Nanographic Printing Technology from Benny Landa
- Thread starter prwhite
- Start date
Green Printer
Registered Users
Xerox waterless inkjet. This has been certified deinkable by Ingede
Xerox Production Inkjet System: Brilliant Waterless Printing
http://www.office.xerox.com/latest/XPIBR-01.pdf
Xerox� CiPress™ 500 Production Inkjet System
Another very interesting product.
Xerox Production Inkjet System: Brilliant Waterless Printing
http://www.office.xerox.com/latest/XPIBR-01.pdf
Xerox� CiPress™ 500 Production Inkjet System
Another very interesting product.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
The quality issue is one that bothers me. There have been lots of comments about the poor quality of the print but it would be nice to have more specific descriptions of what makes the print poor quality. Just curious about this.
The next related quality issue is about what causes the poor quality?
Inkjet directly to the substrate now provide excellent quality. Landa uses inkjets. What is it about his process that deteriorates the potential level of print quality? Is it the nanoinks, the hot blanket or maybe the combination of hot blanket and inkjet distance from the hot blanket surface? I am guessing it is not so good to have a hot surface too close to the inkjet heads.
There was a story told at a Project Management seminar I went to. The story goes like this.
A man wanted to put in a fence on the edge of his back yard. He would do the fencing himself but he needed someone to dig the post holes. A young student offered to dig the holes for a price. The work required ten post holes. The work started and the student was making good time. After nine holes were dug, the student came to the man and asked for payment of the nine holes before the whole job was completed because he had to get his tuition paid quickly.
The man seeing that nine holes were dug and only one was left and being happy to help a student out, he gave the student 90 % of the payment. The student said thanks and said he would return to do the last post hole just as soon as he got his tuition paid.
Well the student never came back. The man thought that was strange and so he decided to dig the last hole himself. How hard could it be since the student did nine in such a short time? The man dug and found a huge boulder where the last post had to go. The cost to get that last boulder out was more than the whole project.
The moral of the story is that even if you have 10% more of the project to go for completion, that does not mean you have only 10% more time or expense. You might even find that in that last 10%, you find such a big boulder that the project can not be completed. Beware of extrapolating guaranteed results.
gordo
Well-known member
A good story Erik.
Your point is well taken. It reminds me of the Creo SP press that was demonstrated at Graph Expo in 2000. The notion was to essentially eliminate plates on a conventional offset press. Rather than coating CtP plates and shipping them, this press used a reusable aluminum plate wherein the plate coating was sprayed onto a reusable plate on press. Then exposed by laser, washed and then inked and printed. When the printing was complete the coating was removed and the plate recoated and exposed. So instead of shipping plates the vendor would simply ship the coating. A much less expensive endeavor.
The SP press worked great.
Except for one little detail.
And that killed the project - the spray powder in the press migrated to the coating causing small white specs in the presswork.
You can see a video of the press being demonstrated here:
The Print Guide: The Wayback View – SP Plateless Offset Technology in 2000
best, gordo
Your point is well taken. It reminds me of the Creo SP press that was demonstrated at Graph Expo in 2000. The notion was to essentially eliminate plates on a conventional offset press. Rather than coating CtP plates and shipping them, this press used a reusable aluminum plate wherein the plate coating was sprayed onto a reusable plate on press. Then exposed by laser, washed and then inked and printed. When the printing was complete the coating was removed and the plate recoated and exposed. So instead of shipping plates the vendor would simply ship the coating. A much less expensive endeavor.
The SP press worked great.
Except for one little detail.
And that killed the project - the spray powder in the press migrated to the coating causing small white specs in the presswork.
You can see a video of the press being demonstrated here:
The Print Guide: The Wayback View – SP Plateless Offset Technology in 2000
best, gordo
Serious artifacts, bad streaks across images. White lines mostly, sometimes darker lines and banding. Cannot tell if the substrate (belt ?) movement was uneven during printing or simply jet firing problems. Definitely not repetitive, always random.
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
Good video. I think this is still a good concept but not in the press. I suggest something like the original Drent Goebel VSOP press where the plate cylinder could be removed in less than a minute.
It could be workable for sheetfed and web. Just change the plate cylinder for sheetfed and for web the changing of the plate and blanket also allows the change in repeat length.
By changing light weight plate cylinders, the imaging could be done with a single unit for the SP process off line and be automated.
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
Here is an observation on how people think about processes.
In lithographic offset, most people have a hard time believing that the average SID (density) control problem is only related to the mass transport of the ink. Some say variation in density is because of emulsification on the press with water and many other variables. Something too difficult to explain.
But if they think of inkjet, which can have a lot of water in the ink, then it is easier for most to think that the density is related to the amount of ink being jetted to the paper.
Landa's process has water in the ink but it is dried out before transferring to the paper. Most people would think that if there is any variation in density for the Landa process, it is probably caused by variation in the amount of ink in the dried film that gets transferred.
My point here is that there is sometimes confusion between causes of variation in the product and causes of variation in the process.
