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
The implications for quality control or consistent readings are best illustrated by calculating the standard deviation range about the measured mean for each system. A repre- sentative sample for a mid diameter roll is illustrated in the chart MID Diameter Roll 1 with a nominal volume of 12.3 bcm. The consistency of the microscope and Capatch systems can be improved by averaging more measurements on the same roll. However, even with nine measurements, the consistency of the microscope would only be improved to one third of the spread shown. The Anicam, Microfax and 3DQC produce consistent results but without overlapping differences in measured value and the tolerance bands. Thus, these systems would produce self-consistent results, but each would report a different nomi- nal value of its own. This difference could be due to the mode of operation or the calibration of each system. However, in some cases the results overlap, inferring an interaction of the measurement technique with the cell geometry. The Liquid Volume encompasses, or overlaps, the other systems results, excluding the microscope. Therefore, with repeat measure- ments it may produce a consistent result for quality control. Average standard deviations for the systems show that Troika/Anicam and Microdynamics/3DQC produce a more consistent result, regardless of roll diameter. The Microfax appears to improve in the precision of the measurement with roll diameter. The higher standard deviations would suggest a measurement system with lower precision. Overall, one could conclude that, in the range selected, the roll diameter has little effect. Although, the precision of the Capatch system and (to a lesser extent) the Microfax appears to improve with roll diameter. CONCLUSIONS As for reproducibility, novice-expert influences appear on the microscope data to be very skill-dependent and CONSIderatIONS • What method is best for your environment? Each has advantages and disadvantages. It depends on how much accuracy is required for the situa- tion. Ease-of-use in a pressroom should also be a consideration • More measurements would increase accuracy on Capatch and Liquid volume -3.00 -2.50 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 Ani cam 3DQC Scope Cap atch LVM Microfax Mean Novice - Expert MID 1 MID 2 MID 3 MID 4 SMALL 1 SMALL 2 SMALL 3 SMALL 4 LARGE 1 LARGE 2 LARGE 3 Average -1 .50 -1 .00 -0 .50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Anicam 3DQC Scope Capatch LVM Microfax SD Novice - Expert MID 1 MID 2 MID 3 MID 4 SMALL 1 SMALL 2 SMALL 3 SMALL 4 LARGE 1 LARGE 2 LARGE 3 Average 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Anilox Diameter Standard Deviation VS Diameter Anicam 3DQC Scope Capatch LVM Microfax 30 FLEXO december 2012 www.flexography.org