The decline in the press market

[Deleted member 16349]

Here is a article about KBA's view of the future of their business.

Print Business: Finishing

I am guessing that it is pretty similar to the other major press manufacturers.

The market is shrinking and the only way to prosper now is to increase market share. But press manufacturers still have decided not to move away from its old model of offset technology and investigate new potential offset technology. Of course this is an issue I have talked about for a very long time.

My experience has lead me to believe that press manufacturers would rather die a slow death instead of try something very new which they do not fully understand. I have seen many press manufacturers go out of business over the years and it has been the same pattern. They will not adapt to what is needed to survive. They have thought it was safer not to act than to take a chance.

The market is shrinking but that does not mean that every supplier has to shrink but it seems that that is what they are planning for and working for. Why do they give up so easily? Why is it that they have little vision or imagination to think that the process can not work better?

Anyhow, we will probably see similar reports from all the press manufacturers over the next few years. They will plan to get smaller instead of trying to get bigger with more innovation. The basic model for the offset press has not changed for the last 100 years and it is all they can think is possible. Sad.

 

[Green Printer]

When shops can replace 3 machines with one and still maintain tthe same productivity that in itself lowers the number of machines required.
Another alternative is rebuilding older machines to be mechanically tight and using the following -- http://www.imer.jp/english/p_ipc/ipc_mov.html


If you have an older macine that is mechanicaly tight just replace the ink contol systems with a modern Imer system.

Reducing the variables to contol ink is the answer. Presently there is no other that can control ink flow as well as the Imer.

The Imer system has a 20 year history in Japanese can manufacturing.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Reducing the variables to contol ink is the answer.

Presently there is no other that can control ink flow as well as the Imer.

I totally agree with the need to reduce the variables to control the ink.

I like the Imer concept and am glad it has had some success in Japan for so long. I think it would have helped in some specific printing manufacturing operations that I have been involved with.

If we agree that the Imer is a very good potential option, then why have not the major press manufacturers used it for their press designs? This gets back to my original view that press manufacturers will not change the existing model of their press design but continue to mainly refine it.

The Imer concept is very interesting but it also falls short of what is needed. Why can't there not be an environment of active investigation into theory and concepts to understand and solve the critical problems? Think and try more ideas, which leads to learning more. It would be a cycle that gets better and better.

 

[Green Printer]

I totally agree with the need to reduce the variables to control the ink.
The Imer concept is very interesting but it also falls short of what is needed.

Please explain why it falls short and what is needed?

I have seen it in action. There are no ink keys just a straight blade using variable controlled individual segmented ductors. It can be controlled when it ducts along with duration of duct. If the space between the ink blade and the ink ball varies a little so what just adjust the ductor for more or less contact time.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

Please explain why it falls short and what is needed?

I have seen it in action. There are no ink keys just a straight blade using variable controlled individual segmented ductors. It can be controlled when it ducts along with duration of duct. If the space between the ink blade and the ink ball varies a little so what just adjust the ductor for more or less contact time.

The positive features of the Imer concept are:

A zero ink feed is a true zero ink feed. A true zero ink feed condition is very positive since the zero point is the datum for any applied ink feed profile used. In conventional presses, it is almost impossible to get an accurate zero (ink feed) set point.

The ink feed profile is done by varying the time of contact of each ductor with the ink fountain roller. In the conventional ink fountain, variable gap is used which requires an expensive control system for the positional control of the gap via stepping motors or servos. The Imer only requires a solenoid on/off control which is much much less expensive and is much more precise in its ability to control. It is a binary function on the Imer concept. Manroland had a binary ink key patent, where the ink key only had two positions. It was a great idea but it can not work with conventional ductors due to timing issues.

The negative features of the Imer concept :

Basically the ductor action of the Imer concept is no different than a conventional ductor and therefore one would see ink/water balance issues causing density variation due to variation in ink transfer from the ink fountain roller to the press roller train.

