by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
FLEXO Magazine : December 2012
engravings were employed. Volumes were chosen based on original engraving specification from multiple anilox suppli- ers—some rolls wear more than others. Choosing the original specification as nominal does not infer the nominal volume is completely accurate. It represents a reference point with minimal bias toward any system. ANILOX Based on the above parameters, rolls available at Clem- son University that met the criteria were employed. All were closed-cell, 60-degree engravings. There were three circum- ferential measurements on each roll, multiplied by four opera- tors, totaling 12 readings: Narrow Web - Small Diameter Mid Web – Mid Diameter Large Format Corrugated Roll dia. 2.62-in. Roll dia. 4 .457-in. Roll dia. 8.5-in. 120lpi/14bcm 120 lpi / 12.3 bcm 330 lpi / 5.0 bcm 550/3.0 240/8.0 550/3.2 800/3.5 500/5.0 900/1.6 900/1.8 900/2.2 Kern Cox, Clemson University, outlined, in detail, the proce- dures and coordinated the entire exercise. This is an example of the form to capture data: Volunteer Companies Participating in the Measuring: • Clemson University; two graphic arts students partici- pated as novices • Harper Corporation of America • Microdynamics • Pamarco Global Graphics • Praxair Surface Technologies • ARCS –Anilox Roll Cleaning Systems Inc. • Provident Group / Troika MEASUREMENT RESULTS Claypole analyzed the data, extrapolating the following results and summary. Reliability: While all systems show the same general trends within the mean volume graph, the microscope system has much higher results with the higher volumes. This becomes much clearer, considering the difference to nominal volume of the system (see Difference to Nominal graph). The microscope system produces a significantly higher volume at the higher nominal volumes. The four most consistent systems (Anicam, 3DQC, Microfax and Liquid Volume) all report a volume lower than the nominal for the RANkINg fOR REpROdUcIbILITy ANd REpEATAbILITy • 3DQC Microdynamics • Troika Anicam and Microfax (depending upon mea- suring method of the Microfax) • Liquid Volume Measurement • Capatch • Microscope 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15. 0 Mean Volume Anicam 3DQC Scope Capatch LVM Microfax 28 FLEXO december 2012 www.flexography.org