Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47
  1. #21
    Green Printer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    541

    Default

    A brief history of how Fogra became involved with the testing will be posted in sections over the next few weeks.
    The precursor to certification began in 1992 with chrome roller problems. Those who were involved please add to this.

  2. #22
    Lukew is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    pressroom
    Posts
    404

  3. #23
    Green Printer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    541

    Default

    There is a commonality to all of this. I would say we should look for the chrome roller supplier or plating house for the years 1991-1994.
    The following European press manufacturese did not have the chrome roller problem.
    Solna
    Oris
    Planeta
    HCM Color Metal
    Adast
    Omsca
    Nebiola
    Harris
    This narrows down the search.

  4. #24
    Dan Roll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default

    There is a transcript of proceedings in a German court between several press manufacturers and a handful of European press chemical companies on the subject of responsibility for damage to chrome rollers. If one of our European friends could obtain a copy and translate it into English, I am sure it would make for some fascinating reading. One result of the lawsuit was the formation of a jointly owned ceramic coating business that produced rollers for these manufacturers for a while. I believe this company found itself in litigation as well for the same reasons.
    Daniel T Roll
    904-305-2517

  5. #25
    Sustainable is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Roll View Post
    There is a transcript of proceedings in a German court between several press manufacturers and a handful of European press chemical companies on the subject of responsibility for damage to chrome rollers. If one of our European friends could obtain a copy and translate it into English, I am sure it would make for some fascinating reading. One result of the lawsuit was the formation of a jointly owned ceramic coating business that produced rollers for these manufacturers for a while. I believe this company found itself in litigation as well for the same reasons.
    I found this company Coatec. They started in business in 1989. Ceramic rollers. Read the pdfs in the following links.


    COATEC.DE - ENGLISH: Downloads

    Hydrocerâ„¢ Clean US
    Last edited by Sustainable; 03-01-2012 at 01:10 PM.

  6. #26
    Dan Roll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Yes, Coatec was the company. I do not have any information about who might of made the chrome rollers (I know who did not make them). The problem with the chrome rollers in question (I consulted at the time with one of the defendants in the lawsuit) was they were chrome plated directly on steel without the usual copper and nickel layers underneath. This allowed electrolysis (the flow of the fountain solution over the roller forming a galvanic battery due to the electrolyte (conductive) nature of the acids, bases and salts used in fountain solution formulations) to corrode the steel right through the porous chrome layer. This would happen regardless of the chemistry used, as long as it conducted electricity. Due to the porosity of the ceramic coating, the early Coatec rollers suffered the same problems. The press manufacturers tried (unsuccessfully) to establish that the fountain solutions were too acidic or inadequately inhibited to protect the rollers, but the court ruled that rollers sold as part of a dampening system should be able to withstand ordinary and expected exposure to materials necessary to facilitate the process for which the press was intended. The Munich Technical Institute was involved providing testimony supporting the press manufacturers and this lead to what eventually became FOGRA, testing and 'qualifying' washes and fountain solutions.
    Daniel T Roll
    904-305-2517

  7. #27
    Green Printer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    541

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Roll View Post
    Yes, Coatec was the company. I do not have any information about who might of made the chrome rollers (I know who did not make them). The problem with the chrome rollers in question (I consulted at the time with one of the defendants in the lawsuit) was they were chrome plated directly on steel without the usual copper and nickel layers underneath. This allowed electrolysis (the flow of the fountain solution over the roller forming a galvanic battery due to the electrolyte (conductive) nature of the acids, bases and salts used in fountain solution formulations) to corrode the steel right through the porous chrome layer. This would happen regardless of the chemistry used, as long as it conducted electricity. Due to the porosity of the ceramic coating, the early Coatec rollers suffered the same problems. The press manufacturers tried (unsuccessfully) to establish that the fountain solutions were too acidic or inadequately inhibited to protect the rollers, but the court ruled that rollers sold as part of a dampening system should be able to withstand ordinary and expected exposure to materials necessary to facilitate the process for which the press was intended. The Munich Technical Institute was involved providing testimony supporting the press manufacturers and this lead to what eventually became FOGRA, testing and 'qualifying' washes and fountain solutions.

    We have reached a precipice in this discussion. Dan Roll has shown that the press manufactures lost there case in the German Courts even after all of the data they provided. The courts said make the presses to handle the expected exposure. This ruse of hiding behind Fogra and forcing supply manufactures to pay a fee to allow there consumables to be used has been going on since 1995. The warranty period of the presses is only 1 year after that period you can use whatever you desire. To top it off there are many instances where the Fogra requirements have been waved because of unavailability of Forga approved chemistry that does not meet the requirements of the packaging and pharmaceutical industries. It is documented in contracts.
    Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this.

  8. #28
    Erik Nikkanen is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Toronto Ontario Canada
    Posts
    1,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Roll View Post

    Due to the porosity of the ceramic coating, the early Coatec rollers suffered the same problems.

    .
    Did you mean "ceramic" coating? I thought the problem was mainly with chrome plated rollers but are you saying ceramic rollers also had problems?

  9. #29
    Dan Roll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    291

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Nikkanen View Post
    Did you mean "ceramic" coating? I thought the problem was mainly with chrome plated rollers but are you saying ceramic rollers also had problems?
    Yes, many ceramic rollers supplied as replacements for damaged chrome rollers experienced chunks of the ceramic coating breaking off due to galvanic corrosion of the steel surface under the coating. After a non-porous under-plating was adopted, this problem went away.
    I have seen several peculiar problems related to electrolysis over the years, including one where the copper plating from the ink system drive rollers was re-plated onto the background of the plates being run causing them to turn sort of yellow and, of course, irreversibly attractive to ink.
    Daniel T Roll
    904-305-2517

  10. #30
    Alois Senefelder's Avatar
    Alois Senefelder is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    665

    Default Addition

    Hello fellow Lithographers,

    In addition to the reasons given by Mr. Dan Roll - - NO Brass or Copper Metal piping or Taps/Unions should be
    used anywhere in the Fountain Solution Circulation System ( Inflow/Outflow)
    only Stainless Steel or Plastic are OK

    Regards, Alois


Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Sponsors

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.1.2