A Study of The Effect of Ink Viscosity On Dot Gain in Offset Lith

Rochester Institute of Technology
RIT Scholar Works

Theses Thesis/Dissertation Collections
5-1-1985
A study of the effect of ink viscosity on dot gain in

offset lithography
David Dailey
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses
Recommended Citation
Dailey, David, "A study of the effect of ink viscosity on dot gain in offset lithography" (1985). Thesis. Rochester Institute of
Technology. Accessed from
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please contact ritscholarworks@rit.edu.
A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF INK VISCOSITY ON
DOT GAIN IN OFFSET LITHOGRAPHY
by
DAVID GORDON DAI LEY
A thesis submitted in partial fullfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Master of Science in the
School of Printing in the College of Graphic Arts and Photography
of the Rochester Institute of Technology
May 1985
Thesis Advisors: Dr. Julius Silver

Chester Daniels
I, DAVID GORDON DAILEY, prefer to be contacted each time a request
for reproduction is made. I can be reached at the following address.
910 Gail Avenue

Neenah, WI 54956
/XS"
2/
DATE:
+
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the following for their time, help and
patience:
Mr. Chet Daniels of the Technical and Education Center of the
Graphic Arts and Dr. Julius Silver for technical advice and help in
experimental planning; Mr. William Eisner of the Technical and
Education Center of the Graphic Arts and Mr. Lloyd Swisher of Ron
Ink Company for donation of materials; Mrs. Anne Vogt for typing;
and the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation for assistance during my
studies.
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT 1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE 1
BACKGROUND 1
DOT GAIN 1
INK PROPERTIES 7
FOOTNOTES 10
CHAPTER II
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 12
FOOTNOTES 14
CHAPTER III
LITERATURE REVIEW 15
FOOTNOTES 17
CHAPTER IV
HYPOTHESIS 18
CHAPTER V
METHODOLOGY 19
FOOTNOTES 23
CHAPTER VI
MEANS REQUIRED 24
CHAPTER VII
ANALYSIS OF DATA 25
FOOTNOTES 54
CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS 55
CHAPTER IX
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY 59
APPENDIX A
DEFINITION OF TERMS 61
m
APPENDIX B
DERIVATION OF MURRAY-DAVIES EQUATION 63
APPENDIX C
INSTRUMENTATION 64
APPENDIX D
PRESS RUN DOCUMENTATION 66
APPENDIX E
YATES TABLE FOR EXPERIMENT 67
APPENDIX F
SUMMARY TABLES OF EXPERIMENT 75
APPENDIX G
TACK VALUES AND RELATION TO VISCOSITY 84
APPENDIX H
TEST FORM FOR EXPERIMENT 85
IV
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Correlation of Percent Solvent Ink

and Viscosity
Table 2 Smoothness Values of Papers
Table 3 Porosity of Papers
Table 4 Density of K & N Oil on Papers
Table 5 Absorptivity of Papers
Table 6 Area of Slur Targets of Plates
Table 7 Density of Patches and Ink Viscosity
Table 8 Density of Patches and Paper Absorbency
Table 9 Density of Patches and Ink Level
Table 10 Density of Patches and Screen Ruling
Table 11 Density of Patches at Different Ink/Paper Combinations
Table 12 ANOVA Summary Table for Solid Patch
Table 13 ANOVA Summary Table for Fill-in
Table 14 ANOVA Summary Table for Slur
Table 15 ANOVA Summary Table for Total Dot Gain
Table 16 Duncan Test of Viscosity and Solid
Table 17 Duncan Test of Viscosity and Percent Fill-in
Table 18 Duncan Test of Viscosity and Percent Slur
Table 19 Duncan Test of Viscosity and Percent Total Dot Gain

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 . Enlarged dots showing the effects of

a) no dot gain, b) fill-in only, c) slur around
cylinder, d) side
slur, e) doubling,
f) slur and fill-in 2
Figure 2 . Equal diameter gain 3
Figure 3. Typical dot gain curve for offset printing 3
Figure 4. How a spot of incident light spreads to a patch of
appreciable size before emerging from the paper 4
Figure 5. Absorption of light on entering and emerging

from paper 5
Figure 6. Effect of tack reducer on dot gain 15
Figure 7 . RIT Symmetrical Test Scale 19
Figure 8. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Ink Viscosity 31
Figure 9. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Paper Absorbency 32
Figure 10. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Ink Level 33
Figure 11. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Screen Ruling 34
Figure 12. Dot Gain for 25 Percent Patch of 100 Line Screen
at Different Ink/Paper Combinations 35
Figure 13. Dot Gain of 25 Percent Patch of 150 Line Screen at
Different Ink/Paper Combinations 36
Figure 14. Percent Dot Gain at 50 Percent Square Dot Target of
100 Line Screen at Different Ink/Paper

Combinations 37
Figure 15. Percent Dot Gain for 50 Percent Square Dot Target of
150 Line Screen at Different Ink/Paper

Combinations 38
Figure 16. Percent Dot Gain at 75 Percent Patch of 100 Line

Screen at Different Ink/Paper Combinations 39
vi
Figure 17. Percent Dot Gain at 75 Percent Patch of 150 Line
Screen at Different Ink/Paper Combinations 40
Figure 18. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain for Different Papers at
High Ink Levels 41
Figure 19- Adjusted Density/Dot Gain for Different Patches for

Papers at Low Ink Levels 42
Figure 20. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain Differences for Uncoated

Paper at Different Ink Levels 43
Figure 21 . Adjusted Density/Dot Gain Differences for Coated

Paper at Different Ink Levels 44
Figure 22 . Standard Order for Experiment 46
VII
ABSTRACT
Dot gain is the enlargement which takes place in a dot from the time
the dot is captured or generated on the film until it is printed. Dot gain
can cause many problems, including color variation and loss of contrast,
and if uncontrolled is one of the main contributors to waste in offset
lithography. Of the many factors influencing dot gain, inks have been
found to be a major contributor. One property recommended for further
investigation is ink viscosity, which is the resistance to flow of an ink.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of ink
viscosity on dot gain in offset lithography. It was found that as ink
viscosity increases, dot gain will decrease, and if ink viscosity is
optimized, dot gain will be optimized. Experimentation was done on a
single color, single impression sheet-fed lithographic press, with five
inks of different viscosities.
Results of this experiment show that ink viscosity is significant in
affecting the amount of dot gain that occurs. Inks with 15 and 20 percent
solvent added, which were less than 1000 poise viscosity, were found cause
the significant difference. Other factors found to be significant were
screen ruling and paper absorbency. The Yates Method of Analysis of
Variance and graphing were used to analyze the data.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The purpose of this research is to study the effect of ink viscosity
on dot gain in offset lithography. Interest in this topic began after
talking to several people in the quality control department of a large
printing company, and after doing preliminary reading on dot gain. Several
authors stated that inks are one of the main contributors to dot gain and
that one property which should be studied for its effect on dot gain is ink
viscosity.
Background
Dot gain is the enlargement which takes place in the area of a
printed dot during the transfer stages from film to printed sheets, usually
expressed as the percentage increase in printed area relative to film dot
1 ' 2
'
area. For example, if a dot that is a 50 percent dot on film prints as
a 65 percent dot on paper, the dot gain that has occurred is 15 percent.
It is often referred to, when calculated from density measurements, as
apparent dot gain. This is because the calculated values are somewhat
greater than the actual geometric area of the dot, because of light
3
diffusion within the paper.
Change in dot size is inherent to every printing process, and if
controlled, is not bad. However, it is assumed by various authorities that
uncontrolled dot gain is to blame for much of the waste in offset
lithography. When printing black-and-white halftones, dot gain can change
picture contrast and cause a loss of definition and detail.

In four color process printing, dot gain can lead to similar loss of
contrast and depth, plug up the screens, and cause color changes. Color
variation is one of the largest problems in offset lithography, and is a
4
large contributor to the high waste factor in web offset publication.
There are two kinds of dot gain, physical and optical. Physical dot
gain is an enlargement of mechanical dot size. It can occur between film
generations, during the platemaking process, or during printing if there
are changes in ink and paper characteristics or in other printing
conditions. Physical dot gain may be circumferential -

uniform all around
the dot -
or it may be irregular due to printing defects such as slurring
(directional dot increase), doubling (double images of dots out of register
5,6
with each other), or fill-in (radial increase in the size of the dot).
( Figure 1 ) .
A BO
.
?" ^
__gl
^^k >
M
\ m
'
.^M
\^^Hi
W
^^/
D 2 F
Figure 1 . Enlarged dots showing the effects of
a) no dot gain, b) fill-in only,
c) slur around cylinder, d) slide slur,
'
e) doubling, f) fill-in and slur.
Dot gain is believed to be composed of varying proportions of slur
and fill-in. Optical dot gain is present whenever ink is placed on paper,
because when light illuminates and penetrates a printed paper surface, some
of the light is trapped in the paper and lost, some passes through the
particles in the paper, and some gets trapped under the printed dots.
Optical dot gain usually causes a uniform expansion of the diameter in dots
of different sizes, changing the diameter of the dots by the same amount in
highlight, middletone, or shadow dots. However, the area around the dot
9
will increase more when there is a greater circumference around the dot.
( Figure 2. )
&-
10
Figure 2. Equal diameter gain
Therefore, the greatest dot gain occurs in the middletones, around
the 50 percent dot

size.11
(Figure 3.) This is because as the dots get
bigger than 50 the area for the dots to grow gets smaller, and the
percent,
12
gain the dots experience begins to overlap.
0 25 50 75 100
Halftone Dot Area
13
Figure 3. Typical dot gain curve for offset printing
According to Yule and Nielsen, measurements show that light does not
emerge from the paper at exactly the spot where it entered, so that some of
the light which enters through a dot emerges through white paper. This
increases the density of the middletones, and multiple internal reflections
from the paper increase it still more. For example, a 50 percent tint
printed on a perfectly white paper covers exactly 50 percent of the paper
area. The paper should absorb less than 50 percent of the light that reaches
it, since the ink is not perfectly black. However, if measured by optical
1 5
densitometry, it usually absorbs more than 50 percent. While some feel that
this is caused by penetration of ink vehicles into the paper between the dots,
Yule feels that it is more likely that the penetration of light into the paper
may be the chief reason. (Figure 4.)
M/Kw^
>
Paper
Ma/VntNAA/
Figure 4. How a spot of incident light spreads to a patch
17
of appreciable size before emerging from the paper
Since some of the light is diffused by the paper, it is likely to
spread sideways to the same extent that it penetrates through. Therefore,
some of the light which enters a halftone pattern through a space tries to
1 P>
come out through a dot, and is absorbed instead of reflected. If a 50
percent checkerboard pattern is printed, 50 percent of the incident light
will strike the black dots and be absorbed, and the remaining 50 percent
will be diffused by the paper and lose its dot structure. However, in
extreme cases, half will be absorbed on the way out, resulting in only 25
1 9
percent of the original light escaping from the paper. (Figure 5.)
50?. Absorbed on Entering Paper
" \\"
,
\\X\
Half of Remainder Absorbed on Leaving Paper
A 4 A A A A
-nxxrr
i
Total Absorption 75$
Reflectance 25$
20
Figure 5. Absorption of light on entering and emerging from paper
Dot gain should be measured with a densitometer because the human
eye is not accurate enough. When measuring the dot area of a printed
reproduction, the optical dot area is the total amount of light absorbed
by the halftone pattern printed on a substrate, expressed as the
percentage of the substrate that would have to be covered with halftone
dots to achieve a certain density, provided there was no dot spread and
21
the substrate reflected 100 percent of the light on the surface.
Measurements are based on the premise that if a solid area of ink
absorbs a fraction of the incident light (A ), then the halftone area

s
will absorb a fraction of that (A ) which depends on the area of the
dot. Thus, ' the area of the dot (a) is: A, 22

a = t.
A
s
On prints it is more convenient to measure density rather than
absorption, which makes the equation more complex. Since absorption is
equal to 1 -
1 ,
where D is density, the equation then becomes
io-Dt
1 -
a =
-Ds This equation is known as the Murray-Davies equation.