One would also see ink contamination from backtrapping and water get back into the ink fountain but not as bad as with the conventional system. This problem would be less with the Imer concept and much more related to print coverage. The lower the coverage, the less contamination will go back to the ink fountain with the Imer concept.

So what is needed:

A positive ink feed that is consistent, predictable and independent of the numerous variables that now affect ink feed into the press.

An accurate zero setting method.

And in addition to the hardware, what is required is an accurate algorithm to calculate the required ink feed profile.

All of these do not exist on modern conventional presses. That is where there are opportunities that can be obtained at low cost and fairly quickly.

There are other press design issues that can be addressed to make further improvements.

There are lots of things that can be done if there is a true interest to make better presses. A strong interest in making something much better is what is now missing.

 

[Green Printer]

Basically the ductor action of the Imer concept is no different than a conventional ductor and therefore one would see ink/water balance issues causing density variation due to variation in ink transfer from the ink fountain roller to the press roller train.

With proper fountain and ink chemistry this is none issue

One would also see ink contamination from backtrapping and water get back into the ink fountain but not as bad as with the conventional system. This problem would be less with the Imer concept and much more related to print coverage. The lower the coverage, the less contamination will go back to the ink fountain with the Imer concept.

With proper ink chemistry this is a none issue

So what is needed:

A positive ink feed that is consistent, predictable and independent of the numerous variables that now affect ink feed into the press.

Again with proper fountain and ink chemistry this is a none issue

accurate zero setting method.

And in addition to the hardware, what is required is an accurate algorithm to calculate the required ink feed profile.

Already done and in production for over 15 years

 

[Deleted member 16349]

With proper fountain and ink chemistry this is none issue








With proper ink chemistry this is a none issue



Again with proper fountain and ink chemistry this is a none issue




Already done and in production for over 15 years

I will leave you with your misconceptions.

 

[Green Printer]

I will leave you with your misconceptions.

Also I will leave you with yours.

 

[gordo]

Immaculate misconception!
!-)

 

[Alois Senefelder]

Decline and Fall

Decline and Fall

Gentlemen,


Deus ex Machina fundamentals of

1) The offset press inking system is a Mechanical Gear Driven means of Fluid Transportation

2) The chemistry of F.S./Ink only come into operation at the Plate Inkers/Plate Nip.

3) Next obstacle the plate cyl. gap.


Regards, Alois

 

[Bagfoot]

I recall back in the 1980s Bakker Perkins had an ink ducker system very simmilar to this...it had its problems....

 

[Cornishpastythighs]

I recall back in the 1980s Bakker Perkins had an ink ducker system very simmilar to this...it had its problems....

Ah the good old Aller Undulating ink Ductor system.A segmented ductor roller used in the inking system of the Baker Perkins printing press used in web offset lithography. Each segment of the undulating roller is set off-center with respect to the other sections. Thus, some segments are picking up ink from the fountain roller, while others are transferring ink to the rest of the roller train. The Aller undulating roller accurately controls the distribution of ink laterally across the press.

 

[Dan Roll]

The CUIM ink ductor was a classic example of replacing a simple mechanism with a complex one based on theoretical benefits that turned out to be difficult to measure. Since high speed web presses all employ oscillating ink rollers, fine graduations of control over the feeding or ink or fountain solution across the press are difficult to maintain with any level of precision (or at all) except when running heavy coverage, and even then not over long runs. What I refer to as the 'PERRETTA Blast Dampener' (I have no idea what the Perretta brothers called it) had thirty two individual spray nozzles that blew fountain solution off the top of a pan roller into the press and, in theory, gave super fine, nozzle by nozzle, control or water across the press, set with the same console controls that ran the inker. They had set up a laser which clearly showed how fine the mist blown off the pan roller was and the distinctions in volume from nozzle to nozzle were easy to see.