If one looks only at the product, one tends to see the cause of variation as being related to only ink content and placement.
If one looks at the process, then one can think of many causes of variation in the process but they are not necessarily the causes of variation in the product.
I just thought it strange that the printing industry has been trying to get away from the water factor in ink in offset but there is a lot of acceptance of water in the ink for inkjet.
Maybe I am the only one that thinks this is interesting.
In lithographic offset, most people have a hard time believing that the average SID (density) control problem is only related to the mass transport of the ink. Some say variation in density is because of emulsification on the press with water and many other variables. Something too difficult to explain.
But if they think of inkjet, which can have a lot of water in the ink, then it is easier for most to think that the density is related to the amount of ink being jetted to the paper.
Landa's process has water in the ink but it is dried out before transferring to the paper. Most people would think that if there is any variation in density for the Landa process, it is probably caused by variation in the amount of ink in the dried film that gets transferred.
My point here is that there is sometimes confusion between causes of variation in the product and causes of variation in the process.
If one looks only at the product, one tends to see the cause of variation as being related to only ink content and placement.
If one looks at the process, then one can think of many causes of variation in the process but they are not necessarily the causes of variation in the product.
I just thought it strange that the printing industry has been trying to get away from the water factor in ink in offset but there is a lot of acceptance of water in the ink for inkjet.
Maybe I am the only one that thinks this is interesting.
Green Printer
Registered Users
I was at Graphi Expo 2000 and watched that demo 3 times. I asked many questions including what about dirt, spray powder,paper lint, paper coatings etc. Mr. Richardson's response was small dirt particles were a very big problem.
Nano ink has the ability to stick to just about anything how do you control where and when it will stick.
I would think that the nano ink would stick to any dirt of any kind on the belt before it had a chance to transfer to the paper. How would you control any paper lint or dirt from getting on the belt. A paper coating streak would deposit all kinds of calcium carbonate, gypsum filler, many of the poly fillers and binders.
You probably could not use any board grades cut on a guillotine cutter, too much edge paper dust.
Have any of you every printed on perfectly clean paper skid after skid or roll after roll.
The offset process has the ability to tolerate all kinds of dirt and paper imperfections
Gordo I think you are right on that dirt could be a very serious problem just like SP encountered.
Last edited:
Al Ferrari
Well-known member
Confusing causes of variation
Confusing causes of variation
"I just thought it strange that the printing industry has been trying to get away from the water factor in ink in offset but there is a lot of acceptance of water in the ink for inkjet."
Erik,
These two views of water don't seem so strange to me. In the case of inkjet water is understood to be a vehicle for the ink to be transfered, and therefore a wholesome part of the process. But in offset, water in the ink train, since it is not an intentional input to the ink roller train, is thought of as a pesky foreign intruder.
The sad part, as you of all people know only too well, is that this dismissive view of water in the ink train impedes their accepting that the real problem needing attention is that, in offset, the water in the ink train has a variable effect on the transfer of ink from the fountain to the roller train. And thereby hangs a long sad tail...
Al
Confusing causes of variation
"I just thought it strange that the printing industry has been trying to get away from the water factor in ink in offset but there is a lot of acceptance of water in the ink for inkjet."
Erik,
These two views of water don't seem so strange to me. In the case of inkjet water is understood to be a vehicle for the ink to be transfered, and therefore a wholesome part of the process. But in offset, water in the ink train, since it is not an intentional input to the ink roller train, is thought of as a pesky foreign intruder.
The sad part, as you of all people know only too well, is that this dismissive view of water in the ink train impedes their accepting that the real problem needing attention is that, in offset, the water in the ink train has a variable effect on the transfer of ink from the fountain to the roller train. And thereby hangs a long sad tail...
Al
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
Al, totally correct about the variable transfer from ink fountain to roller train.
But I view water as being "good". It is also intentional since lithography would not work if water did not mix with the ink.
Water cools. Water helps with paper dust removal.
We have to learn to love water. Embrace it.
Al Ferrari
Well-known member
Let's not confuse the good with the intentional.
I share your view about the positive role played by water in the ink train, but this positive role was discovered afterwards, hence not intentional, and there has been little work done directly on the topic of controlling water in the ink train (in the process). Water in the ink train is at best tolerated, and here much credit goes to the ink manufacturers who have striven to increase this tolerance.
The negative view of water in the ink train is what explains your observations about the different ways water is viewed in inkjet ink compared to offset ink.
Al
I share your view about the positive role played by water in the ink train, but this positive role was discovered afterwards, hence not intentional, and there has been little work done directly on the topic of controlling water in the ink train (in the process). Water in the ink train is at best tolerated, and here much credit goes to the ink manufacturers who have striven to increase this tolerance.
The negative view of water in the ink train is what explains your observations about the different ways water is viewed in inkjet ink compared to offset ink.
Al
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
Al, when you say increase this tolerance, what do you exactly mean?
I suspect that after the ink feed is made a positive feed, the ink manufacturers will have an easier time formulating inks.