s -
10
For example, a solid patch (100 percent area) could be measured,
and the densitometer calibrated. Then a tint of, for example, 25 percent
dot could be measured. The density could then be converted to dot

area,
and the percent dot gain found by subtracting the desired dot area
area,
from the dot area found from the print. The optical dot area
(25 percent)
is calculated using the Murray-Davies equation, which is
1
Rt
" 10-Dt
a = 1 -
10"DS
1 -
R = 1 -
s
where a is dot area R. is the reflectance of the halftone tint, R
t s
is the reflectance of the printed D is the the

solid, density of
halftone tint, and D is the density of the solid. It is derived in
Appendix B.
To calculate the physical dot area, the "n"

factor, which takes
into account the effect of paper on light scattering, is used as a
denominator for reflectance and density. This is the Yule-Nielson
equation, and is expressed as: _, ,
10"Dt/n
1 - R .
1 -
a = t/n
10"Ds/n
1 -
R ,
_
1 -
s/n
There are several contributors to dot gain, including ink properties,
blanket type, packing, paper, screen ruling, solid ink denisty, and ink
film thickness. Since the purpose of this paper is to study the effect of
ink viscosity on dot gain, ink viscosity and its relationship to other ink
rheological properties will be explained.
Ink Properties
Ink viscosity is its resistance to flow. An ink with a high
viscosity has a greater resistance to flow than an ink with a low
viscosity. Most sheetfed lithographic inks have a high viscosity.
Viscosity is important because if it is too low, the ink will be poorly
distributed on the inking system. An ink with a viscosity which is too
high can cause poor printing of solids, ink piling on the rollers, tinting,
ink fly, and paper picking.

-X4
One type of viscometer is the Brookfield
Rotational Viscometer. The Brookfield measures viscosity by measuring the
force applied to a spindle which is connected to a spring. The spring
rotates a pointer that is connected to a dial. The spindle is allowed to

rotate for three minutes, and the inks'
viscosity in centipoise is
calculated, using a table based on the size of the spindle and the
revolutions per minute used when measuring the viscosity.
Another important ink property is tack. Tack is the "stickiness", or
force required to split an ink film. If tack is too high, it can cause
paper picking, sticking of the paper to the blanket, curling of lightweight
sheets, and ink distribution problems on the press. If the tack is too
low, it can create piling of the ink on the rollers, tinting, and ink
fly.25
However, tack alone does not control or define ink flow. Two inks may have
the same tack, but their flow or mobility can be completely different
Pfo
depending on their viscosity characteristics. According to various
authorities in the field, tack is a function of viscosity, and for
practical purposes, tack and viscosity will go in parallel directions, and
high and low viscosities are normally accompanied by high and low tack
'
'
values respectively. Also, as long as vehicle chemistry and shortness
are similar, tack and viscosity are roughly proportional and are affected
29 ' 30
in the same way by additions to the ink. Tack can be measured on an
inkometer.
The last condition to be discussed is pigment concentration, which is
the amount of pigment in an ink, expressed as a percent by weight or
volume. Pigment concentration is related to both tack and viscosity in
that as it increases, both tack and viscosity will increase. This is
supported by a study at the National Printing Ink Research Institute, which
found that the inkometer reading (tack), and viscosity increased with
31
increased pigment loading. According to another author, the amount of
pigmentation in the ink affects its viscosity, with viscosity increasing

32 ,33
with increased pigment particle amount.

All of the above conditions are believed to be directly related,
since as one increases, the others will. For example, if any reducer is
added to an ink, the pigment concentration, tack, and viscosity will all
decrease. The only exception to this would be the addition of varnish or
body gum, which would reduce pigment concentration, but increase tack and
viscosity .
10
CHAPTER I
FOOTNOTES
1
Kelvin Tritton, "Dot Gain: Pinpointing the Causes", Printing World 207,
(April 7, 1982), p. 18.
2
"Measuring Dot Gain with a Densitometer", Goss Professional Pressman,
March, 1983, p. 3.
3
Kelvin Tritton, "Dot Gain: Pinpointing the Causes", Printing World 207,
(April 7, 1982), p. 18.
4
Miles Southworth, "Dot Gain: Causes and Cures", Quality Control Scanner 2,
(September, 1982), p. 1. Graphic Arts Publishing Company, Livonia, NY.
5
Ibid.
6
Milton Pearson, Irving Pobboravsky, and Chester Daniels,
"Instrumentation For the Measurement of Slur and Fill-in On A
Lithographic Web Press", 31st TAGA Proceedings, 1979, p. 162.
7
Ibid., p. 164.
8
Ibid., p. 163.
9
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
Sven Ahrenkilde and Franz Sigg, Private Communications, April 15-17, 1985.
13
14
J.A.C. Yule and W.J. Nielsen, "The Penetration of Light Into Paper and
Its Effect on Halftone Reproduction", Third TAGA Proceedings, 1951, p. 65.
15ibid.
16
Ibid. ,
P- 66
17
Ibid. ,
P- 65
18
Ibid. , p. 67
19
Ibid., p. 69.
11
20
Ibid.
21
Miles Southworth, "Dot Gain: Causes and Curves", Quality Control Scanner
2, (September, 1982), p. 3. Graphic Arts Publishing Company, Livonia, NY
Kelvin Tritton, "Dot Again in Offset Lithography", Ink and Print 1,

(Autumn, 1982) , p. 16.
23
Ian C. White and Barry Daniels, "The Specification of Offset and
Letterpress Printing Inks", 23rd TAGA Proceedings, 1971, p. 30.
24
S.W.P. Wyszkowski, "The Long and Short of the Printing Inks or is
Rheology Really Necessary?", 23rd TAGA Proceedings, 1971, p. 217.
25
Julius Silver, Class Notes, Ink, Color and Substrates, April 2, 1984.
26
Ian C. White Barry Daniels, "The Specification of Offset and
and
Letterpress Printing Inks", 23rd TAGA Proceedings, 1971, p. 29.

27
Y. Pete Jacob, "Ink Physical Property Specifications for Quality
Control Purpose", 22nd TAGA Proceedings, 1970, p. 4
28
Julius Silver, Class Notes, Ink, Color and Substrates, April 2, 1984.
29
T. B. Turner, "Rheology of Ink in Relation to Printing Quality", The
British Ink Maker 18, (February, 1976), p. 57.
30
Robert W. Bassemir, "The Physical Chemistry of
oi Lithographic Inks",
American Ink Maker 59, (February, 1981), p. 44.
31
J.B.M. Coates, "Rheology of Litho Inks", Coates Inklings, No. 103
1978), p. 3.
32J.J.
'.J. Hammel et.
c al .
, "Printing Studies With Black Inks", 12th TAGA
FProceedings, 1960, p. 65.
33
Lane Olinghouse, "Ink Characteristics
Ch Affecting Its Use In
Lithography", In-Plant Printer 17, (November, 1977), p. 29.
12
CHAPTER II
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The one feature that sets process inks apart from other inks is the
need for them to form a well-defined dot on the substrate which gives a
faithful reproduction of a continuous tone original. Because of this,
inkmakers and printers must look carefully at the formulations of their
1
process inks, and not worry only about color matching. Since the primary
objective in printing is to produce a quality product in the most efficient
and economical way possible, inks with optimum transfer and water balance
on the press, print on the substrate, drying and dry ink film properties
are required. One property which affects press performance and
reproduction is rheology, which is the physical flow properties of an ink,

2
including viscosity and tack. Attempts are continually being made to
identify the various rheological parameters and relate these to press
3
performance and printability . The adjustment of rheological properties of
an ink has been shown to have a significant influence on the level of dot
4
gain.
A study carried out by PIRA showed that of the variables examined,
which included blankets, inks, number of printing units, paper, and plates,
5
inks had the greatest influence on dot gain in offset lithography. The
study concluded that dot gain is not a fault, but instead an inevitable
part of the lithographic process. The author also stated that more work is
required to examine more fully the influence of ink properties on dot
6
gain.
13
Other work indicates that rheological properties ideal for printing
solids are substantially different from those ideal for printing halftone
and detail, and that sharp dots and low growth are favored by inks with
7
high viscosity. Other inkmakers noted that in general terms, a lower
viscosity ink will give greater dot gain, although the magnitude of any
Q
increase has not yet been able to be predicted. Finally, PIRA and Coates
Brothers inkmakers suggested that viscosity be studied to see its effect on
9, 10
dot gain.
Because of this information, and discussions with people in industry,
it is felt that it would be beneficial to investigate the effect of ink
viscosity on dot gain.

14
CHAPTER II
FOOTNOTES
1
J.B.M. Coates, "Lithographic Process Inks", Coates Inklings, No. 120
(1982), p. 1.
Robert W. Bassemir, "The Physical Chemistry of Lithographic Inks",

American Ink Maker 50 (February, 1981), p. 33.
3T. B. Turner, "Rheology of Ink in Relation to Printing Quality", The

British Ink Maker 18 (February, 1976), p. 55.
Richard Lamprecht, "The Influence of Inks and Blankets on the Printing

Characteristics of a Sheet-Fed Litho Press", Pack & Print (November,
1982), p. 16. citing Kelvin Tritton, "Dot Gain: Pinpointing the
Causes", Printing World 207 (April 7, 1982), p. 19.
Kelvin Tritton, "Research Project Completed on Modifying Dot Gain

-'
Characteristics on Offset Process", PIRA News, No. 166 (1982), p. 3.
6
Ibid.
7T.B. Turner, "Rhelogy of Ink in Relation to Printing Quality", The

J.B.M. Coates, "Lithographic Process Inks", Coates Inklings, No. 120
(1982), p. 2.
9 Kelvin Printing World 207

Tritton, "Dot Gain: Pinpointing the Causes",
(April 7, 1982), p. 19.
10
American Ink Maker 62 (July, 1984), 46, quoting J
p. Coates, "Dot
.B.M.
Gain and the Ink Maker", Coates Inklings, No. 128 (1984), pp. 1-4.
15
CHAPTER III
LITERATURE REVIEW
A review of pertinent literature shows that while there has been a
significant amount of work done on both dot gain and ink properties and
their effect on print quality, there has been little work linking the two.
The only major study linking the two was the previously mentioned PIRA
study by Kelvin Tritton. In it, he concluded that inks were shown to be
the variable with the greatest influence on dot gain. He also found that
the level of gain is significantly increased if any form of reducer, which
decreases tack and viscosity, is added to the ink. Since the reducer
reduces both tack and viscosity, the graph would also apply to viscosity as
well as tack reducer. An addition of five percent gel reducer resulted in
1
seven to ten percent higher gain in the middle tones. (Figure 6.) The
percent increase in gain that occurs is greater than the percentage of
solvent or reducer that is added.
Standard ink x* Ink with 5$ gel reducer
j_ ._. Ink: with 10$ gel reducer
40
0 *-+
Percent Dot Area
100
Figure 6. Effect of tack reducer on dot gain.

