Robert Barnes from Spider Machines - Modern Technology -vs- Old Conventional Designs

Gilligan · September 9th, 2012, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreenShip

The funny thing is ... I got the whole Pepsi can thing from the MHM installers at a trade show when I was in my 20's LOL

So you admit that you stole that idea from a company you were trying to copy.

And being so forward thinking like you are... you were still doing the same thing 30 years later? They moved on to not even needing shims while you were still using Pepsi cans. LOL

Well, until you stole the idea of using better shims from Brian.

Ah, the cycle repeats.

15 years later you got a central off contact adjustment that isn't under the press like they did too.

Seems like you are always 15 years behind.

What will you steal next?

Printwizard · September 9th, 2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

No, I got it a LONG time ago... you have set your goals to beat what you CONSTANTLY refer to as the most technologically backwards company on there. Wow... SUPER high target to aim for.

And even when you beat them, you will only be SLIGHTLY faster in setups? Woo hoo! Celebrate man! You have made such a victory... beating the ones that you claim are the worse. That's the great thing about striving for mediocrity not really that hard to hit is it? Granted it did take you like 15 years.

In which time MHM has been cranking out technology beyond your wildest dreams.

You talk about wanting to advance screen printing technology but you seemed to have COMPLETELY taken your eye off the ball and got too busy paying WAY too much attention to the company you say is last in technology. You should have been looking at MHM and trying to keep up with someone that is WAY beyond your capabilities.

Truly sad to see you focused on what YOU claim is the one of the most technology backwards company... not sure I want someone that only strives to beat the bottom rung (according to you).

15 years ago these guys made this video, this was before you even started using Pepsi cans to shim up machines... these guys don't even NEED to shim their machines!

MHM Promotional Video from 1998 (Part 2) Not HD - YouTube

I think you missed the point: beating MnR but reliant on using as a cornerstone TriLoc which is developed and sold by MnR...

I like 2M machines but would prefer Robert to compare to all machines, not just have the blue hang-up....

ScreenShip · September 9th, 2012, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Printwizard

I think you missed the point: beating MnR but reliant on using as a cornerstone TriLoc which is developed and sold by MnR...

I like 2M machines but would prefer Robert to compare to all machines, not just have the blue hang-up....

Mike ... list the other brands you would like to discuss and lets do it in this thread :-)

Prosperi-Tees · September 9th, 2012, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreenShip

Both the MHM and the Mustang will setup faster than the C3 that's for sure ... so you are right there ... but the MHM X, S, and E definitely have a disadvantage when it comes to zero'ing out the micros after tweaks ... so ... Mustang will outshine them both over the long run ... I know its painful for you guys to see RWB in front of such an awesome machine like the Mustang -but- the videos coming out real soon are going to make your head exolode LOL

Why? On the micro advantage/disadvantage?

Printwizard · September 9th, 2012, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreenShip

Mike ... list the other brands you would like to discuss and lets do it in this thread :-)

Robert, you missed my point by your reply.

Not just this thread, but every forum and thread and video moving forward. Compare to others like Anatol and TAS and Schenk and sRoque and MHM and Lawson and brown and any others sold in the US in the same class. That also means you can stop comparing to machines bigger or smaller that wouldn't be relevant to the buyers size and budget or operational requirements.

Gilligan · September 9th, 2012, 05:29 PM

You know Robert, you act like getting the MHM micros back to ZERO is some incredibly hard feat.

But don't we all micro tune to "zero" every day with our screens? Of course this is also ONLY if you aren't balls on with your film application on the FPU. Which has been pointed out that DTS solves that issue. So even IF you have to adjust a head then all you really need to do is tune that one back into place (no unlocking of tuners on the MHM... does Mustang have that? Didn't think so)... this is something that most press ops are doing every day several times a day. So having to do it once in a blue moon isn't really that big of a deal. Think of the time saved not having to slide a jig in and out and spin that thing around to 16 plus stations. Whew... just not having to do all that crap one time around and you have enough time to zero out plenty of heads IF you actually ever need it.

Speaking of DTS, where is your DTS? Why are you still using films Mr. "I'm so technologically forward thinking" and "I'm pushing the screen industry forward"... hmm still using films? Well, hey, at least you aren't still cutting Rubylith by hand!

ScreenShip · September 9th, 2012, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prosperi-Tees

Why? On the micro advantage/disadvantage?

Shcmerry ... the MHM 4000 with auto-reg uses motor driven scren movement ... its badazz

Gilligan · September 9th, 2012, 10:10 PM

So did the 3000 15 years ago. Nothing new to them... it's news to some old hacks that are still trying to convince us that they are "forward thinking".

squeegee · September 9th, 2012, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prosperi-Tees

Why? On the micro advantage/disadvantage?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScreenShip

Shcmerry ... the MHM 4000 with auto-reg uses motor driven scren movement ... its badazz

See, he doesn't answer the question directly because he really doesn't know what he's talking about. He tried before to explain but it really didn't make much sense...*surprise*

Dime a dozen car saleman.

ScreenShip · September 10th, 2012, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilligan

You know Robert, you act like getting the MHM micros back to ZERO is some incredibly hard feat.

But don't we all micro tune to "zero" every day with our screens? Of course this is also ONLY if you aren't balls on with your film application on the FPU. Which has been pointed out that DTS solves that issue. So even IF you have to adjust a head then all you really need to do is tune that one back into place (no unlocking of tuners on the MHM... does Mustang have that? Didn't think so)... this is something that most press ops are doing every day several times a day. So having to do it once in a blue moon isn't really that big of a deal. Think of the time saved not having to slide a jig in and out and spin that thing around to 16 plus stations. Whew... just not having to do all that crap one time around and you have enough time to zero out plenty of heads IF you actually ever need it.

Speaking of DTS, where is your DTS? Why are you still using films Mr. "I'm so technologically forward thinking" and "I'm pushing the screen industry forward"... hmm still using films? Well, hey, at least you aren't still cutting Rubylith by hand!

Clearly you don't understand what zero'ing the micro means on the MHM printhead ... when a system is reliant on printheads aligning within the print tolerance -then- you must have a system to zero each head -but- it isn't as simple as turning knobs to a zero on a dial (unless that dial was digital)