Press Futures - Full Automation, Part I

future of gar-
ion, one must
Automa
t6i
a
he screen-printing public got it‘s first look at automated
T-shirt loading and unloading equipment at last year’s SPA1
event. Such emergent technologies have stirred a lot of talk,
yet extending automation to previously manual tasks is not in any
sense a new idea. While they appear to have been beaten to the
punch, most press manufacturers admit, off the record, to having
at least considered such innovations. Attempts to build prototypes
have been an open secret in the industry for some time. With the
subject now a matter of public discussion, M & R Printing Equipment’s Mike Sweers (Glen Ellyn, Ill.) reveals, “We’ve tried to
develop automatic load and unload technology for our carousel
presses for about 2-112 to 3 years, but we don’t have it working consistently enough to introduce it to the industry.”
Conversely, says Precision Screen Machines‘ David Jaffa
(Hawthorne, N.J.), “We developed automatic loaders for towel
and cut-piece production 25 years ago.“
Given that, and in the context of manufacturing in general, the
question might fairly be asked: why is it takingso long? Indeed, “To
any other industry, even our automatic shirt printers are not
automatic - they’re semi-automatic,” says Richardson Industries’
Jeff Richardson (Westerville, Ohio).
T
Definitely maybe
Yet well-placed printers and equipment makers recently surveyed
on automation’s future are sharply divided on the subjects of
wheii, and even if, such technolcgy wi!! move from shew floor to
production floor.
While printer Mark Coudray of Serigraphic Designs Inc. (San Luis
Obispo, Calif.) sees automated loading/unloading as “definitely a
Labor intensity (top
left): “Okay, one
more time: you load
’em, he sprays the
platen and I unload
‘em.“ ..,Unless
automated
loading/unloading
technology ([eft)
becomes commonplace in
garment-printing
shops. Pictured is
an M H M prototype
unveiled at last
year‘s SPA1 show.
tion,
By Michael D. Musselman
MAY 1993
e
PRINTWEAR MAGAZINE
17
.
I
Cou&ay
r
c
-
thing is no1
to make
s faster, but to
realistic situation,” he has necessarily adopted a wait-and-see posture. “It’s not a mature technology yet.”
Fellow printer Rick Bach (Printworks, Franklin, Wis.), who has
witnessed both public and as yet undisclosed efforts, agrees that,
“Quality,” rather than speed, “is the number-one issue,” regarding
such automation. “That means correct positioning on pallet is a
major concern. I think they‘ve got a long way to go on that.” Mechanized loading must, for Bach, at least duplicate that of the human
loader ... as a minimum.
And, as it turns out, that’s asking a lot. Not only does the garment printer have to open and slide his “part” - the individual
T-shirt - over the platen rather than simply laying it against a set
of stops, his problem is compounded by that part itself.
Load/unload automation is common in many industries, including
closely related graphics and even textile yard-goods segments of
the screen-printing industry. But all such technologies share in
common the uniformity of the substrate.
However, says Jaffa, “Look at average T-shirts. Lay two
side-by-side and tell me if they‘re identical. Automation really
requires substrate continuity in order for loading or unloading to
work flawlessly. In the long run, the automatic feeders we built years
ago proved to be more problem than benefit, due to substrate discontinuity.”
No two alike?
Insignificant (to end user) variations in texture, construction,
weight and actual dimensions within a single garment category despite being the same style, same size, from same mill and so o n
- not to mention variations between say, a T-shirt and a sweatshirt, force load/unload engineers to tackle the job of duplicating
a human loader’s eye-hand compensation: “It’s really so subtle and
intricate, it’s next-to-impossible to duplicate,” says Sweers.
What’s more, once developed, automated load/unload mechanisms will spawn as many questions as they answer. Unloading
equipment, for example, will eliminate a critical quality-inspection
point. “You need someone looking at that image coming off the
Faster changeovers:
One of t h e areas
receiving the
greatest concentration of R&D is that
af Fedcclng
rttengeover t h e QCI
machines such as
this all-over monster d r ~ m
Advance
American.
press,” Coudray insists. “If the catcher at the end of the dryer is the
first set of eyes to see the print, you’ve got two, three or four
dozen garments in the pipeline before you see the first one. I
think the risk is too high until we can find better ways of controlling
issues that degrade the print.” On a hopeful note in that regard,
Richardson intimates that his company, within the next year,
may have a system designed to spot misprints or pinholes and other
common flaws, and cue an automatic shutdown to avoid product
loss. Regardless, Chicago-based Advance Group’s Rick Fuqua contends that the arrival of production-worthy systems is still more
a matter of if than when: “It‘s questionable whether or not, even
when you have a fully automated line, you’ll save on personnel.