16
This is due to the lowering of the ink's viscosity, tack and color
3
strength. Tritton also felt that viscosity played a major part in
4
affecting dot gain.
Other work in this area was conducted by Turner, who concluded that
the rheological properties ideal for printing solids are much different
than those ideal for printing halftone and detail, and that sharp dots and
5
low dot growth are favored by inks with high viscosities.
Work at the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of Canada and McGill
University found that inks with chemically similar vehicles show a
correlation between tack and viscosity, and also a correlation between
6,7
viscosity and paper picking, not tack and paper picking.
De Paoli found that dot gain is primarily related to ink film
8
thickness, ink character, and paper character.
17
CHAPTER III
FOOTNOTES
1 Kelvin "Research Completed

Tritton, on Modifying Dot Gain", Offset
Printer No. 162 (1982), p. 25.
2
Richard Lamprecht, "The Influence of Inks and Blankets on the
Printing
Characteristics of a Sheet-Fed Litho Press", Pack & Print (November,
1982), p. 16, citing Kelvin Tritton, "Dot Gain: Pinpointing the Causes",
Printing World 207 (April 7, 1982), p. 18.
3lbid., p. 19.
4Kelvin Tritton, "Dot Gain: Pinpointing the Causes", Printing World 207
(April 7, 1982), p. 19.
5T.B. Turner, "Rheology of Ink in Relation to Printing Quality", The

6j. S. Aspler et. al., "Rheological Properties of News Inks and Surface
Strength Test Liquids", 16th International Conference of Printing
Research Institutes (IARIGAI), 1981, p. 235.
7Ibid., p. 248.
8
Alan DePaoli, "The Effect of Printing Conditions on Dot Gain", 33rd
TAGA Proceedings, 1981, p. 38.
CHAPTER IV
HYPOTHESES
Based on the previously mentioned research, it is believed that ink
viscosity and dot gain are inversely related. Because of this, the
following hypothesis has been formulated:
1) If ink viscosity increases, then dot gain will decrease.
If the ink viscosity is increased to the optimum level, then the dot
gain should be limited to the minimum level possible. Since inks with a
viscosity which is too high can cause problems, the ink viscosity cannot be
maximized, but can be made as high as possible. A planned statistical
experiment was conducted to see if different viscosity levels are
significant in affecting dot gain.

CHAPTER V
METHODOLOGY
For the experiment, a series of heatset web standard lithographic
inks with varying viscosities were used and plotted against dot gain. The
inks used were from the same container, and viscosity reduced by adding a
low vapor pressure solvent. The reason for using inks from the same
container was to insure that they had the same chemical composition so that
any change in dot gain could be attributed to the viscosity, and not to any
1
of the other chemicals in the inks.
The papers used were standard coated and uncoated offset paper, 8 1/2
x 10 1/2 inches. The fountain solution was a standard fountain solution
for the duplicator, which was an ATF Chief 15 sheetfed single impression
lithographic press. The test object for measuring dot gain was the RIT
Symmetrical Test Scale, 100 and 150 lines per inch (Figure 7).
^P^P#i
25% 1 25%
Elliptical J I Square
Scale'
Figure 1 . RIT Symmetrical Test
The solvent added was a low pressure vapor solvent, (Magie Oil) which
does not evaporate quickly, insuring that the ink viscosity decreased
instead of increased. A densitometer was used to measure the density of
100 and slur and fill-in areas of the scale. All

the 25 50, 75, percent,
20
of the above conditions as well as the press speed were kept constant
throughout the experiment, with ink viscosity the only

being variable.
Ink Testing
Five cans were filled with heatset web offset ink, and measured on a
triple beam balance. The ink had no additional solvent mixed with it,
while the remaining inks had five, ten, fifteen, and twenty percent of the
weight of the inks in solvent mixed in. The inks were allowed to rest for
24 hours, and then measured on a Brookfield Rotational the

Viscometer, and
viscosities calculated and recorded.
The inks also were measured on a Thwing-Albert Inkometer, and the
tack values recorded at 20 seconds, and one to ten minutes. (Appendix G).
Paper Testing
Samples of both papers were tested for smoothness, porosity, and
absorptivity. The instrument for measuring smoothness was the Sheffield
Smoothness Tester. Ten samples of each paper were measured in three areas,
and the average smoothness values calculated and recorded in Sheffield
units. The samples were then placed in the Sheffield Porosimeter, measured
in three places, and the average porosity values recorded in Sheffield
units. The K & N Oil Absorptivity test was then performed. The optical
densities of the K & N oil stain were recorded and converted to percent
absorptivity, according to GATF Bulletin Number 60.
Press Run
The coated paper was run to an optimum Solid Ink Density for 100
sheets after ink and water balance was achieved, then the uncoated paper
21
was run to 100 sheets at the same amount of ink. The uncoated paper was
then run to an optimum Solid Ink Density for 100 sheets after ink and water
balance was achieved, and the coated paper was run at the same ink level.
This procedure was followed for each ink and the procedure was replicated.
The ink without the solvent was placed in the ink fountain of the
press. When ink and water balance was achieved, a commercially acceptable
product was run, and the Solid Ink Density measured and maintained for 100
sheets.
The sheets were removed, the ink fountain cleaned, and the ink with
the next lowest viscosity placed on the press and run as noted above. This
was repeated for the remaining three inks. Two press runs were
accomplished to provide a measure of experimental error.

22
ANALYSIS
Two random sheets were sampled from the beginning, middle, and end of
each group of 100 sheets from each run. After measuring the first inks and
checking one sheet from the beginning, middle, and end and comparing it to
the other set from beginning, middle, and end, the sets were found to be
similar. Each of the succeeding groups had one sheet from beginning,
middle, and end pulled. The densitometer was calibrated for the different
"n"
types of paper, to take into account the different values of coated and
uncoated paper. The solid, 25, 50 percent square dot, 75, fill-in, and
slur targets were measured for density and dot area. Two targets of 100
and two targets of 150 lines per inch were measured, and the mean and
standard deviation were calculated. Statistical analysis was used to
determine which factors and interactions were significant in affecting dot
gain.
23
CHAPTER V
FOOTNOTES
1
Chester Daniels, Private Communication, October 11, 1984.
Alan DePaoli, "The Effect of Printing Conditions on Dot Gain",

33rd TAGA Proceeding, 1981, p. 20.
24
CHAPTER VI
MEANS REQUIRED
ATF Chief 15 Sheetfed Single Impression Lithographic Press
Heatset Lithographic Web Ink (From same five different viscosities)

container,
GATF Ladder Target
RIT Symmetrical Test Scale 150 and 100 line
Brookfield Rotational Viscometer
Triple Beam Balance
Lithographic Fountain Solution
2000 Sheets 8 1/2x10 1/2 Coated Offset Paper
2000 Sheets 8 1/2 x 10 1/2 Uncoated Offset Paper
Densitometer
3M Tartan Subtractive Plates
Magie Oil (Low Vapor Pressure Solvent for changing ink viscosity)
Sheffield Smoothness Tester
Sheffield Porosimeter
K & N Oil
Cosar Densitometer
All of the above are available in the RIT School of Printing and
Technical and Education Center of the Graphic Arts.

25
CHAPTER VII
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The analysis techniques utilized in this experiment were chosen
to fulfill five tasks: 1 ) To understand the correlation between the
percentage of solvent in an ink and its effect on viscosity, 2) To
examine the differences in the paper used, 3) To check the area of the
slur targets on the plates to see if any dot gain occurred in
platemaking, 4) To understand the interactions of the variables in
this experiment, and 5) To answer the basic research question in this
experiment, that is, does ink viscosity have an effect on dot gain.
The analysis techniques used in this experiment were analysis of
variance using the Yates Method, the Duncan Multiple Range Test, and
1 2' 3
graphing.
Percentage of Ink Solvent and Ink Viscosity
As noted earlier, containers with a given amount of ink were
weighed on a triple beam balance, and varying percentages of that weight
in solvent from 0 to 20 percent were added. The inks were allowed to
stand for 24 hours, and the viscosity measured. The ink not used on the
press was again measured after the press run, along with the ink used
on the press. The results were entered in a calculator, and the
correlation coefficient found. The correlation coefficient, r, is a
value between -1 and +1 which indicates the relationship between two
4
variables. It is derived using the following equation:
26
covariance (XY)
r =
V (variance X) (variance Y)
As r approaches +1 it means that one variable increases as the
other increases. A value approaching -1 indicates that one variable
decreases as the other increases. An r close to 0 indicates that no
5
relationship exists between the two variables. A table showing the
values was constructed. (Table 1).
TABLE 1 : Correlation of Percent Solvent and Ink Viscosity
Percent Viscosity (In Poise)

Ink Number Solvent Unused Ink Used Ink
Before Run After Run
1 0 3600 4240 2940

2 5 2000 2380 1700
3 10 1120 1480 1000
4 15 840 1160 660
5 20 600 760 480
Correlation -.93 -.93 -.94
Paper Analysis
The two papers used in this experiment, a dull coated and an
uncoated stock, were measured for smoothness, porosity, density, and
absorptivity. The smoothness was measured on a Sheffield Smoothness
of each stock were pulled, and measured

Tester. Ten random sheets
on each side. A low Sheffield value indicates

in three different places
A table of the mean values and standard deviations

increased smoothness.
both papers was constructed. (Table 2). The mean is

of both sides of
the data values, while the standard deviation is a

the average of all
6,7
of the spread of data.
measure
27
TABLE 2: Smoothness Values of Papers
Paper Type Side Mean Standard Deviation
Dull Coated 1 26.3 2.21

2 34.67 2.57
Uncoated 1 135.3 19.87
2 138.5 17.13
Porosity measurements were carried out on a Sheffield
Porosimeter, and the procedure for computing values the same as
smoothness, with the results below. (Table 3). A higher value
indicates a higher porosity, meaning more air passes through the
given sample.
TABLE 3: Porosity of Papers
Dull Coated 1 4.867 .562
2 4.867 .499
Uncoated 1 209.5 32.26

2 198.5 30.47
Oil absorptivity was determined by using the K & N Oil Test.
A given amount of oil is placed on the stock and allowed to stand on
the paper for two minutes, then wiped off. When dry, it is measured
on a densitometer with a neutral density filter, and the optical density
measured and recorded. Three random sheets were pulled, the
densitometer zeroed on the paper, the density of the oil measured,
and the mean and standard deviations calculated. (Table 4).

