Kodak plates thermal direct

[CHAVEZ]

Hi everybody:

Could you tell me in your experience the performance of the chemical free plates from Kodak Thermal Direct? I appreciate your help and comments. Thanks

 

[Fatboysmart]

We have been using these plates for over 5 years now, and they work great. Only drawback is that the plates take longer to expose than convenional plates. (appr. 8 minutes for a SM52 or GTO plate).

Other then that we love working with them. No chemicals whatsoever needed, no more cleaning dirty processors etc.

 

[Amer]

Hi everybody:

Could you tell me in your experience the performance of the chemical free plates from Kodak Thermal Direct? I appreciate your help and comments. Thanks

We've been using them for about a year now.
The cons are the low visibility prior to processing on the press, the need to avoid prolonged light exposure, and they are somewhat more prone to scratching than conventional plates.
Other than that, they are great. Good dot, fast throughput, AND AS EVERYBODY POINTS OUT, NO MORE NASTY, DIRTY AND STINKING PLATE PROCESSORS TO CLEAN OUT! (also no water and electricity to waste with it).

 

[ChristopheF1]

Hi, the latest generation of the Kodak thermal direct plates -> " Sonora " gives an improved exposure speed ( on Heidelberg Suprasetters ) and a higher contrast before
it goes on the pres...but be a little care full...it is not all good news show...developing is done with the moist system of the press -> layer goes into the foutain solution..
Pms inkts...some develope the plate..others won't :-(
What I would propose...ask you supplier some test material...and print some random job with them...that would give you an idea how the plate feels on the press...
Also you printers should have an open mind on thermal direct.. ( if they don't have the clean the processor ;-) )
Succes

 

[gordo]

What I would propose...ask you supplier some test material...and print some random job with them...that would give you an idea how the plate feels on the press...

Printing a random job is not a test of anything. Just imagine if you went to your doctor for a health check up and she say she would just do a random test.
If you're serious about testing a different plate then take the time to plan and conduct an effective test.

Best gordo

 

[Alois Senefelder]

Appalled

Appalled

Hello fellow Lithographers and Smudgers of Ink on Paper


I'm appalled that On Press Developed Plates are used !

In lithography a great deal of time money and effort is used in obtaining the

correct Chemical Enriched F.S to print Sheet after Sheet trouble free

and yet some short-sighted people persist in - Polluting this crucial fluid.


Regards, Alois


P. S. Profit is made at the Delivery End of the Press -- NOT by skimping on plate imaging and development !!

 

[ChristopheF1]

I'm sorry, I might have not made myself clear enough, with random jobs, I was thinking about different linearisation, 175 lines, 200 lines, 4 color jobs, pms inkt... a long run, low coverage, high coverage That sort of things...
I don't want to go into to comparing a plate with a visit to the doctor

 

[gordo]

@Alois, and others who are interested, I'm not an apologist for Kodak but the develop on press terminology is a misnomer and AFAIK there is no contamination of the fountain solution since since no "developing" takes place.

Best, gordo

 

[ChristopheF1]

I don't have any benefits by Kodak ( or Fuji, or anything else )...maybe we should more go into the terms we 're using...Your right on the fact that there is no " development ",
the plate is " washed, processed, cleaned " on the press by means of ink and fountian solution -> non flashed/ non printing dots -> are "washed " away..
This is one the main issues on older ( Heidelberg & others ) that don't have a modern moisture system -> you can't use thermal direct type plates.
I would propose something like this -> Thermal direct -> prepared on the press/ Chemfree -> cleaned in a processor / developed -> with developer prepared in a processor.
( don't want to go into pre/post baked etc) I know its a rough shortcut...
On the other hand this all is leading us away from the intentional question...
My customers & I .... we have good very good experience with ( Kodak ) Thermal direct plates. They are very happy with them. for many reason they have chosen this type
of plate..and they don't wan't go to more conventional plates.

 

[CHAVEZ]

Dear Fatboysmart;

I appreciate your help, do you know why this plates takes a long time to exposure, I mean a 8 up would take almost 30 minutes to exposure? Thanks.

 

[CHAVEZ]

Dear ChristopheF1:

I appreciate your help, but I do not understand the terms "Pms inkts...." what it means? Good weekend.