There are enough inconsistencies in T-shirts that even if you get
it to load automatically, you’ve got to attend to it constantly.”
While that may achieve a worthy ergonomic goal - less hardship
for the employee - said employee will still be there, checking
continued on page 24
Where did I put
that wrench?:
Tools-free technology has gone a
long way toward
saving time when
changing over
from one job t o
the next
but
such time i s still a
garment printer’s
most expensive.
-
’
machine performance, and taking care of the additional tasks created by the technology, such as loading the loader with shirts
and precisely restacking them for prints on the backside. And
who (or what) will spray-tack the pallets? For that matter, on the
other end of the production line, how will unloading mechanisms compensate for variations in tack strength? And unless the
machine can unload alternately to the left and right, of what
value 60-inch or wider conveyor belts? Will a machine that eliminates labor but not its cost ultimately attract buyers? Says Fuqua:
“1’11be very much amazed if within five years you see an automatic
machine loading and unloading in a profitable way.”
But Sweers believes a net increase in production speed will
generate the profits that will lure buyers: “Everybody’s equipment can do up to 90 dozen an hour, but there’s not a human being
out there who can feed at that rate for eight hours - consistently. The only way to approach and maintain those speeds is to
go fidly automatic.”
Taking another tack
Until that day, however, manufacturers might do well to seek
production speed elsewhere. “The key thing is not so much to make
machines faster, but to reduce changeover times,” says Coudray,
the prime downtime target, of course, being screen registration.
“I’ve been calling for an automatic registration device since
1985,” says OATS helmsman Jerry Claus (Cape May Court House,
N.J.). “One-third of my production time, I don‘t print shirts. Out
of that third, 80 percent, or a quarter of my production time, is
set-up and tear-down.’’ Claus does use the M & R Online Registration
System, but frankly foresees the need for a better, and preferably
on-press means to accomplish the task. “People don’t really understand what costs are involved in set-up and tear down,” he says.
“Ultimately, I get paid when I print, not when I don’t print. So
‘What keeps me from printing?’ is the only question you have to
ask.”
According to Argon U.S.A.’s Tony Pernicello, an answer already
exists. He reports screen printers in northern Italy have for some
time enjoyed the use of belt printers built by an Argon subsidiary,
and equipped with automatic on-board, in-head screen-registration
devices that eliminate the manual task of image registration altogether.
No-tweak technology
Linear actuators on each head, linked to special sighting
devices, register each successive screen, each time it prints, to
the print preceding it. Machine operators simply load the screens
... and go. w
“It’s not new technology either,” Pernicello notes. “It’s adapted
from the machine-tool industry.”
Familiar with such technology, Jaffa contends that lack of
such on T-shirt presses - unlike load/unload technology -is less
a matter of technical difficulty than of sheer expense: “I’ve got
devices that will automatically regulate squeegee pressure, but
they’re anywhere from $500 to $6000 apiece. You can automate
anything to any degree you want, but you’ve got to be willing to
n a x r for it.’‘
r-i
Coudray doesn't expect on-press auto-registration to replace
more conventional pin-type and other existing pre-registration aids:
'I don't see stepping motors or optical encoders as being feasible
for us. The accuracy we require for high-quality printing makes it
cost prohibitive. If it's fairly loose (art), it may be affordable. But
what we're looking at, as far as process color and the like, would
require fairly sophisticated encoders and stepping motors that
are beyond the price we can really afford to add to the equipment."
Manufacturers aren't likely to abandon attempts to speed registration, though. "Its such an unproductive area of the process,"
maintains Fuqua, "that people will always work on that, even if they
get (set-up times) down to a fraction of what they are now."
Yet whether printers greet future efforts to achieve full automation with the same enthusiasm they have embraced past breakthroughs is questionable, Coudray maintains.
The glass ceiling
As a growing pool of printers competes for a no-longer-infinite
%n
9t
Though perhaps overshadowed by speculation about full
.omation, the computer is certain to claim a wider role in its
he. Manufacturers, says Advance's Rick Fuqua, aren't likely
%sist the opportunity to optimize computer-control techogy already on board many machines: "We've paid for the
dware, but we're not using a11 the capabilities. So you'll see a
more automatic control coming from microprocessors."
igraphic's Mark Coudray expects manufacturers will focus on
tware technology that's aiready demonstrated
Jrn-on-investment potential: computerized production man?merit. He says existing and imminent innovations will continue to broaden the computer's ability to
"talk" to presses directly: "I see better control features and management-accounting
features." Automated job-report software
which records such data as press settings,
number of prints and downtime will allow
the printer comprehensive insights into his
shop's productivity and cost-effectiveness
on a job-by-job basis. Such systems,
Coudray notes, take guesswork out of
management and paperwork out of the
hands of those who make you more money
as printers than bOOkKeepfi5.