28
TABLE 4:
Density of K & N Oil on Papers
Dull Coated 1 .1587 .0146
2 .1613 .0181
Uncoated 1 .5080
.0227
2 .4153 .0250
After measuring the density, the results were converted to
percent absorptivity, using a Paper Factors Conversion Chart. A
percent absorptivity table was constructed.
TABLE 5: Absorptivity of Papers
Dull Coated 1 40.75 3.13

2 41.317 3.79
Uncoated 1 92.017 2.20
2 82.15 2.76
Plate Analysis
The slur targets of both the 100 and 150 line targets on
both plates were measured using a microscope equipped with a filar
eyepiece to see if any dot gain had occurred during the platemaking
process. As noted in the table, no gain occurred. (Table 6).
TABLE 6: Area of Slur Targets of Plates
Screen Ruling Desired Area Measured Area Standard
( Lines/Inches) (In Inches) (In Inches) Deviation
100 .0050 .0050 .000087
150 .0033 .0033 .00011

29
Analysis of Press Run for Interaction of Factors and Main Effects
Two random sheets from the

were sampled beginning, middle, and end of
each ink level/paper absorbency combination, for all five inks in both
press runs, for a total of 40 combinations. Because of the time involved
in measuring two sheets from the beginning, middle, and end of the first
ink, only one sheet from beginning, middle, and end of each combination was
analyzed, for a total of 120 press sheets analyzed. Prior to the single
sheet, sampling procedures, the sheets from the first ink analyzed were
divided into two groups, with one sheet from beginning, middle, and end,
and the mean of the solid, 25 percent, 50 percent square, 75 percent, slur,
and fill-in targets analyzed and compared. Since the results were both
within one standard deviation of each other, they were considered to not be
significantly different, allowing one sheet from the remaining combinations
to be analyzed. The targets were measured with a smart densitometer, which
converts density to equivalent dot percent area for tint, after measuring
the solid (100 percent) patch. After all measurements were recorded, the
mean and standard deviations of all areas were recorded.
A computer program in the Ink and Paper Testing Laboratory of the
Technical and Education Center of the Graphic Arts at RIT was used to
calculate fill-in, and total dot gain. The densities of the solid
slur,
"n"
the fill-in, and slur targets were entered, along with the value
patch,
of the paper and the line width in microns. The width of a line for a 100
line per inch screen is 254 microns, and 169-33 microns for a 150 line per
inch screen. After the densities were input, the width of a line for both
and fill-in targets were then added in the calculator, unless the slur
slur
in which case the area of only the fill-in target was

result was negative,
30
used. If slur was not negative, the amount was added to fill-in to find
total gain. The percent area for slur, fill-in, and total gain were
calculated by dividing the calculated responses expressed in microns by the
width of a 50 percent line for the patch at a particular ruling. (Appendix
F).
After all the preceding data was recorded, the mean density of the 25
percent, 50 percent square dot, 75 percent, and solid patch were divided by
the solid ink densities to give adjusted densities. This normalized the
curves to a Solid Ink Density of 1.0. The adjusted densities and dot area
for each of the patches were plotted on PC Graph Paper, supplied by the RIT
Technical and Education Center of the Graphic Arts. (Figures 8-11). The
actual densities are in Tables 7-10 and Appendix F.
In addition, graphs of percent dot gain of each area on 100 and 150
line screens versus ink viscosity were plotted for each of the four ink
level/paper absorbency combinations. (Figures 12-17). The adjusted
density/dot gain for each ink level on each paper, and each paper at both
ink levels were also plotted. (Figures 18-21). The actual densities are
given in Table 1 1 .
TABLE 7: Density of Patches and Ink Viscosity
Percent 25 50 Percent 75
Solvent Solid Percent So uare Percent
Ink Number
1 1
1 0 .28 .36 .70 .00
2 5 1 .17 .35 .65

.91
10 1 .37 .70 .98
3 .17
1 1
4 15 .19
.46 .85 .07
1 1 .10
5 20 .17 .53 .91

31
CD
CL
CC
0_
CD
>
o
<
in
c
CD
Q
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Halftone Dot Area % (Positive)

*-*7
Ink 1(No added solvent) Ink 2(5% added solvent) Ink4(15% added solvent!
0 0 ink 3 (10% added solvent) ----Ink 5 (20% added solvent!
FIGURE 8: Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Ink Viscosity

32
CD
Q.
CO
Q_
CD
>
O
<
O
>,
c
CD
Q
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

-Uncoated Paper Coated Paper
FIGURE 9: Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Paper Absorbency

33
CD
Q.
CO
0_
CD
>
O
<
-4*
c
CD
Q
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

-High Ink Level Low Ink Level
FIGURE 10: Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Ink Level

34
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

100 Line Screen 150 Line Screen
FIGURE 11: Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Screen Ruling

35
Dot
Grain
Percent
40
35
30
25
20 *"-^-
k=w==9 +T A k A A
15
10
600 840 1120 2000 3600

Ink Viscosity( poise)
Optimum (Low) Ink Level Uncoated Paper, same (Low) Ink Level
Coated paper,
Optimum (Hi) Ink Level Coated Paper, same (Hi) Ink Level
Uncoafed paper,
12: Dot Gain for 25 Percent Patch of 100 Line Screen at

FIGURE
Different Ink/Paper Combinations

36
Dot
Sain
Percent
50
45 *v\
40
i A, J-L
u A
A
A
_
*"
35 \ ^^-1^^
_ _k
w b ijv m p
vL-^^*
30
___
__
25
20
15
10
CI 600 840 1120 2000 3600

Ink Viscosity(poise)
Coated paper, (Low) Ink Level Uncoated Paper (Low) Ink Level
Uncoated paper, (Hi) Ink Level Coated Paper (Hi) Ink Level
FIGURE 13: Dot Gain Percent of 25 Percent Patch of 150 Line Screen at
Different Ink/Paper Levels

37
Dot
Gain
Percent
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
_j i_
600 840 1120 2000 3600

Coated paper, Optimum Ink Level Uncoated paper, (Low) Ink Level
Optimum Ink Level Coated paper, same (Hi) Ink Level

Uncoated paper,
50 Percent Square Dot Target of 100 Line

FIGURE 14: Percent Dot Gain at
Screen at Different Ink/Paper Combinations

38
Dot
Sain
Percent
45
40
-* * kr
35
i*~iM
30
25
20
15
10
600 840 1120 2000 3600

Ink Vlscosity( poise)
Coated paper, Optimum Ink Level Uncoated paper, (Low) Ink Level
Uncoated paper, Optimum Ink Level Coated paper, (Hi) Ink Level
FIGURE 15: Percent Dot Gain for 50 Percent Square Dot Target of 150 Line
Screen Target at Different Ink/Paper Combinations

39
Dot
(Jain
Percent
25
20
15
10
600 840 1120 2000 ,-3600
Ink Viscosity(poise)
Coated paper, Optimum (Low) Ink Level Uncoated paper, same (Low) Ink Level
Uncoated paper, Optimum (Hi) Ink Level Coated paper, same (Hi) Ink Level
FIGURE 16: Percent Dot Gain at 75 Percent Patch of 100 Line Screen
Target at Different Ink/Paper Combinations

40
Dot
Sain
Percent
25
20 h
15
10 *
5 -
0 600 840 1120 2000 3600

Coated paper, Optimum (Low) Ink Level Uncoated paper, same (Low) Ink Level
Uncoated paper, Optimum (Hi) Ink Level Coated paper, same (Hi) Ink Level
FIGURE 17: Percent Dot Gain at 75 Percent Patch of 150 Line Screen
Target at Different Ink/Paper Combinations

41
CD
Q.
CO
Q_
CD
>
O
_Q
<
Q_
c
CD
Q
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Uncoated Paper Coated Paper
FIGURE 18: Adjusted Density/Dot Gain for Different Papers at High Ink Levels
42
CD
Q_
CO
0_
CD
>
O
_Q
<
O
>^
CO
c
CD
Q
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Uncoated Paper Coated Paper
19: Adjusted Density/Dot Gain for Different Patches for Papers

FIGURE
at Low Ink Levels

43
CD
d
CO
0_
CD
>
O
__
<
o
>4
w
c
CD
Q
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 100

---Low Ink Level
'
High Ink Level
Adjusted Density/Dot Gain Differences for Uncoated Paper at

FIGURE 20:
Different Ink Levels

44
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Low Ink Level High Ink Level
FIGURE 21: Adjusted Density/Dot Gain Differences for Coated Paper at
Different Ink Levels

45
TABLE 8: Density of Patches and Paper Absorbency
25 50 Percent 75
Paper Type Solid Percent Square Percent
Coated 1 .38 .42 .84 1.15

Uncoated 1 .01 .41
.69
TABLE 9: Density of Patches and Ink Level
25 50 Percent 75
Ink Level Solid Percent Square Percent
High 1 .22 .43 .79 1 .05
Low 1 .17 .40 .73 .97
TABLE 10: Density of Patches and Screen Ruling
Screen Ruling 25 50 Percent 75

(Lines Per Inch) Solid Percent Square Percent
100 1.19 .36 .69 .96
150 1 .20 .47 .84 1 .06
TABLE 11: Density of Patches at Different Ink/Paper Combinations
25 50 75
Paper Type Ink Level Solid Percent Percent Percent
Uncoated Optimum (High) 1.03 .42 .70 .89
Coated Same (High) 1.42 .44 .88 1 .20
Uncoated Same (Low .99 .40 .67 .86
Optimum (Low) 1.34 1

Coated .40 .80 .09
to graphing, the Yates Method of Analysis of

In addition
(ANOVA) was performed, since there were four variables at two

Variance
'
levels in the experiment. The analysis breaks down each
to five
from low to high. The results are arranged in

variable by levels,
46
a standard order, with the lowest levels assigned 0, and all higher
levels assigned a 1 or
higher.11
An example is given. (Figure 22!
INK VISCOSITY
Ink Ink Ink Ink Ink

Screen Paper Level Level Level Level Level
Ruling Absorbency Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High
Low Low 0000 1000 2000 3000 4000

0100 1100 2100 3100 4100
(1) 1
V1 V V2 V V3 V V4 V
High 0010 1010 2010 3010 4010

0110 1110 2110 3110 4110
a la v la v2a v?la v3a v3la V4a v, la
V 4
High Low 0001 1001 2001 3001 4001

0101 1101 2101 3101 4101
s 1 v Is v2s v Is Xs v3ls v. Is
s V V 4
High 0011 1011 2011 3011 4011

0111 1111 2111 3111 4111
as las v as v las v as vlas v3as v3las v. as v, las
4 4
FIGURE 22: Standard Order for Experimental Design
A similar table was drawn for the solid ink density, slur,
fill-in, and total dot gain components. Since the experiment, a
5x2x2x2 level experiment, was twice replicated, the results were
12,13
added to get the total response. (Appendix E) . The results for the
two-factor interactions, three-factor interactions, and

main effects,
four-factor interactions are shown in an ANOVA summary table. This
tabulation provides an indication of the significant factors at a

