Expert Qualifications

[gordo]

[Possumgal]

Well, hands-on experience beats "book larnin'" or internet videos any day in my book.

[Alois Senefelder]

Well what can I say .............

"Everything is simple - if you're simple"

Regards, Alois

[alibryan]

"....I think that maybe just before this meeting, one of my contacts popped out into my beard ..... could you help me find it real quick?"

[gordo]

"....I think that maybe just before this meeting, one of my contacts popped out into my beard ..... could you help me find it real quick?"

When I was at creo I, as well as others in my age condition, was referred to as a “greybeard” i.e. an old guy with lots of knowledge that may or may not be valid. LOL

[Erik Nikkanen]

When I was at creo I, as well as others in my age condition, was referred to as a “greybeard” i.e. an old guy with lots of knowledge that may or may not be valid. LOL

Hey greybeard, I mean Gordon, I am very sure at least half of your knowledge was extremely valid. Just not sure which half. :-)

[gordo]

Hey greybeard, I mean Gordon, I am very sure at least half of your knowledge was extremely valid. Just not sure which half. :-)

Neither do I.

[MailGuru]

Theoretically, with age, comes wisdom. I can remember, in my early twenties, when I rose the corporate ranks fairly quickly in the computer programming side of things, it was very frustrating getting anyone to listen to what I had to say. Most of what I had to say was dismissed and ignored because I was perceived to be a "wet behind the ears kid". They would routinely paint themselves in a corner by ignoring my advice. Now I'm 64 and have been in the industry over 40 years. It's amazing how others listen intently now, even though I really have nothing to say........

[Erik Nikkanen]

When I was at creo I, as well as others in my age condition, was referred to as a “greybeard” i.e. an old guy with lots of knowledge that may or may not be valid. LOL

On the subject of valid knowledge, I am very serious about this issue.

After getting burned (wasting years and money) on following a path based on wrong assumptions back in the early 1990's, specifically related to ink key presetting and some other issues, I decided from that time on I would try not to accept any assumptions or existing knowledge without a very careful analysis for validity. As an engineer, one has several methods to do this.

For anyone who wants to do innovation, it is very critical to be ruthless in evaluation any information available or any concepts one thinks might be good. It is so easy to waste time and money on concepts that are based on faulty thinking. It is not only about the science but also about the ease of use and effectiveness in a production environment.

Of course if one is not doing innovation, then faulty knowledge makes no difference and that is the general situation in the printing industry.

[gordo]

On the subject of valid knowledge, I am very serious about this issue.

After getting burned (wasting years and money) on following a path based on wrong assumptions back in the early 1990's, specifically related to ink key presetting and some other issues, I decided from that time on I would try not to accept any assumptions or existing knowledge without a very careful analysis for validity. As an engineer, one has several methods to do this.

For anyone who wants to do innovation, it is very critical to be ruthless in evaluation any information available or any concepts one thinks might be good. It is so easy to waste time and money on concepts that are based on faulty thinking. It is not only about the science but also about the ease of use and effectiveness in a production environment.

Of course if one is not doing innovation, then faulty knowledge makes no difference and that is the general situation in the printing industry.

That ( "try not to accept any assumptions or existing knowledge without a very careful analysis for validity" ) was one of the first revelations I had working with the engineers at creo. Since they weren't knowledgeable about printing at the time I was hired (one of the reasons I was hired was to fill that gap) they questioned, and tested to validate, everything about the process. Information they got from books, technical seminars, and clients was not accepted at face value but was just considered in their investigations. Somewhat analogous to you going to the doctor with a health complaint. The doc will listen to your descriptions of symptoms and speculation about the cause - but in the end, Doc will not blindly follow your recommendations as to treatment.

On several occasions at technical seminars I've given talks to printers to remind them of the process of the scientific method that they were taught during the early days of their basic education. Just following that basic line of thinking could solve many of the issues they faced daily.

Another thing that I learned from the engineers is that print production is a "deterministic" process. I.e. if you know what you're inputting, and you know how the process works, then you can determine the output. And if the output differs from the expected then you have the tools you need to determine why and make changes accordingly. It is not a "black art."

[Erik Nikkanen]

Another thing that I learned from the engineers is that print production is a "deterministic" process. I.e. if you know what you're inputting, and you know how the process works, then you can determine the output. And if the output differs from the expected then you have the tools you need to determine why and make changes accordingly. It is not a "black art."