M B R's Mike Sweers predicts the computer wili take a pivI role in press maintenance and troubleshooting. Diagnostic
:ware, already a reality on some presses, will become more
Ihisticated. And the next step? "Using a modem for troushooting over the phone lines," says Sweers. Rather than
z a press operator whose untrained eye may misread sympIS, service technicians will be able to "talk" to the machine
xtly, via a computer located on the manufacturer's end.
1, as if all this talk about talk wasn't enough, Sweers adds: "I
I see voice-actuated equipment coming down the line here
~
-
automate
to any degree
:,
but you’ve
number of prints, Coudray sees a growing reluctance on the part
of even the largest shops to invest greater sums in equipment: ‘‘I
see downward pressure on pricing as the industry continues to
experience over-capacity. This is a dilemma for everyone in the
graphics industries right now - not just screen printers.”
The increased maintenance necessary to keep fully automated
production lines operating would become a big issue, Sweers adds,
in an industry where in-house press maintenance has never been
a top priority; additional costs for employees qualified to maintain
such machines must be factored in. Given all that, Jaffa observes,
“You‘rebuying the automation to give yourself an edge on the competition - but are you really getting that edge?”
For him, the time is near when printers will see that increasingly
automated systems invariably involve trade-offs. Though automated
loading, unloading, registration and a host of other features have
been on manufacturers‘ drawing boards and printers’ wish lists for
years, Jaffa doubts that fact is a weathervane indicating which direction the winds of automation will blow: “Automation is reaching
its apex. It’s like a pendulum. It‘s swung in one direction toward more capability in the machine -but is already gathering
momentum to swing the other way.” Jaffa believes printers will soon
demonstrate disenchantment even with presently available
bells-and-whistzes, and opt for simpler machines. “I‘m not against
automation,” quips the 39-year automation vet, “but the future for
automation is, I think, headed toward a more simplistic machine
with basic features in it that relate to the 95 percent of what‘s
required in the course of a day: to index, print and then index
again.” Jaffa further maintains that up to 95 percent of a given
top-line, full-featured machine’s capabilities may be devoted to
functions useful during as little as five percent of its operating life,
including on his “hit” list such items as “touch-pad“ systems and
other convenient, but dispensable options. Not doubting their
value, at lest in theory, he does doubt whether printers will consider them necessities in the future, when placed into the context
Have your chip call
my chip: With computers and microprocessors
assuming more and
more control over
everything from
Indexing t o flash
cyc!!ng, human
error becomes less a
factor.
of their relative cost and importance in said printers’ hierarchy of
priorities.
Mindful of such obstacles to innovation, Sweers nevertheless
remains optimistic about fully automated printing: “There‘s
demand for it; the natural evolution of the process is taking us in
that direction. There’s no way to stop it and, eventually, somebody
is going to come up with something that works.”
In any case, with the foregoing as a foundation, debates over
the merits of automating manual tasks in today‘s semi-automated
shop are likely to rage on, right up to the moment such technology
proves its worth (or not) on somebody‘s production floor.
Next month: Partll explores an alternative vision for “full“ automation as well as arguments for theproposition that automation of either
stripe is less a matter of if than when.
Editor’s note: Atpress time for the May Printwear, the future of the
Advance Group (though showing some signs of progress) was still
undetermined. However, by the time this issue reaches the industry, the
situation may have been resolved. W e will report any changes as they
come to light, and inform our readers of the ultimate resolution in the
earliest possible issue.
w
NEW FOR SCREEN PRINTERS:
A
If You Use CorelDRAW! You Need DRAWlMa
DRAW!Mate makes using Corel easier and more practic
shortcuts and new features designed for your specific art a
Smart Design Templates Simplify Screen Pr
The Smart Design template system is one of DRAW!Mat
and type in your text. DRAW!Mate does the rest. Benefit
*Smart Design Templates
*Instant text effects
* h e touch scannin
*Sizeto fit for scree
For more ,information how DRAW!Mate works, call:
i
800-548-6297
31 3-772-6161
5’ 20602 Stephens St.. St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48080
-
DRAWIMate is a Q trademark of Stahls’ Inc. CorelDRAW!is a Q trademark of Corel Corp. 0 1993 Stahls‘ Inc.
See Us at PrintwearlScreen Graphics ’93- Detroit - Booth #‘s4413: 1455,14.17, $419 & 1421
Circle Reader Service No. 2
30
PRINTWEAR MAGAZINE
MAY 1993