47
five percent level of significance. The five percent level was chosen
because it is a commonly used level in industry, since a one percent
level is too tight, and a 10 percent level too loose. Results for
the response of solid ink film density, fill-in, slur, and total gain
are shown. (Tables 12-15). Based on the Yates ANOVA, the only
interactions found to be significant were viscosity/ink level, and
viscosity/absorbency, and only for fill-in. (Table 13).
Concerning the basic research question in this experiment,
ink viscosity was found to have a significant effect on solid ink
density (SID), fill-in, slur, and total dot gain. In addition, the
ink level was found to be significant in affecting SID and fill-in,
while paper absorbency was a significant factor in SID, fill-in, and
total gain, and screen ruling significantly affected fill-in, slur,
and total gain.
After determining which factors were significant, the Duncan
Multiple Range Test was performed to determine which levels of the
15
"
variables caused the factors to be significant. With SID, the ink
viscosity, ink level, and paper absorbency were found to be significant.
After performing the Multiple Range Test on the ink viscosities, Ink 1
(with no additional solvent) was found to be significantly different
than the inks with solvent added, thus causing the viscosity factor
(Table 16). Since the other factors had only two

to be significant.
Duncan Test was not performed, but absorbency and ink level
levels, the
were found to be significant in affecting SID.
With regard to fill-in, the inks with 10 to 20 percent solvent
found to be significantly different than the inks with no

added were
48
added solvent and 5 percent (Table 17).

solvent added. The screen
ruling was also found to be a significant factor, along with the
viscosity/ink level and viscosity/absorbency interactions. However,
because several groups of the interactions were significantly different
among some of the groups but not others, no conclusions on
significance of individual interactions groups could be determined.
When the Multiple Range Test was applied to slur, the order
of the variables was not in any order from lowest to highest, as one
might have expected, and the only significant difference was between
the two extreme values. (Table 18). The screen ruling also was
found to be significant in effecting slur.
Finally, when the test was applied to Total Dot Gain, the inks
with 15 and 20 percent added solvent were found to be significantly
different than the inks with 10 percent or less added solvent.
(Table 19) .
The following symbols are used in the following tables:
v is the ink with 15% solvent.
is the ink with no added solvents.

v,
4
are all viscosities.

v -
v,
1 is ink level.
s is screen ruling.
a is absorbency.
49
TABLE 12: ANOVA Summary Table for Solid Patch
Sum of Degrees of Mean Calc Crit Sign at

Source Squares F reedora Square F_ F_ 5 Percent
Main
Effects
11 2.6144 *
v1 .069 .036 .1421
v2 .0*3 .146
.034 -
4
'd
I
.002
.059 .059
18.2013
4.0934 *
a 2.72 2.72 827.8956 4.0934

s .003 .003 .9113 4.0934
Two-Factor
Interactions
V
"21
.003
.003
-
-.016 -4 .0039 1 .1920 2.6144
.005
v,4 1 .003
~
V .664
.008 -.015
.002 -4 .0038 1.1723 2.6144
a
v, .0006
la .012 .011 3.5707 4.0934

v1s .008
^H
V2S .0009 -.013 ,L .0033 1 .0307 2.6144
1
V .0015
.0027
_jj
Is .0009 .0009 .2767 4.0934

as .0012 .0012 .3647 4.0934
Three-Factor
Interactions
v la .0001
v la .0038
-
.0074 -4
.0019 .5822 2.6144
v,la .0033
v,la .0002
v,ls .0009 T
1 .
V-lS .0004 -.0016 -4 .0004

.1287 2.1644
v Is .0003
v. Is .0000
4
v as .002
v,as .002 -r0043 -4 .0014

.4415 2.6144
v as .ooooe
v,4 as .oooo;
,
las .00001
.00001 .00343 4.0934
Four-Factor
Interactions
v las .0003
T
v-las .00005
1
Vas .ooooe -.00042 i -4 .00013 .0395 2.6144

las .0000
i
v
4
TOTAL: 3.0006.i :9 Error Term = .0032938

50
TABLE 13: ANOVA Summary Table for Fill-in
Sura of Degrees of Mean Calc 3rit Sign at

Source Squares Fr eedom Square F F 5 Percent
Main Effects
v1 3748.09 1015.73
163.88
v2 -4
137.9275
19.006 -4062.9
v3
144.18 *
2.61
?
1 97.68 97.68 *
13.2689 4.0934
a 144.18 144.18 19.5857 4.0934 *
s 2070.61 2070.61 281.2673 4.0934 *
Two-Factor
Interactions
21
V
V2X
.60
.025
43.16 87.73 -
4 21
V3| 22.94
.93 2.9795 2.6144 #
V
Vla 158.80
vpa 18.40 200.95 -4 50.23 6.8242 2.6144 X
v a 15.19
V 8.55
la 1 .058
1.05 .1437 4.0934
T
V .240
12.16 -4
38.12 50.80 12.70 1 .7252 2.6144
y
.273
Is 1 .68
1.68 .2285 4.0934
as 23.98 23.98 3.2575 4.0934
Three-Factor
Interactions
v la 2.75
v la .000
-38.69 -4
9.67 1 .3141 2.6144
v la 26.81
v,4 la 9.12
v Is 24.18
v Is -754 -66.72 -4
16.59 2.2540 2.6144
v Is 37.92
v,4 Is 3.51
v as 1.29
v as .345 -4
2.25 .0368 2.6144
v,as 6.28 -9.03
v, as 1.11
.4
las 7.93 7.93 1.0783 4.0934
Four-Factor
Interactions
v las 6.4 T
v,las 0.00 -
17.27 i -4 4.31 .5867 2.6144
v las 9.75 l
v. las 1.12 _L
TOTAL; 6881 .238 39 Error Te rm = 7.36 725

51
TABLE 14: ANOVA Table for Slur
Sum of Degrees of Mean Calc Crlt Sign at

Source Squares Freedom Square F F 5 Percent
Main
Effects
7.31 2.7471 2.6144

16.72 -25.59 6.39
.027
1 .53
.045 .041
.01937 4.0934
.055 .055 .0237 4.0934
21 .32 21.32 9.1532 4.0934
Two-Factor
Interactions
9.90
5.28 |-20.34 5.08 2.1832 2.6144
v,l 3.27
1 .88
2.20
1
v a 1.05 3.59 .3858 2.6144
V3a .095
231
la 1 .03 1 .03 .4444 4.0934
2
V
.30
V
.051
v3s .517 6.22 1.55 .6684 2.6144

3 .35
y
Is .946 .946 .4062 4.0934
as 1 .32 1.32 .5693 4.0934
Three-Factor
Interactions
v la .729
v la 1 .96
-
5.99 1.49 .6436 2.6144
Oa 3.27
v, la .021
4.
v. Is 3.02
v Is 1 .61 1.61 .6945 6.6144
v Is 1 .50 6.47
v, Is .332
4
v. as .090
v as .577 .2477 2.6144

v,as .023
v as 1.55
las .036
.036 .0155 4.0934
Four-Factor
Interactions
1 .12
vlas 1 .51
1.23 .5287 2.6144
.033 -4.92
v ,
las 2 25
TOTAL: 101 .442

34 Error Term = 2.329375
52
TABLE 15: ANOVA Summary Table for Total Dot Gain
Sum of Degrees of Mean Calc Crit Sign at

Source Squares Freedom Square F F 5 Percent
Main
Effects
3971.05 51.6481 2.6144

284.85
134.68 -4412.72 103.18
22-1*
73.34 73.34 3.4338 4.0934
176.41 176.41 8.2593 4.0934
1791.72 1791.72 83.8836 4.0934
Two-Factor
Interactions
56.05
4.68
V2
25.20 98.21 24.55 1.1496 2.6144
V3
12.28
V
86.53 Tl
V
v2a 17.83
v a 24.96 -136.23 34.06 1.5947 2.6144
6.86
y
la 6 84 6.84 .3204 4.0934
105
V
v2s 1 1 88 10.06 .4711 2.6144
V s 26 08 40.24
2 17
y
Is 4.32 4.32 .2025 4.0934
as 36.18 36.18 1.6030 4.0934
Three-Factor
Interactions
v la 17 .75
v la .094
-
32.83 8.21 .3845 2.6144
v la 7 .52
v,4 la 7 .47
v Is 7 43
v Is 0044 42.99 10.75 .5034 2.6144
v Is 33 39
v,4 Is 2 17
v as 1 12
v as 54 -
-9.31 2.33 .1091 2.6144
v,as 7 65
v, as 003
,
4
las 2.1 2.88 .1352 4.0934
Four-Factor
Interactions
v las 2.28
v las 1.14 -13.64 3.41 .1597 2.6144
v las 7.35
v, las 2.87
4
TOTAL: 6871 .02 39

53
TABLE 16: Duncan Test of Viscosity and Solid Patch
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5
1 .27 1.17 1.17 1 .19 1 .17
The ink with no added solvent (Ink 1) was found to be significantly

different from the others.
TABLE 17: Duncan Test of Viscosity and Percent Fill-in
x1 x2 X3 X4 X5
19.38 19.56 24.06 32.88 36.92
Inks 3 to 5 were significantly different from Inks 1 and 2.
TABLE 18: Duncan Test of Viscosity and Percent Slur
x_
x3 x2 x4 x1
.11 .575 .944 .969 1.83
The only significant difference was between Inks 3 and 5.
TABLE 19: Duncan Test of Viscosity and Percent Total Dot Gain
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5
20.36 21.16 24.18 33.79 38.53
found to be significantly different from

Inks 4 and 5 were
Inks 1 and 3.
54
CHAPTER VII
FOOTNOTES
1
Albert D. Rickmers and Hollis N. Todd, Statistics: An Introduction,
McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1967, p. 154.
Ibid., p. 323.
3Ibid., p. 223.
^Ibid., p. 266.
5Ibid., p. 255.
6Ibid., p. 19.
7Ibid., p. 22.
o
Frank M. Preucil, A New Method of Rating the Efficiency of Paper for Color
Reproductions, (Pittsburgh: Graphic Arts Technical Foundation Research
Progress), No. 60, p. 4.
9
"
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1967, p. 353.
10
Ibid. ,
p. 323.
11Ibid., p. 312.
1 2
M. Carolyn Hughes, "A Systematic Method of Obtaining Predicted Values in
Experiments,"
Mixed-Level Factorial Industrial Quality Control, (January
1966), p. 353.
1 3
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1967-
Chester J. Daniels, Private Communication, March 28, 1985.
1 '-i
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1967, p. 223.
55
CHAPTER VIII
CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
The hypothesis tested in this experiment was that ink viscosity has
an effect on dot gain in offset lithography. By using the Yates Method of
Analysis of Variance to analyze the data, ink viscosity was found to be
significant in affecting the amount of dot gain that occurs in the offset
lithographic process. The viscosity was significant in affecting the
density of the solid patch, fill-in, slur, and total gain. The analysis
also found that ink level, paper absorbency, and screen ruling are
significant in affecting slur, fill-in, and total gain. Ink level was
found to have a significant effect on solid ink density and fill-in, while
paper was significant in affecting SID, fill-in, and total dot

absorbency
gain. The screen ruling was significant in affecting the fill-in, slur,
and total dot gain.
The graphs showed that the inks with 15 and 20 percent solvent showed
dot that inks with less than 1000

a sharp rise in percent gains indicating
have a significant effect on increase in percent dot gain.

poise viscosity
the statistical analysis.

