Azura Plate Cleaner Solution

[RGPW17100]

Anybody know what this stuff is made of? It sure is expensive. I wonder if you can take a half gallon of plate gum and mix it with 4.5 gallons of distilled water and if it would work. As part of our maintenance of the clean out unit we run water through it on Friday and leave water hooked up to it all weekend. Monday morning we hook up the cube of the clean out solution and run a rinse cycle and we are good for a week. Our press operator needed a plate early morning on Monday and made one and ran it with no problems. I asked him about the plate and he said it looked fine out of the clean up unit and ran up fine on press. My guess is that this stuff is mainly water to remove the Teflon beads after exposure then there is some kind of gum to prevent oxidation.

[SteveAgfa]

Hello RGPW...

As you have noted, Azura plates do clean-out with simple water.

But yes, since you have exposed the grained and anodized
aluminum surface, like traditional plates, the plate is subject
to oxidation if left around the plant "un-gummed" for too long.

What's in Azura clean-out gum? Basically it's water, a surfactant
(wetting agent like detergent), and a "gum". The wetting agent
speeds the soaking of the latex (not teflon) spheres, which then
dissolve in water.

The Azura wash/gum solution is optimized to ensure efficient
removal of unexposed emulsion, and to leave a suitable protective
layer to meet the plate specification for "laying around the shop in
open lighting and air for a few days" (or something to that effect).

I hope this helps.

[J]

But yes, since you have exposed the grained and anodized
aluminum surface, like traditional plates, the plate is subject to oxidation if left around the plant "un-gummed" for too long.
What's in Azura clean-out gum? Basically it's water, a surfactant (wetting agent like detergent), and a "gum". The wetting agent speeds the soaking of the latex (not teflon) spheres, which then dissolve in water.

I notice that you sometimes put "gum" in quotation marks - which, if I understand correctly would mean that it is not actually a gum but some other chemistry. Perhaps it just acts like a gum? Or am I misunderstanding you. Azura brochures use the term "gum" without qualification. But Kodak says that there is no gum in the Azura processing chemistry/clean out unit. Is that true? The Azura brochures also use the term "chemistry-free" in an unqualified fashion. However, doesn't the clean out unit use chemistry to accomplish its function?

Thank you. J

[SteveAgfa]

Hi J:

Once again we're getting into semantics.

The bottom line is that the system works
in a broad range of applications, and due
to its inherent features and benefits, about
80% of the "processless" plates from the
Big 3 are Agfa plates.

True - the clean-out solution of our original
Azura is/was more like a detergent than gum,
our new clean-out solution paired with Azura TS
is more like a gum - it even smells like gum arabic.

Our new Azura TS gum is brownish, has a neutral
pH of 7, has an anti-algae agent, an anti-foam
agent, and the plate protective gum. Plain old gum
arabic it's not - but to use common parlance, it's a
gum.

As we had to coin a new genre for this technology,
chem-free was chosen. The aim was to denote that
there was/is no developer... that the image was
defined and formed in the engine... the unexposed
areas remained to be cleaned-out. We chose to
do this off-press - given all the benefits.

One can argue semantics, but not the success of
Azura across a wide swath of applications.

We welcome side-by-side press tests of Azura TS
against not only competitive "processless" technolgies,
but conventional thermal plates as well.

Regards,

[J]

Thank you Steve. I feel like a bit of a go between because of what Kodak is saying on their Grow your Biz blog: h t t p://growyourbiz.kodak.com/default.asp?item=2385880#comments
I hope you don't mind that I've quoted your explanations.

best J

[SteveAgfa]

J:

Ah.... I didn't realize you cross-posted my response.

I prefer to respond to questions from customers/
individuals, rather than respond to the agenda-
shifting desire of a product manager from a
worthy competitor. This issue is not one of
semantics, but rather practicality and productivity.

Although in the comment section, you seem to be
arguing on our behalf; thank you. You might also
want to check out the thought process of "BeerMonster"
in Cambridge. He too initially thought the absolute of
processless was the key. Then he started looking into
the features and benefits of all related technologies
on the market.

He notes that given the features and benefits important
to his needs, he chose Azura, although his journey was
initially taking him a different direction.

The "article" you quoted tries to poke holes in Azura based
on naming convention and normal application. The author
does not discuss the process involved to clean-out on
press, nor the lack of image contrast, nor the inability
to handle the plates in white light before/after imaging
of his "develop-on-press" genre of "processless" plates.

However, as I said before - do a side-by-side comparison.
That will help turn semantics into application and reality.
And, I believe "Santa" has made some recent comments
surrounding the new Azura gum for the new Azura TS.

Regards,

[SteveAgfa]

J:

Here's a snapshot comparing two types of develop-on-press technologies to that of Azura.
Which would you rather take out to your pressroom? And yes, they all have the same image.
(I'll give you three guesses which plate is Azura).

Regards,

[J]

J:
Ah.... I didn't realize you cross-posted my response.
I prefer to respond to questions from customers/individuals, rather than respond to the agenda-shifting desire of a product manager from a worthy competitor.

I hadn't meant to, I was only trying to get clarity regarding Kodak's charges (on their blog) of misleading Agfa marketing slogans and lack of honesty with its customers.

As always, you have answered the issue with clarity. Also, I love the photo of the exposed plates :-)

J

[beermonster]

i've posted many times on this - NOT to pontificate about the plate - more to pass on my real world experiences with it, why i chose it, the benefits, the weaknesses (not good with metallics and tougher substrates) - if you want to get involved with fuji/kodak over the "name" then your focus is in the wrong place

its not the cheapest plate. the gum isnt that expensive really - i suppose it depends how many plates you use a day etc - therefore gum usage

i couldnt give a damm what fuji said to me (that "all i had to do was build a light fast area.....and for storage of imaged plates too") or that kodak seem to be the ones poking the semantics stick - its a waste of time - whats important is if the plate works for YOU

if not - there are plenty to choose from. my goal was initially full removal of chemistry - which headed me fuji/kodak way - even trialled the fuji ProT - press were fine with em - BUT they hated the fact there was no way to check them - NOT just tints but content too - here press do a content check as well - against signed of proofs - and they've spotted a few things so its valuable

so - if cant get rid of all chemicals then reduce - and to one gum giving a clean lightfast plate was perfect

pm me if you want any more info - search me on here to see my posts - but this info is from the coalface