 

[CHAVEZ]

Dear ChristopheF1:

In our company we integrate pre-press systems, some times with imagesetter, other with CTP, but some customers frecuently ask about the chemical free plates, and they see like a magical plate. I understand that is necesary to prepare the pre-press equipments and press. Do you some reference how old must be the presses and what power needs the thermal laser to expose these plates? Thanks

 

[ChristopheF1]

With what kind of exposing unit ? At this moment we do Kodak Sonora @ 500 rpm on a SupraSetter A type ( GEN II )
I don't know by heart, but it should something close to the Pro T.. ( 8 up = 74 format ?)

 

[ChristopheF1]

Sorry I saw you post to late...the power to expose the plate is defined by the type of flashing unit.
I have some data for Heidelberg equipment and Kodak plates.. Give me some more details and I will try to find out...

 

[Fatboysmart]

We use a Heidelberg Suprasetter as well (i guess the first generation from 2007). I have heard that later models have a more powerful laser which would make plate exposure faster. If you want to know for sure what speed you can expect from Thermal Direct plates I would contact the company that placed the Suprasetter... They should know.

 

[Alois Senefelder]

Litho Plate Progression

Litho Plate Progression

Gentlemen of the Pre- press,


I suggest you read my post in the Sheetfed Forum.



Regards, Alois

 

[gordo]

Gentlemen of the Pre- press,


I suggest you read my post in the Sheetfed Forum.



Regards, Alois

That looks like a very old PIRA paper. It also talks about the water/fountain solution developing the plate. AFAIK that is not the the case with Thermal direct. The unexposed coating instead is peeled away by the first few sheets of paper going through the press - hence no fountain solution contamination.

best, gordo.

 

[William Campbell]

In lithography a great deal of time money and effort is used in obtaining the correct Chemical Enriched F.S to print Sheet after Sheet trouble free and yet some short-sighted people persist in - Polluting this crucial fluid.
!!

Well then you'd better talk to the paper companies before prepress. Paper has polluted fountain solutions since in advent of rotary offset lithography, and 10,000 sheets of alkaline stock are going to adversely affect conditions far more than one plate per unit. (my opinion, of course, but it's based on my years as a pressman long ago).

My apologies in advance, but it's a very poor argument against processless. Especially given the benefits of chemical free plates outside the pressroom, most specifically, benefits to the remainder of planet Earth that our grandchildren will inherit.

 

[Sev]

Dear Fatboysmart;

I appreciate your help, do you know why this plates takes a long time to exposure, I mean a 8 up would take almost 30 minutes to exposure? Thanks.

We use the Kodak Thermal Direct plate (28" 4 up) and it takes 1 minute and 50 seconds to expose. This is done on a Kodak Trendsetter. I would not call that slow. The pressroom loves these plates.

-Sev

 

[KevinC@EFI]

The new Sonora XP plate is much faster than the original Thermal Direct. Thermal Direct worked great on Kodak/Creo systems because the power density of our heads is much higher (similar power, but concentrated in a much smaller, focused area). TD was too slow on SupraSetters and some Screen units because their power density was too low - i.e. they weren't able to heat the emulsion up fast enough to a high enough temperature to fully cross-link the polymers.

Sonora XP fixes that because it needs about half the energy of TD. You now get full throughput on all but the fastest Kodak/Creo devices, and most of the mid-range competitive devices. You also get better visual contrast, and less sensitivity to long-duration white light exposure.

As far as the fear of press contamination goes, we have thousands of printers globally using this technology, and it has been proven beyond doubt that it's not an issue. The coating doesn't dissolve into the fount, but instead is pulled off the plate by the ink tack and deposited on the blanket - where it comes out of the press on the first 3-5 sheets of paper. Those stories are pure FUD ("Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt") marketed by our competitors... whom actually tried and failed with similar technology for exactly those reasons (remember Thermolite anyone... there's a reason Azura has a cleanout unit and chemistry in the first place!). We learned from that, and took a different approach to ensure it didn't happen for us.

As they say, the "haters be hatin' ", but we have thousands of printers that are enjoying the financial, quality, and environmental benefits of totally eliminating the equipment, chemistry, and chemical variability of processing and "cleaning out" of plates.

Kevin.