This is also supported by
drawn from this experiment include:

Other observations
of the 50 percent area, where the most dot gain

1 ) The configuration
the amount of dot gain that occurs. For example,

occurs, seems to affect
dot areas of the slur and fill-in targets were usually

the densities and
the 50 percent square dot.

less than that of
56
2) The ink level, paper absorbency, and screen ruling all had an
effect on various components in the experiment, with absorbency and screen
ruling significant in affecting three of the four components.
3) Ink viscosity and screen ruling were found to be significant in
affecting the amount of slur. However, "negative", or side, slur was
observed in some samples, but no cause was found for it.
4) Two of the two factor interactions, viscosity/ink level, and
viscosity/paper absorbency were found to have a significant effect on
fill-in.
5) Viscosity and tack do go in parallel directions, that is, there
is a positive correlation between the two. The high correlation indicates
almost complete dependence of one upon the other.
6) In general, the 50 percent dot area showed the most dot gain.
However, in extreme cases, as with the ink with 20 percent added solvent,
the 25 percent patch exhibited the greatest amount of gain.

57
CHAPTER IX
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION
1 ) What effect does configuration have on dot gain? Several
different configurations with square, elliptical, round, laser, and other
dots, along with slur and fill-in targets could be tested.
2) Of all the factors studied, which is most significant in
affecting total dot gain? An experiment with as many absorbency, ink film,
solid ink density, and screen ruling levels as possible should be tested.
3) What are the causes of slur, especially negative or side slur?
In this experiment, viscosity and screen ruling affected slur, but the
cause is still not known. It is believed that press problems cause around
the cylinder (directional) slur, but are other factors the cause? Possible
causes of side slur may be blanket movement, or paper fanning in sheet-fed
lithography, and web weaving in web printing.
4) Different interactions, such as viscosity/ink level,
viscosity/absorbency, and viscosity/screen ruling, and others should be
studied to determine which ones are the most significant in affecting dot
gain.
5) What effect do different additives have on ink viscosity, and
ultimately, dot gain. Work with decreasing ink viscosity, such as with
could be carried out.

varnish,
58
6) At what viscosity does gain for the 25 percent patch exceed gain
for the 50 percent patch? More than the five viscosities tested in this
experiment would have to be studied.
7) What effect does screen angle have on dot gain? Angles in 15
degree increments from zero to 90 could be tested.

59
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahrenkilde, Sven, and Sigg, Franz. Private Communications, 1985.
Aspler, J.S.; Lyne, M.B.; Dealy, J.M.; and Pangalos, G.C. "Rheological
Liquids"
Properties of News Inks and Surface Strength Test . 16th
International Conference of Printing Research Institutes (IARIGAI).
(1981): 235-252.
Bassemir, Robert W. "The Physical Chemistry of Lithographic Inks".

American Ink Maker, February, 1981, pp. 33, 36, 41-2, 44, 46, 98.
Coates, J.B.M. "Lithographic Process Inks". Coates Inklings, No. 120,

pp. 1-4.
Litho Inks". Coates Inklings, No. 103, pp.

Coates, J.B.M. "Rheology of
2-4.
Private Communications, 1984-85.

Daniels, Chester J.
Printing Conditions on Dot Gain: An

De Paoli, Alan. "The Effect of
Offset Newspaper Study". 33rd TAGA Proceedings. (1981): 17-39.
"Dot Gain and the

Inkmaker"
. American Ink Maker, July, 1984, pp. 30-31,
46 .
and Zettlemoyer, A.C.

Hammel, J.J.; Fetsko, J.M.; Schaeffer, W.D.;
TAGA Proceedings, (1960):
"Printing Studies with Black Inks". 12th
63-79.
"A Systematic Method for Obtaining Predicted Values in

Hughes, M. Carolyn.
Mixed-Level Factorial Experiments", Industrial Quality Control, January,
1966, pp. 348-354.
"Ink Physical Property Specifications for Quality

Jacob, Y. Pete.
Purpose". 22nd TAGA Proceedings. (1970): 1-10.
Control
Inks and Blankets on the Printing

Lamprecht Richard. "The Influence of
Characteristics of a Sheet-Fed Litho

Press."
Pack & Print, November,
25-29.
1982, pp. 16-19, 22-23,
Densitometer". Goss Professional Pressman,

"Measuring Dot Gain with a
March 1983, p. 3.
Lane, "Ink Characteristics Affecting its Use on

Olinghouse,
29-30.
Lithography". In-Plant Printer, November, 1977,, pp.
Daniels, Chester.
Pearson Milton; Pobboravsky, Irving; and
the Measurement of Slur and Fill-in on a

"Instrumentation for
TAGA Proceedings. (1979), 162-175.
Lithographic Press". 31st
60
Preucil, Frank M. A New Method of Rating the Efficiency of Paper for

Color Reproductions, (Pittsburgh: Graphic Arts Technical Foundation
Research Progress), pp. 1-8.
Rickmers, Albert D., and Todd, Hollis N. Statistics: An Introduction,

McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1967.
Silver, Julius L. Private Communications, 1984-1985.
Southworth, Miles. "Dot Gain: Causes and Cures". Quality Control

Scanner, September 1982, pp. 1-4, Graphic Arts Publishing Company,
Livonia, N.Y. .
Tritton, Kelvin. "Dot Again in Offset Lithography". Ink and Print 1

(Autumn, 1982), pp. 16-18.
Tritton Kelvin. "Dot Gain: Pinpointing the Causes". Printing World,

April 7, 1982, pp. 18-19.
Tritton, Kelvin. "Research Completed on Modifying Dot Gain". Offset

Printer, July 1982, p. 25.
Tritton, Kelvin. "Research Project Completed on Modifying Dot Gain
Characteristics on Offset Presses". PIRA News, May, 1982, p. 3.
Turner, T.B. "Rheology of Ink in Relation to Printing Quality". The

British Ink Maker, February, 1976, pp. 55-57.
White, Ian C, and Daniels, Barry. "The Specification of Offset &

Letterpress Printing Inks". 23rd TAGA Proceedings (1971): 26-39.
"The Long Short the Printing Inks or Is

Wyszkowski, S.W.P. and of
23rd TAGA Proceedings, (1971): 205-223.

Rheology Really Necessary?".
Nielsen, W.J. "The Penetration of Light Into Paper

Yule, J. A.C, and
and its Effect on Halftone Reproduction". Third TAGA Proceedings,

(1951): 65-76.
61
APPENDIX A
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Dot Gain: The enlargement which takes place in a dot
from film to print.
Viscosity: The resistance to flow of a liquid,
Tack: The force required to split a film.
Pigment Concentration: The percentage of pigment in an ink, expressed
in terms of weight or volume.
Reducer: A substance which lowers the tack or viscosity
of an ink.
A solvent is an example of a reducer.
SWOP: Standards for Web Offset Publication
Densities established to provide consistency
in Web Offset Printing.
Rheology: Physical flow properties of a liquid
It includes but it not limited to,
tack and viscosity.
Other rheological properties include
thixotropy, viscoelasticity, and tack stability,

62
Solid Ink Density: The density of a solid, or 100 percent patch,
as measured with a densitometer.

63
APPENDIX B
DERIVATION OF MURRAY-DAVIES EQUATION
1 Log R
Density -
D -
Lo
Reflectance = R =
A -
Area
Solid Dot
R, . ,
= R x A + R^dot , x A^dot
tint paper paper
t
Since the area of the paper is the whole area (or one),
less the area of the dot,
R, . ,
= R x 1-A , . + R , , x A. ,
tint paper dot dot dot
Since the reflectance of the paper is assumed to be one,
R. .
= 1 x 1-A, ,
+ R , , x A, .
tint dot dot dot
R_tint ,
= 1-A , .
+ R ,
,_
x A , ,
dot dot dot
R,. . ,
=1 -A . . ( 1 -R . . v
tint dot dot)
tint
, +A.
dot
.,
(1-R^dot) J-N
=
-l
1
W M_Rdot) = 1_Rtint
A, .
1-R, . ,
dot = tint
1-R
dot
Since the reflectance of the dot equals the

reflectance of the solid,
1 -
R,
dot
1 -
R
64
APPENDIX C
INSTRUMENTATION
Viscosity:
Instrument: Brookfield Rotational Viscometer

Procedure: After leveling the base and indicator dial,
the spindle is lowered 1/4 inch into the ink,
and the machine turned on and allowed to
rotate for three minutes. The dial reading
is then converted to viscosity in centipoise
by using a table for spindle size and revolutions
per minute included with the instruction manual
for the instrument.
Tack:
Instrument: Thwing-Albert Inkometer

Procedure: After the desired temperature (90 degrees
Fahrenheit) isattained, the machine is
calibrated for the desired speed, depending
on the type of ink, 1 .32 cubic centimeters
of ink are placed on the roller, and readings
taken at 20 seconds, one minute, and at one
minute intervals up to and including ten

minutes.
Smoothness:
Instrument: Sheffield Smoothness Tester

Procedure: After calibration, a paper sample is placed
on the glass bed of the instrument and the

head lowered to the paper under its
testing
own weight. The smoothness value is read
"Sheffield"
from the guage and expressed as
smoothness.
Porosity:
Instrument: Sheffield Porosimeter
Procedure: After calibration, the sample is placed on a
rubber bed orifice, and the

with a given
lowered pneumatically. The porosity is

head
from the guage, and expressed as
read
"Sheffield"
porosity.
65
Absorptivity:
Instrument: K & N Oil Test

Procedure: The paper is folded so that both sides can be
coated with K & N Oil. The oil is allowed to
stand for two minutes, then wiped off. When dry,
the density is measured and converted to percent
absorptivity by using a Paper Factors Conversion

Chart.
Measurement of Plate Areas:
Instrument: Microscope (Equipped with Filar Eyepiece)

Procedure: After calibration, the desired lines are
measured, then divided by 100 to find the
width in inches.
Density of Patches on Press Sheet:
Instrument: Cosar Smart Densitometer

Procedure: After calibration on the reference standard,
then densitometer is calibrated on the paper
sample. The solid (100 percent) patch is

measured for density. The desired tints
are then read for density, and converted to
percent equivalent dot area, always using the
solid as a reference.
Calculations:
Deviation:
Correlation, Mean, Standard
Instrument: Texas Instrument TI-55-H Programmable Calculator
Procedure: The values are entered according to directions

in the Owner's Manual for each function in the
statistical mode.
Total Dot Gain:

Slur, Fill-in, and
Packard 9100-A Programmable Calculator

Instrument: Hewlett
Slur, and Fill-in
Procedure: The Solid Ink Density,
and calculations
densities are entered,
performed to determine the amount of
and total gain in microns.

slur, fill-in,
The microns are then divided by the microns
to find the percent gain.

of the desired patch
in of the line of a 1 00 line

The width microns
is for one line of a 1 50

per inch screen 254,
line per inch screen, 169-33.
66
APPENDIX D
PRESS RUN DOCUMENTATION
Run Speed: 5000 impressions per hour.
Run Length: 100 sheets, after ink and water balance obtained.
Both papers were run to two ink levels.
Ink Setting: Four from off (Maximum)
Fountain Solution Setting: Two or three notches from off.
PH: 4.50 at start and end of both runs
Number of Press Runs: Two