Of course there are many issues they have to deal with but I am assuming that now they are having to make compromises in order to try to deal with issues that are not fundamentally about the ink itself.
In the long run, I am curious about how they will reformulate inks when the ink feed is corrected.
Al Ferrari
Well-known member
Erik, I don't have any detailed knowledge of this, but from my general reading in the printing industry over the years, I have learned that ink manufacturers have increased ink's ability to absorb water while resisting breakdown of the ink's intended properties.
As to how positive ink feed will affect them, I don't see how it will lessen their burden as long as the transfer of the water to the ink train remains the wet plate's contact with the ink form rollers.
True control of the water in the ink train would have to target that transfer point in the same sense that the ITB targets the ink transfer from the fountain to the roller train.
I lack the imagination as to how this could be addressed. Perhaps a non contact, jetted transfer of the ink to a wet plate, with the excess ink picked up by series of scavenging form rollers? Seems like a project for you.
Al
As to how positive ink feed will affect them, I don't see how it will lessen their burden as long as the transfer of the water to the ink train remains the wet plate's contact with the ink form rollers.
True control of the water in the ink train would have to target that transfer point in the same sense that the ITB targets the ink transfer from the fountain to the roller train.
I lack the imagination as to how this could be addressed. Perhaps a non contact, jetted transfer of the ink to a wet plate, with the excess ink picked up by series of scavenging form rollers? Seems like a project for you.
Al
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
Oh no. Not a project I would want to do.
I do have ideas of how to jet ink into a roller train but that is just a potential future concept.
There are PHD thesis projects on jetting ink into a roller train but they are done improperly. I find it so surprising that these researchers can not see the errors in their concepts that are obvious to me. They seem to be happy to make so many assumptions too make their tests easier to do, that the final results are almost useless.
Frankly, I am expecting that the water can be just dripped at a controlled rate into the roller train near the ink fountain once the ink is controlled. Will have to wait and see. I don't want to get into anything that is overly complicated. I am trying to simplify as much as possible.
I would add that it would be good to get back to Landa's technology. Now that is a complicated project but there is also a talented group working on it. Not something I would be good at for sure.
We all speculate about the problems. But sometimes problems that seem like big problems turn out to be small problems and some problems that seem to be little problems can turn out to be big ones.
As I have said before, one does not know if a problem is difficult or easy until one actually solves the problem.
Last edited by a moderator:
Al Ferrari
Well-known member
But Erik, this last suggestion of yours still leaves open the way for the water to get to the ink train via the ink form roller contact with the wet plate.
By comparison, in my 05-13-2012 12:11 PM post I was trying to deny that avenue for the water to migrate uncontrollably to the ink train. Only then could you try to transfer water to the ink train in a controlled fashion.
You see, I have learned something from the ITB.
Al
The perfect lithographic ink has not been formulated yet. I know what needs to be done to approach that perfect ink.
The obstacle to overcome is 3 major and most important factors in any lithographic pressroom.
Would anyone like to hazzard a guess as to what those 3 factors are?
See we're still working on litho, now Nano rears it's head. Wow!
The obstacle to overcome is 3 major and most important factors in any lithographic pressroom.
Would anyone like to hazzard a guess as to what those 3 factors are?
See we're still working on litho, now Nano rears it's head. Wow!
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
But Erik, this last suggestion of yours still leaves open the way for the water to get to the ink train via the ink form roller contact with the wet plate.
By comparison, in my 05-13-2012 12:11 PM post I was trying to deny that avenue for the water to migrate uncontrollably to the ink train. Only then could you try to transfer water to the ink train in a controlled fashion.
You see, I have learned something from the ITB.
Al
Al, I know you understand the ITB approach and I am glad about that. The fact that it makes the ink feed independent of the water feed also means that the water feed can be applied anywhere.
I see that you are concerned that there is water in the roller train. I am not concerned about this. My view is that it is not important. Actually I think it is better to add the water to the roller train but that is too difficult to explain here. Of course testing would be needed to confirm this but that is how I view it.
For the lithographic process, where the water goes to the non image area and the emulsified ink goes to the image area, the process has run quite OK in tests when the water has been added into the ink in the ink fountain (under limited conditions), when water has been sprayed onto the rollers in the roller train, when water has been applied to the first form roller and when water has been applied to the plate.
There have been technical papers by Goss (Rockwell Int.) stating that water can be applied in many such locations even near the last form roller.
So I understand your concern. I don't think it is such a problem but I would have to wait for testing to confirm.
D
Deleted member 16349
Guest
The three factors IMHO are:
1. Positive ink feed.
2. Accurate zero set point (the point where the net transfer of ink into the press is at zero.) This is the datum for the ink key preset values.
3. Accurate ink key preset algorithms
All three of these do not exist even on modern offset presses.
These are needed for consistency and predictability of the process. For very short makereadies, low waste and consistent print quality.
Landa's technology is aimed at offset in the short to medium run lengths. Develop these three factors and he will have a difficult problem displacing offset.
Similar threads