Exactly right. I have been trying to push this understanding even before my 1997 TAGA paper, where I tried to show the rational view. But still the industry thinks, with respect to the input of ink in an offset press, that the existing inconsistent ink input of ink is somehow better than a positive input of ink. Why? Probably only because the existing method has been around for so long (160+ years) that it is accepted as being the only way the process should work. One can not innovate when people can not see that there is a problem, even if they are told there is one.

Shortly the PIA will have their Continuous Improvement conference. Each year they talk about using Lean and other tools to make improvements. But each year they show they are ignorant of the causes of variation. Some how they think some lean method will compensate for their inability to think.

[Alois Senefelder]

Gentlemen and fellow Lithographers,


Being the "devil's advocate ....." I posit that the Lithographic Printing Process IS a Stochastic Model.



Deterministic Model vs Stochastic Model


1) In deterministic models, the output of the model is fully determined by the parameter values and the initial conditions.

2) Stochasstic models possess some inherent randomness. The same set of parameter values and initial conditions will lead to an ensemble of

different outputs.

Regards, Alois

[gordo]

Gentlemen and fellow Lithographers,

Being the "devil's advocate ....." I posit that the Lithographic Printing Process IS a Stochastic Model.

Deterministic Model vs Stochastic Model

1) In deterministic models, the output of the model is fully determined by the parameter values and the initial conditions.

2) Stochasstic models possess some inherent randomness. The same set of parameter values and initial conditions will lead to an ensemble of

different outputs.

Regards, Alois

To paraphrase Henry Ford's admonition - “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't control the process - you're right.”

There are a great many variables in print manufacturing (see attached graphic). But, if you take the attitude that there is uncontrollable randomness then, yes, you can't control it. But if you take the attitude that it is a deterministic process then you can go a long way to controlling it and understand and correct the points that result in failure.

color printing variables.jpg

[Erik Nikkanen]

Gentlemen and fellow Lithographers,


Being the "devil's advocate ....." I posit that the Lithographic Printing Process IS a Stochastic Model.



Deterministic Model vs Stochastic Model


1) In deterministic models, the output of the model is fully determined by the parameter values and the initial conditions.

2) Stochasstic models possess some inherent randomness. The same set of parameter values and initial conditions will lead to an ensemble of

different outputs.

Regards, Alois

What ever one thinks the process is, it still must comply with a number of scientific principles. Conservation of Mass is one of them. At a stead state condition, the output of ink must equal the input of ink on average. This is independent on the substrate, water, roller settings, etc.

So why is this simple and reliable concept based not on a theory but a principle of science so hard for the printing industry to understand and accept? It is due to ignorance or stupidity. One can be corrected while the other can't.

As I said before, if one wants to innovate, it is important to understand things. If there is no interest in innovation, it does not matter what one thinks or says.

Also models are not processes. Models might try to represent a process but if the model is not correct, it has little value. In engineering and in science, the use of models is problematic. Models tend to be too simplistic relative to the physics of the problem. Models are helpful to show how some process might perform for educational purposes, but are not always so good at accurately predicting performance.

If one wanted to develop a model for the offset printing process, most certainly it would be too simplistic and not useful. The physical issues are so numerous and difficult for modelling. But this is the great thing about the offset process. The offset process MUST follow the principle of Conservation of Mass. That means, no matter how complicated the physics is in the transport of ink to the substrate, the amount of ink output on the substrate MUST equal the amount of ink fed into the roller train on average. So one looks for the reason why the ink feed is not consistent and one finds it is a simple problem to correct.

I am not against using models. I have done many ones for specific issues but they were mainly for understanding how things worked and most would not be useful as a technical solution. They do help to direct one to what would be a potential solution but judgement is required and so is testing.

There is a long history of testing the printing process on commercial presses. Unfortunately, for about a 100 years, none of these tests are tests of the science, relative to density control, because they were done on presses that did not control the ink variable. In my 1997 TAGA paper I also mentioned this problem doing tests on presses that were not positively controlling this critical variable.

To get valid knowledge, one needs to do valid testing. This has not been done to date and so far there seems to be no effort in understanding this important factor required to innovate. And it has always surprised me to see that managers in this industry see no connection between valid knowledge and competitive advantage.

[Alois Senefelder]

Erik,

A Question.

Seeing you are intent in beating us into submission regarding the "Conservation of Mass" that after reading all your TAGA Papers,

why did the German Giants of Printing Press Manufacturers NOT follow your advice ? to what is a "Simlple" problem to correct, according to you.

I for one do not believe that Heidelberg AG have not looked at the Inking Transport Systems of Offset Presses.


Regards, Alois