67
APPENDIX E
YATES TABLES FOR EXPERIMENT
YATES TABLE FOR DENSITY OF SOLID PATCH
Replicates Resp Total Effect

Treatment Combination 1 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
(1) 0000 1.19 1 .41

2.60 13 .25 27.35 47.47 95.43
1000 1 1 2.72 14 20.12 47.96 3.33
v,
.32 .40 .10
2000 1 1 2.67 9 27.25 1 3.13

V2
.36 .31 .87 .09
3000 1 1 2.50 10 20.21 2.24 2.34

V3
.24 .26 .25
4000 1 1 2.76 13 1.33 .48
I*
.30 .46 .51 .59
0100 1.32 1.47 2.79 14 .24 .50 1.80 2.19

1100 1.25 1 2.78 9 1 1
V .43
10
.99 .49 .42 .75
2100 1 .40 1 .32 2.72 .22 .75 .92 .91
3100 1 .40 1 .37 2.77 .10 .83 1.12 -.90
V3i
v4: 4100 1 .47 1 .57 3.04 .49 .50 -.64 -1 .96
a 0010 .95 1 .00 1.95 .16 1 .43

1 .23 -14.77
v1a 1010 .98 .99 1 .97 .34 .37 .96 -.83
v2a 2010 1 .01 .98

1.99 .71 .87 .57 -1 .39
v3a 3010 .94 .95 1.89 .78 .55 .18 -.54
v, a 4010 1 .02 1.05 2.07 .32 .57 .61 .88
la 0110 1 .01 .99 2.00 .43 .35 .30 -.97
v, la 1110 .99 1.05 2.04 .16 .45 -.34 -.17

1 .
vla 2110 1 .01 1 .01 2.02 .67 .67 -.56 -.93
2,
v_,la 3110 1 .03 .97 2.00 .20 -.65 -.92 .74
3.
v, la 4110 1.10 1 .09 2.19 .30 .01 -1 .04 .48
4
s 0001 1.19 1 .39 2.58 .51 .85 -7.23 .49
V s 1001 1.37 1 .33 2.70 .92 .38 -7.54 1.15

1
v.s 2001 1.36 1 .27 2.63 .24 .73 -.09 .47
2
3001 1 .26 1 .37 2.63 .13 .23 -.74 -.50
3
4001 1 1.52 2.97 .60 .39 -.33 -1 .76
V, s .45
is 0101 1 .36 1 .45 2.81 .27 .18 -1 .06 -.27
v. Is 1101 1 .38 1 .37 2.75 .28 .07 -.32 -.39
1
v.ls
.
2101 1.38 1 .28 2.66 .27 .11 -.22 -.31
2.
v^ls 3101 1 .48 1 .41 2.89 .53 .51 .22 -.22
3. 1.51 3.13
4101 1.62 -.12
v, Is
.04 .10 .66
4
as 0011 .94 1 .01 1.95 .21 .41 -.47 -.31
101 1 1 .98 1.98 .14 -.11 -.50 -.65

v as .00
1 1 1 -.21 -.73
v 'as 2011 .02 .96 .98 .50 -.33
2 1 1 -
-.01
v^as 3011 .95
.01 .96 .05 .04 .10
3 1 1 2.12 -.41
v , as 4011 .06 .06

.52 -.49 .44
4 1 -.52 -.03
las 011 1 .98 .98 .96 .15 -.07
v las 1111 1.02 1 .10 2.03 .01 -.55 .32 .25
1 2.01 -
-.37 -.1 1
v. las 2111 .02 .99
.66 .42
2, 3111 1 .99
2.06 .19 -.67 .18 .10
v^las .07
411 1 1 1 2.16 -
.18 -.37 .30 .12
v,4 las
.08 .08
TOTAL: 95.43
68
APPENDIX E
(CONTINUED)
Sum of Calc F Sig

Divisor Squares Ratio At 5 Percent
80 113.84
160 21 *
.069 .0413 Total Sum of Squares
224 X
.044 13.2784 of Replicates = 116.98
160 X
.034 10.3900
1120 .0002 .0624 Sum of Sum of Squares
80 X
.060 18.2013 = 116.85
160 .0035 1.0675
224 .0037 1.1224 116.98 -
116.85 = .1318
160 .0051 1.5370

1120 .0034 1 .0414 .1318/40
= .00329
X
80 2.73 827.8956 [Error Term for 40 Degrees
160 .0043 1.3072 of Freedom)
224 .0086 2.6187

160 .0018 .5533 Critical F = 4.0848
1120 .0007 .2099
80 .012 3.5708
160 .0002 .0548
224 .0039 1.1722

160 .0034 1 .0391
1120 .0002 .0625
80 .0030 .9113
160 .0083 2.5094

224 .0010 .2994
160 .0016 .4743
1120 .0027 .8397
80 .0009 .2766
16C .0010 .2886
224 .0004 .1302
160 .0003 .0918
1120 .00001 .0039
30 .0012 .3647
i60 .0026 .8017
224 .0024 .7225
160 .00006 .0189
1120 .0002
.0524
80 .00001 .0034
160 .0004 .1186
224 .00005
.0164
160 .00006 .0189
1120 .00001 .0039
116.85
69
APPENDIX E (CONTINUED!
YATES TABLE FOR PERCENT AREA FOR FILL-IN TARGET

(11 0000 27.7 37.2 64.9 188.2 391.6 358.8 2124.6

1000 27.7 22.6 50.3 203.4 467.2 1265.8
vl -774.4
2000 21.7 9.5 31 229.6 617.0 191

v2 .2 -390.3 .6
3000 11 9.2 21.0 237.6 648.8 145.3

V3 .8 -384.1
4000 10.6 10.2 20.8 291.7 121.9

1* -238.6 -145.9
0100 31 .4 38.0 69.4 325.3 -151.7 69.7 88.4

1100 28.7 25.5 54.2 316.2 33.6 58.8
V 2100 30.2
-228.3
2.4
19.6 10.6 332.6 -155.8 111.7
3100 18.3 9.0 27.3 -117.5 79.2 -64.2 -83.1
V4X 4100 11.5 10.8 22.3 -121 .1 42.7 -81 .7 -160.3
a 0010 29.4 34.5 63.9 -76.8 48.7 38.4 107.4

v1a 1010 26.6 26.0 52.6 -74.9 21.0 50.0 159.4
v2a 2010 25.7 17.7 43.6 -135.9 21 .2 -1.7 -64.2
v3a 3010 18.9 16.9 35.8 -92.4 12.4 60.5 -49.3
4010 17.0 16.9 33.9 -86.4 76.1 7.7 97.9

y
la 0110 29.9 35.0 64.9 -69.4 35.6 -5.3 -9.2
v.la 1110 28.3 27.0 55.3 37.7 -65.4 -2.6 -21 .0
i .
v.la 2110 26.7 17.2 43.9 41.5 1.2 -80.5 .2
v la 3110 20.5 16.3 36.8 19.4 -56.5 -48.8 65.5

4110 21 15.7 36.7 23.3 101
v,4 la .0 -25.2 -111.5 .1
s 0001 40.8 41.5 82.3 25.7 15.2 75.6 407.0

v.s 1001 41 .9 41.5 83.4 23.0 23.2 31 .8 6.2
1
v_s 2001 37.5 18.6 56.1 11 .8 33.6 86.9 -52.2
2
v3s 3001 19.0 8.7 27.7 9.2 16.4 72.5 78.1
v.s 4001 24.0 18.2 42.2 14.5 -3.6 -36.5 -17.5
is 0101 41.3 44.0 85.3 6.7 1.9 -27.7 11 .6
1101 42.9 34.9 77.8 3.6 43.5 62.2

v. Is
-8.8
1
v_ls
,
2101 31.8 23.7 55.5 8.8 17.0 -40.5 -13.0
v^ls
2, 3101 36.1 21.3 57.4 71.3 3.8 66.6 -77.9
3,Is 4101 26.5 22.8 49.3 4.8 3.9 31 .3 -62.7

v,4
as 0011 39.8 39.9 79-7 24.8 -2.7 8.0 -43.8
v,as 1011 38.6 37.5 76.1 10.8 -2.6 -17.2 -14.4
1 61 3.8
v_as 2011 35.3 26.1 .4 -12.3 -7.8 5.5
2 5.2
v,as 3011 25.2 23.7 48.9 -53.1 -26.5 -31 .7
v, as 4011 24.8 25.3 50.1 4.6 -66.5 .1 -35.3
,4
las 0111 38.0 42.3 80.3 -3.4 -14.0 .1 -25.2
v.las 1111 39.9 36.4 76.3 16.7 -40.8 13.0 -32. C

1 63.2 0.0
v_las
,
2111 37.0 26.2 -73.2 -8.0 52.5
2. 58.1 32.8 39.5
v^las 3111 32.2 25.9 -1.8 -89.9
4111 30.0 24.7 54.7 -23.4 -21.6 68.3 35.5

v, las
4
2124.6
70
Sum of Calc F Sign

Divisor Squares Ratio at 5 Percent
80 56424.07
X Squares
160 3748.10 509.1329 Total sum of
X Replicates
224 163.88 22.2620 of =
X 63,599.48
160 131.95 17-9234
1120 19.01 2.5817
X Sum Sum Squares
30 97.68 13.2689 of of
16C 21 .60 2.9353 = 63,305.01

224 .0257 .0035
160 43.16 5.8628 * 63,599.48 -

63,305.01
1120 22.94 3.1165
-
294.47
X
80 144.18 19.5857 7.36 (error
294.47/40 =
X
160 158.80 21.5713
term for 40 deg. of
224 18.40 2.4994
Freed. )
160 15.19 2.0635
1120 8.56 1 .1624
Critical F = 4.0848
80 1 .06 .1437
160 2.75 .3744
224 .0002 .00002
160 26.81 3.6424

1120 9.126 1 .2397
X
80 2070.61 281 .2673
160 .2403 .0326
224 12.164 1.6524

160 38.123 5.1785
1120 .273
.0371
80 1.682 .2285
160 24.18 3.2846
224 .745 .1025
160 37.928 5.1520

1120 3.51 .4768
80 23.98 3.2575
160 1.296 .1760
224 .345
.0470
160 6.28 .8531
1120 1.11 .1511
80 7.938 1 .0783
160 9.75 1 .3246
1120 1.125 .1528
63,305.01
71
ANOVA TABLE FOR AREA OF SLUR TARGET

(1) 0000 3.9 1.6 5.5 10.7 25.9 55.9 70.5

1000 2.7 2.1 15.2 30.0 14.6 -34.2
v. -.6
2000 2.0 1 14.6 10.4 61.2

V2 -1.0 .0 -7.5
3000 15.4 4.2 -26.7 -2.1
V3
.8 .1 .9
4000 .7 .5 1 .2 4.7 1.9 28.9 -41.5
0100 1.5 .8 2.3 5.7 -9.4 32.3 1.9

