Making your own decals...

On 7/16/2010 7:35 PM None spake thus:

Well, if you mean photocopying as in "put the decal paper into a copier and make a copy on it", then that's basically the same as using a laser printer (copiers are toner-based as well), so you'd need to use paper that's made for that process.

Unless it is an inkjet all-in-one, in which case it is just like an inkjet printer...

There are basicly two 'printing' techologies in (current) common use: inkjet (water based ink) or laser (backed on dry toner) and the same techologies are used for both photocopiers and printers. All-in-one / multifunction 'printers' just combine multiple subsystems into one unit, but the subsystems are the same when not in combination. (Yes, some older standalone faxes used a continious roll thermal printer system.)

Same issues as with laser printing. Photocopying uses the same process as a laser printer: the toner is sealed to the paper by heat. The difference between copying and printing is software. That's why "multi-function" laser printers/scanners/copiers are cheap.

cheers, wolf k.

On 7/17/2010 4:37 AM Robert Heller spake thus:

wrote:

Well, yes, except that if someone uses the term "photocopy", chances are they're referring to a commercial-type copy machine, which are 100% toner-based, not inkjet. (Desktop copiers, or all-in-one fax/printer/copier machines are often inkjet-based, it's true.)

I guess the person I responded to will have to tell us exactly what they meant here ...

Essentially, if you could photocopy it you wouldn't need some out-of- production printer. My Brothers printer photocopys in color. It was just a thought.

If it is a home office all-in-one / multifunction, it is an inkjet printer + scanner + faxmodem: printer+scanner == 'photocopier', faxmodem+printer == fax receiver, scanner+faxmodem == fax sender. There is no difference between *printing* (from the computer) and photocopying as far as getting ink on the paper. You'll need decal paper that can be printer with water based ink (inkjet) and you'll need to fix the *dry* ink afterward (eg dulcoat, etc.).

It sounds like there is an opportunity for an after-market entrepeneur to supply white cartridges for some of the popular printers.

He only needs to do it for one model, and the original manufacturer would sell a heck of them to railroad and other modellers.

It's been suggested many times. So far no takers.

On 7/18/2010 11:18 AM Larry Blanchard spake thus:

Probably because it wouldn't work, or at least would not work well, with inkjet printers. The Alps printers were not ink jet, but solid-ink (dye sublimation) printers, like the Tektronix ones still made today, that deposit a wax-based ink on the paper. It would be *extremely* difficult to formulate a white inkjet ink that would be thick enough to cover while still not clogging the ink jets.

Sounds like a good idea until you mull over the technical and economic problems.

Whether for inkjets or lasers, printing opaque white is tricky. White pigments opaque enough to be useful are oxides (eg, titanium oxide), AFAIK, the rest are metal salts. Both are abrasive, and the salts are chemically quite reactive. Developing a white ink cartridge is not impossible technically, but would be expensive. IIRC, the Alps printer uses a wax, which simply couldn't be used in an inkjet, but a variation might work in a Xerox laser (which uses a wax-based toner.)

How many is a heck of a lot? What would you pay for a white ink cartridge? $15? $25? $50? At $15, about the same as a colour cartridge, and sales of 100,000 per year, the retail gross would $1.5M, the mfr's would be about half that, net would be about 10% of that, or around $75K. Sounds like a lot, but suppose it cost you $500K (a low ball figure IMO) to develop that cartridge: it will take you about 8 years, not counting interest, before to recover your investment.

Are there sales for 100,000 or more white ink cartridges? I don't know, but there are certainly nowhere near that many sales to model railroaders. Fact is, the market for opaque white ink isn't large even in the printing trade.

cheers, wolf k.

On 7/18/2010 12:04 PM Wolf K spake thus:

Ackshooly, you're a *little* bit confused between laser and dye-sub printing technologies. Close, but not quite.

Laser printers (and most current copy machines) use dry toner which is not wax-based, but usually made of some type of fusible plastic particles, typically styrene, mixed with pigments (carbon black for black, other stuff for different colors). The printer or copier deposits the dry toner on the image areas of the copy/print electrostatically (the paper and toner are given opposite electrical charges at high potential, so the toner sticks to the paper), after which a fuser (basically just a hot roller) actually melts the toner onto the paper. This is why you need special decal paper for laser printers, because of the heat.

Dye-sub printers use a different method; they use solid ink, in the form of wax bars, which are actually vaporized by the printhead, hence the "sublimation" part (the ink goes directly from solid to vapor form, without turning to liquid in between), whence it is sprayed onto the paper. When it cools back to solid, it adheres to the paper. It's almost like using a crayon and a blowtorch to create an image on paper.

These printers are variously called "phase-change" (hence the "Phaser" trade name), dye-sublimation or dye-sub, or "solid ink" printers.

I actually have one here, a Tektronix Phaser, which anyone in the area (S.F. Bay Area) can have if they want it. It's *huge* and works, although it needs a little attention (plus replacement ink cartridges). I've used it to make model RR signs, which are much, much better than inkjet since they don't run or smear, plus they're much more resistant to fading. Print resolution is 300 DPI, I think.

Xerox calls their solid toner a wax. Maybe so's not to confuse potential customers with technical details.

'ta for the technical details. ;-)

wolf k.

And the market is incredibly small.

That is a heck of a deal! I think they still run about $1K for the least expensive model.

Awfully nice of you to make that offer, David!

Kudos!

~Pete

Actually....

Phaser 8560/n $599 (after $200 rebate) Save with a trade-in rebate

On 7/18/2010 3:47 PM Twibil spake thus:

Well, it's on Craigslist now (in the free section); someone gave it to me, and it's clear it's in the "I'm probably never going to use it" category, so it's time to pass it on.

If someone here wants it, they can have it (must pick it up).

discussion of this in these ng's awhile back, but I

Yes, I have - excellent decal paper! I only use their laser paper since I print using my ancient Alps printer!

There is also a lot of misinformation about Alps printers in general. First of all, printing method used for printing decals is NOT DyeSub. It is thermal ink transfer using wax/resin ink (no sublimation takes place - ink is deposited on top of the decal paper). Alps printers (MD-5500) were still being made until the end of May 2010. There are still thousands of users out there (over 3000 Alps users belong to the Alps and alpsdecal Yahoo groups). Ink is still being produced by Alps (for the next 5 years). While coarse halftones are a downfall of Alps color printing there are many ink layering techniques which give solid colors. Overall using Alps is sometimes frustrating and time intensive process, the results are stunning! There is nothing else like Alps in consumer market (read: affordable).

Peteski

On 7/19/2010 11:55 PM Peter W. spake thus:

Not sure that's a misunderstanding: "sublimation" means going directly from solid to vapor phase. The ink is still deposited on top of the printed sheet, same as with laser or inkjet.

Good to know. I shoulda bought one when they were still plentiful and cheap on eBay.