However, as a practical matter, the work produced on Bakers equipped with the CUIM ductor and on the press equipped with the prototype blast dampener (it was installed on a Toshiba, if I remember clearly, always a risky matter) didn't look any different to customers than work produced on comparatively primitive Harris equipment of the same era employing much less expensive to manufacture ink ductors and water systems. Even with the oscillation of the inker disabled, it was difficult to see any difference in the work produced with the blast dampener than the Hantcho press in the same plant with a four roller continuous dampener. This is one of the reasons I am always suspicious of spray dampening, another complex mechanism doing the same job as a less complicated (and easier to clean) continuous dampening system.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

The CUIM ink ductor was a classic example of replacing a simple mechanism with a complex one based on theoretical benefits that turned out to be difficult to measure. Since high speed web presses all employ oscillating ink rollers, fine graduations of control over the feeding or ink or fountain solution across the press are difficult to maintain with any level of precision (or at all) except when running heavy coverage, and even then not over long runs. What I refer to as the 'PERRETTA Blast Dampener' (I have no idea what the Perretta brothers called it) had thirty two individual spray nozzles that blew fountain solution off the top of a pan roller into the press and, in theory, gave super fine, nozzle by nozzle, control or water across the press, set with the same console controls that ran the inker. They had set up a laser which clearly showed how fine the mist blown off the pan roller was and the distinctions in volume from nozzle to nozzle were easy to see.

However, as a practical matter, the work produced on Bakers equipped with the CUIM ductor and on the press equipped with the prototype blast dampener (it was installed on a Toshiba, if I remember clearly, always a risky matter) didn't look any different to customers than work produced on comparatively primitive Harris equipment of the same era employing much less expensive to manufacture ink ductors and water systems. Even with the oscillation of the inker disabled, it was difficult to see any difference in the work produced with the blast dampener than the Hantcho press in the same plant with a four roller continuous dampener. This is one of the reasons I am always suspicious of spray dampening, another complex mechanism doing the same job as a less complicated (and easier to clean) continuous dampening system.

Dan, Thanks for the information on the work of Perretta on spray dampening. I was not aware of that effort.

Personally I am very interested in the future development of spray or even drip dampening into the roller train but that can only be done effectively when the ink feed problem is solved. Once ink feed is made independent of changes in water conditions in the press, dampening can be applied more easily and with less costly technology directly into the roller train and without the related problems of the existing roller dampening units with their recirculation systems.

This is one of the potentially low cost improvements that can be applied to the offset lithographic process. But problems need to be done in specific order. The fundamental problems need correcting before the secondary problems can be properly addressed.

 

[Dan Roll]

I was involved in an experiment long ago where a brush dampener (pan and brush) were located in several configurations;
1 conventionally, spraying onto a chrome roller in contact with a form roller
2 with the chrome roller removed, the pan/brush system was moved forward and sprayed directly onto the form roller
3 with the form roller removed, the pan/brush system moved forward again to spray directly onto the plate
4 the pan/brush system relocated to spray directly into the ink system, between the ink form and ink oscillator

As in most experiments of this kind there was not enough paper available to get an good comparison between these setups, but on the short runs that were made, all seemed to work about the same. What was then the Rand McNally plant in Versailes KY did about the same thing using Smith spray dampeners and even went to the extent of building oscillating devices to move some of the spray units themselves side to side. They used all of the configurations listed above for the brush dampener experiments and experienced about the same results. Rand McNally had the advantage of using all of the these presses (there were two presses with more than one configuration each) for production work and were able to accumulate a lot of experience.

I do not know if Larry Peretta ever sold one of his dampeners, it was an interesting idea and beautifully executed. It worked fine and didn't have the potential for clogging that plagues systems that spray fountain solution, as it only sprayed air. I was a little dubious about the amount of overspray, but it retrospect it was minor compared to that seen with the modern high pressure spray systems. I saw a four unit M1000 equipped with a ##### spray dampener that accumulated 55 gallons of overspray a day, about one third of the fountain solution used. This had to be disposed of as it was contaminated with all sorts of gunk and dirt from the press.

