.   I'm guessing white mesh coated 1/1?   Was 230 the lowest mesh attempted with a diazo or dual cure?

Interesting stuff.

that's the cool part! It was a 2+1 with 50% EOM and I think 10 seconds was too long!!! We were looking at it and thinking 9 would be about right.

the low mesh count with dual cure is looking like several minutes (with similar EOM), but remember, I have not a clue 1 when it comes to dual cure. I think we were coating it too thick, I can't really tell if the stencil is fully exposed just by looking at it and so on. This might be a good question for somebody who is using it with dual cure already.

pierre

A 110 with 50% EOM is crazy thick. If it does that in 10 seconds then there is nothing faster then that exposure unit on the market. The one thing about LEDs is they are instant on. Many of us are comparing this to a Metal Hydride. Unless you have a Metal Hydride with a shutter like my Workhorse Photosharp you are exposing screens with a bulb that is heating up for the first 20 to 30 seconds. (that is if it ever gets to full power before the exposure time is done)
[/quot

Thats why there is an integrator.

[tpitman]

5 seconds seems too short to me. It leaves very little room for adjusting exposure time. I know sometimes if I am running low on screens and I am putting something on a 280 that should be on a 305 I may under expose slightly to make washout of the finer detail easier and then hit with a post expose. Can you set the time on this to 4.72 seconds if you want to do this?

Agreed! The latitude at such small numbers needs to be infractions of a second!

this was one of the things Lou and I discussed and will be implemented in the future. I have a feeling it is not a big deal and can be available right now, but he will have to confirm.

pierre

I was thinking with exposure times so short, and the typically small window of ideal time for some of the "fast" emulsions on the market, might an integrator of sorts that could be programmed to reduce the light output to allow for more fine tuning on an as-needed basis? I know it seems counterproductive, but with times like 5 seconds, going up to ten, or striking an ideal time somewhere in between might actually be more desirable. Can emulsion physically react positively to times in tenths and hundredths of a second if a timer capable of accurately cutting the light to those degrees were incorporated?

[Sbrem]

5 seconds seems too short to me. It leaves very little room for adjusting exposure time. I know sometimes if I am running low on screens and I am putting something on a 280 that should be on a 305 I may under expose slightly to make washout of the finer detail easier and then hit with a post expose. Can you set the time on this to 4.72 seconds if you want to do this?

Agreed! The latitude at such small numbers needs to be infractions of a second!

this was one of the things Lou and I discussed and will be implemented in the future. I have a feeling it is not a big deal and can be available right now, but he will have to confirm.

pierre

There are timers that will work in tenths of a second...

Steve