Paper Curl and Ink Transfer

[Alois Senefelder]

Hello fellow Lithographers,


While searching my Archives from when I attended the Manchester School of Printing, I found the following

Technical Paper - I hope you will find it of interest and value

PDF - part 2 of the Enlightenment Thread in a previous post



Regards, Alois

 

[Alois Senefelder]

Paper Curl and Ink Transfer part 2

Paper Curl and Ink Transfer part 2

Gentlemen -


Part 2 PDFs of the remaining Technical Paper




Regards, Alois

 

[DotBox]

I take it you are aware that is almost 50 year-old information, a lot of which is based on 60 year-old research. Suffice it to say, a lot has changed since then. Still, it's useful information for someone trying to gain a basic understanding of the lithographic process. I'm not really sure if it helps much in a practical production sense, but I guess it couldn't hurt, either. Thanks for the information.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I take it you are aware that is almost 50 year-old information, a lot of which is based on 60 year-old research. Suffice it to say, a lot has changed since then. Still, it's useful information for someone trying to gain a basic understanding of the lithographic process. I'm not really sure if it helps much in a practical production sense, but I guess it couldn't hurt, either. Thanks for the information.

DotBox, old information is not necessarily poor or outdated information.

With printing or any other process, technologies will change but the basic physics of the process does not change. The rules of Nature do not change.

If someone has described a part of the process, a long time ago, and that description correctly describes the physics, then that information will always be valid.

On the other hand, even today there are descriptions of the process that are wrong but are accepted as true. The road to obtaining valid knowledge and information is not always smooth and direct. The latest descriptions are no always better or correct.

I have this suspicion that years ago, the researchers in the industry were better thinkers than the researchers that now are supposed to do that work. I don't see much original thinking going on now. Some problems are important and other problems are not. Much too much research work is done on the irrelevant issues in the process for the main purpose to have more technical papers in ones resume and not to address the important issues. I could be wrong but that is my impression and opinion.

 

[Alois Senefelder]

100 years old !

100 years old !

Hello DotBox



So what is so different from this 1912 Roland Offset Press -- and yours ???

This 1912 Press has -

1) a - Inking System, b - Dampening System 2) Plate Cyl/ Blanket Cyl/ Impression Cyl


"From knowledge to competence is a great step --- from ignorance to competence an even greater one"


Regards, Alois

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Hello DotBox



So what is so different from this 1912 Roland Offset Press -- and yours ???

This 1912 Press has -

1) a - Inking System, b - Dampening System 2) Plate Cyl/ Blanket Cyl/ Impression Cyl


"From knowledge to competence is a great step --- from ignorance to competence an even greater one"


Regards, Alois

The photo is not so revealing of the details but I bet my technology could have been applied to that press.

Any working units still around?

 

[Green Printer]

DotBox, old information is not necessarily poor or outdated information.

With printing or any other process, technologies will change but the basic physics of the process does not change. The rules of Nature do not change.

If someone has described a part of the process, a long time ago, and that description correctly describes the physics, then that information will always be valid.

On the other hand, even today there are descriptions of the process that are wrong but are accepted as true. The road to obtaining valid knowledge and information is not always smooth and direct. The latest descriptions are no always better or correct.

I have this suspicion that years ago, the researchers in the industry were better thinkers than the researchers that now are supposed to do that work. I don't see much original thinking going on now. Some problems are important and other problems are not. Much too much research work is done on the irrelevant issues in the process for the main purpose to have more technical papers in ones resume and not to address the important issues. I could be wrong but that is my impression and opinion.

The physics would be valid if the paper was made the same today as 50 years ago. About the only thing in common today with paper from 50 years ago is wood the vast majority of the bleaching processes along with the filler chemicals are different.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

The physics would be valid if the paper was made the same today as 50 years ago. About the only thing in common today with paper from 50 years ago is wood the vast majority of the bleaching processes along with the filler chemicals are different.

The laws of Nature don't change just because the technology of the paper does. There may be different issues to address but the laws don't change.

Of course it can be a problem to understand what laws govern the changes in a technology but that should be a normal part of developing a technology. Science and technology are not the same thing.