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I was involved in an experiment long ago where a brush dampener (pan and brush) were located in several configurations;
1 conventionally, spraying onto a chrome roller in contact with a form roller
2 with the chrome roller removed, the pan/brush system was moved forward and sprayed directly onto the form roller
3 with the form roller removed, the pan/brush system moved forward again to spray directly onto the plate
4 the pan/brush system relocated to spray directly into the ink system, between the ink form and ink oscillator

As in most experiments of this kind there was not enough paper available to get an good comparison between these setups, but on the short runs that were made, all seemed to work about the same. What was then the Rand McNally plant in Versailes KY did about the same thing using Smith spray dampeners and even went to the extent of building oscillating devices to move some of the spray units themselves side to side. They used all of the configurations listed above for the brush dampener experiments and experienced about the same results. Rand McNally had the advantage of using all of the these presses (there were two presses with more than one configuration each) for production work and were able to accumulate a lot of experience.

I do not know if Larry Peretta ever sold one of his dampeners, it was an interesting idea and beautifully executed. It worked fine and didn't have the potential for clogging that plagues systems that spray fountain solution, as it only sprayed air. I was a little dubious about the amount of overspray, but it retrospect it was minor compared to that seen with the modern high pressure spray systems. I saw a four unit M1000 equipped with a ##### spray dampener that accumulated 55 gallons of overspray a day, about one third of the fountain solution used. This had to be disposed of as it was contaminated with all sorts of gunk and dirt from the press.

I think it is great that people have tried to develop new concepts. Of course many of them were doomed from the beginning due to poor theoretical knowledge but that is another issue.

As far as applying dampening into the roller train, I would try a low pressure drip like system that applies the water higher up in the roller train. This way the roller train has time to mix it in with the ink to get a more uniform mixture by the time it gets to the plate. There would be no over spray and no recirculation system. Very neat and low cost.

The trick about making technology simple is to understand what the actual problem is and think of that in way that is independent of technology. When one understands what the real physical need is, then apply the simplest technology to make that happen.

The industry needs to get back to more experimenting. My view is that it needs to be backed up with theory development but anyhow more experimenting is required on new ideas.

 

[Dan Roll]

I have never considered a 'drip' dampener, but exactly how or where the dampening fluid is entered into the system appears to be less than critical.
The vast number of used (more accurately, no longer used) web presses on the market raise the difficult question of if any innovation in press design would produce a machine with running economies or first cost advantages to outweigh the low cost of a re-furbished press like a M1000 or M110. These machines compete well with new presses on quality, but not on speed. Not everyone can make use of high speed though, it pains me to see printers running at 70,000 an hour on jobs that are only forty thousand impressions when there are no plates waiting for the next run. One of my old bosses used to run through the pressroom yelling "these jobs have to be done on time! SLOW DOWN!!!"

 

[Deleted member 16349]

I have never considered a 'drip' dampener, but exactly how or where the dampening fluid is entered into the system appears to be less than critical.
The vast number of used (more accurately, no longer used) web presses on the market raise the difficult question of if any innovation in press design would produce a machine with running economies or first cost advantages to outweigh the low cost of a re-furbished press like a M1000 or M110. These machines compete well with new presses on quality, but not on speed. Not everyone can make use of high speed though, it pains me to see printers running at 70,000 an hour on jobs that are only forty thousand impressions when there are no plates waiting for the next run. One of my old bosses used to run through the pressroom yelling "these jobs have to be done on time! SLOW DOWN!!!"

Besides the potential for developing totally new press designs, I have always stated that existing press designs can be modified at relatively low cost, to obtain most of the benefit of a totally new design. The transition period would be to retrofit existing presses before the longer term goal of totally new designs are available. Learn from the retrofit process.

The only thing that stops this from happening is the reluctance of press manufacturers to play with new ideas. Doing nothing significant results in nothing significant happening.

 

[wld85022]

When shops can replace 3 machines with one and still maintain tthe same productivity that in itself lowers the number of machines required.

Where are these legendary machines? I have never seen them in forty years of printing. I assume you mean "copiers" you can call them digital or whatever but toner based machines are slow and expensive. Period. And require very little intelligence to operate. That's why they are so popular. Productive? Hardly.

 

[Al Ferrari]

post deleted.