1100 1 4.3 3.5 39.8
V -.2 .1
2.8
.9 -9.6
34.4
2100 -.1 2.9 -.1 -17.1 -5.6
3100 -.8 2.0 1.2 -9.8 21 .3 9.9 22.9

4100 7.8 8.0 11.7 7.6 45.9
y .2 -51 .4
a 0010 3.9 1.0 4.9 -9.4 17.0 5.3 -2.1
v.a 1010 1 .1 3.1 4.2 0.0 15.3 -3.4 -18.8
i
va 2010 0.0 2.4 2.4 -6.7 3.2 30.9 -15.4
2
v3a 3010 1 .6 0.0 1.6 -2.9 .3 8.9 -3.9
4010 .9 .6 1.5 -11.1 -2.3 7.7 -16.1
y
la 0110 3.0 .9 3.9 -6.0 -3.3 26.7 -9.1
v. la 1110 .8 2.0 2.8 8.4 19.4 3.7 -10.8
1
v_la
.
2110 .1 1.6 1.7 12.9 -9.5 19.2 -21 .0
2,
v_,la 3110 1 .0 2.4 3.4 2.2 -32.1 13.3 -22.9
3.
v. la 41 10 2.6 1.0 3.6 5.4 -19.3 32.6 4.9
4
s 0001 1 .1 1 .4 2.5 -3.1 4.5 4.1 -41 .3
v.s 1001 1 .0 0.0 1 .0 20.1 .8 -6.2 -19.2
1 3.4
v.s 2001 0.0 -.1 .-.1
5.9 1 .0 -11 .3
2
VT3 3001 1.3 2.0 3.3 9.4 -4.4 -7.5 -9-1
3 21.5
v.s 4001 .3 -2.3 -2.0 -1-9 -13.7 -61 .3
1- 0101 2.4 1.3 3.7 5.1 9.4 -1 .7 -8.7
1101 2.0 2.2 1 3.8 -2.9 -22. C

v, Is .2 .8
1 5.1 19.0
v_ls
,
2101 -1 .4 -1 .6 -3.0 -1 .5 -1 .0
2. 15.5
v Is 3101 -.7 -.4 -1 .1 -9.1 4.5 -28.9
vTls 4101 4.6 -.7 3.9 6.8 3.2 12.8 19.3

4 23.2
as 0011 2.3 1.6 3.9 -3.3 -3.7 -10.3
1011 1.6 2.3 0.0 3.5 -5.4 3.8

v.as .7
1 7.0 12.0
v_as 2011 -1 .8 -.3 -2.1 .7 -12.1
2 1 18.7 1.3 1.9

v.. as 3011 .5 .9
.4 -3.3
3 15.9 41.7
4011 -.4 -.8 -1.2 -2.4 -1 .3
v, as
,4
las 0111 2.5 .1 2.6 -7.1 3.3 -19.7 -1.7
1111 -.4 -17.3 18.0 -19.3 13.4

v. las -.1 -.3
2111 -.9 0.0 -.9 14.8 -4.7 -12.6 -18.4

v.las
v^las 3111 -.6 -1.0 -1 .6 -24.7 2.5 -22.7 -2.3
3 0.0 5.4 30.1 27.6 50.3

v,4 las 4111 .2 .2
TOTAL: 70.5
72
APPENDIX E (CONTINUED;
Sum of Calc F Sig

80 62.12
160 7.31 3.1383
X
Total Sum of Squares
224 16.72 7.1782
of Replicates =
160 .027 .0118
255.53
1120 1.54 .6601
8C .045 .0193
Sura of Sum of Squares

X
160 9.90 4.502
= 162.35
224 5.28 2.2679
160 3.28 1.4071
255.53 162.35
-
1120 1 .88 .8075

= 93.18
80 .055 .0237
160 2.209 .9483

93.18/40 = 2.329
224 1.059 .4545
( Error Term for
160 .095 .0408
40 Degrees of
1120 .231 .0994
Freedom)
80 1 .035 .4444
160 .729
.3130
Critical F = 4.0848
224 1.969 .8452
160 3.28 1 .4071
1120 .021 .0092
X
80 21.32 9.1532
160 2.304 .9891
224 .052 .0222
160 .518 .2222
1120 3.355 1 .4403
80 .946 .4062
160 3.025 1 .2986
224 1 .612 .6919
160 1.50 .6446
1120 .333 .1428
80 1.326 .5693
160 .090 .0387
224 .643
.2760
160 .0225 .0097
1120 1.55 .6665
30 .036 .0155
160 1.12 .4818
224 1.51 .6489
160 .033
.0142
1120 2.26
162.35
73
APPENDIX E (CONTINUED;
YATES TABLE FOR TOTAL DOT GAIN

(1) 0000 31.6 38.7 70.3 198.7 414.2 914.7 2207.4

1000 27.1 25.3 52.4 215.5 500.5 1292.7
v! -797.1
2000 20.7 11.5 32.2 243.9 630.1 252.6

V2 -396.5
3000 12.7 9.2 21 256.6 662.6 146.8

V3 4000 11.1
.9 -400.6
152.1
10.8 21.9 298.2 -231 .0 -157.5
0100 32.9 25.9 68.8 331.9 -165.5 100.5 77.6

1100 28.5 26.6 55.1 324.1 41 94.7
V 2100
-226.4 .1
32.4
19.5 13.4 32.9 338.5 -174.2 105.7
vk 3100 17.5 10.9 28.4 -127.3 94.6 -53.8 -63.5
v3l
V41 4100 19-3 11.0 30.3 -103.7 57.5 -103.7 -117.3
a 0010 33.3 35.3 68.6 -86.0 63.3 29.5 118.8

v1a 1010 27.7 29.1 56.8 -79.5 37.2 48.1 117.7
v2a 2010 25.7 20.1 45.8 -138.4 27.5 30.1 -63.2
v a 3010 20.5 16.9 37.4 -88.0 13.6 64.6 -62.8
4010 17.9 17.4 35.3 -94.2 77.3 16.7 87.7

la 0110 32.9 38.8 71.7 -80.0 28.4 15.7 -23.4
v,la 1 1 10 29.1 29.0 58.1 45.7 -49.3 4.9 -53.3

i ,
v la 2110 26.9 18.8 45.7 48.9 -4.5 -68.2 4.6

v la 3110 21 .5 18.7 40.2 22.0 -73.3 -34.0 34.7
v, la 4110 24.2 16.7 40.9 35.5 -30.4 -83.3 91.5
4
s 0001 41.8 42.9 84.7 26.4 16.8 86.3 378.6
v s 1001 42.8 41.5 84.3 36.9 12.7 32.5 -4.1
1
v,s 2001 37.5 18.6 56.1 16.2 33.7 65.5 -51.6
2 64.6
v,s 3001 20.2 10.7 30.9 21.0 14.4 52.2
3 23.6
v.s 4001 24.3 17.9 42.2 12.6 -37.1 -49.9
1_ 0101 43.6 42.4 86.0 14.9 6.5 -26.1 18.6

v.ls 1101 43.0 36.8 79.8 5.5 50.4 -13.9 34.5
1
v_ls
.
2101 31.9 22.7 55.5 8.1 14.2 -48.9 -1 .0
v
2,Is 3101 36.1 21.3 57.4 64.3 3.2 44.8 -73.1
vfls 4101 31 .1 22.1 53.2 13.0 13.5 42.9 -49.3
4
as 0011 42.0 41.5 83.5 22.9 10.3 -4.1 -53.8
1011 39.3 39.1 78.4 5.5 4.8 -19.3 -13.3

v, as
1 61 2.3 11
v_as 2011 35.3 26.1 .4 -11.8 -17.1 .0
2 24.6 50.4 2.6

v.as 3011 25.8 -37.5 -30.2 -35.0
4011 24.8 25.6 50.4 1 .9 -51.3 10.3 -1.9

v, as
,4
las 0111 40.6 45.3 85.9 -6.4 -16.9 -5.7 -15.2
1111 39.9 36.4 76.3 2.7 -25.7 -19.1
v, las
.3
1 , 26.2 63.2 34.4

vlas 2111 37.0 -76.0 -8.3 -16.0
2. 25.8 58.1 17.4 34.1

v-las 3111 32.3 -12.9 -78.7
3. 55.0 74.1 56.7

v, las 4111 30.1 24.9 -17.5 -4.6
TOTAL: 68,635. 47
74
APPENDIX E (CONTINUED)
Sum of Calc F Sig

30 60907.68
X
160 3971.05 185.9136 Total Sum of Squares
X
224 284.85 21.3597 of Replicates =
X
160 134.69 6.3058 68,635.47
1120 22.15 1 .0369
80 73.35 3.4338 Sum of Sum of Squares

160 56.05 2.6241 = 67,781.08
224 4.69 .2194
160 25.20 1 .1799 68,635.47 -

67,781 .08
1120 12.29 .5752

= 854.387
80 176.42 8.2591 X
160 86.58 4.0538 854.387/40 = 21 .36
224 17.83 .8348 (Error Term for 40

160 24.96 1.1687 Degrees of Freedom)
1120 6.86 .3215
80 6.84 .3204 Critical F = 4.0848

160 17.755 .8313
224 .0944 .0044
160 7.525 .3523
1120 7.475 .3500
X
80 1791 .72 83.8836
160 .105 .0049
224 11.89 .5565
160 26.08 1 .2211
1120 2.179 .1020
80 4.33 .2025
160 7.44 .3483
224 .0044 .0002
160 33.40 1.5636

1120 2.17 .1016
30 36.18 1.6939
160 1 .122 .0525
224 .540 .0253
160 7.656 .3584
1120 .0032 .0002
80 2.888 .1352
160 2.28 .1067
224 1.14 .0535
160 7.35 .3442
1120 2.87
TOTAL: 67,781 .08

75
APPENDIX F -
SUMMARY TABLES OF EXPERIMENT
(MEAN DENSITIES OF SOLID, 25 PERCENT,
50 PERCENT SQUARE DOT, 75 PERCENT,
FILL-IN, AND SLUR TARGETS; PERCENT
DOT OF 25, 50 AND 75 PERCENT TARGETS;
AND MICRONS AND PERCENT GAIN OF
FILL-IN SLUR TARGETS AND TOTAL DOT GAIN)
76
APPENDIX F -
SUMMARY TABLES OF EXPERIMENT
SUMMARY TABLE FOR EXPERIMENT
Run Ink Ink Scr 25% 50% Sq 75%

No. No. Paper Level Rul. Sol. Den Dot Den Dot Den Dot
i 1A Coat Opt (Lo) 100 1.31 .28 39.5 .58 71.5 .87 87.8
.07 .03 4.2 .06 3.1 .09 3.2
150 1 .47 .40 53.5 .84 84.5 1 .18 94.3
.06 .09 9.8 .10 7.0 .18 4.5
Uncoat Same ( Lo ) 100 1 .02 .31 41 .8 .55 72.3 .76 88.5
.06 .03 4.7 .04 2.3 .04 1 .6
150 1.06 .40 54.3 .68 81.5 .89 91.5

.09 .06 6.3 .09 4.7 .15 3.6
Uncoat Opt (Hi) 100 1.11 .39 51.2 .68 79.8 .93 93.7
.06 .05 5.1 .09 5.2 .10 2.2
150 1.11 .46 60.3 .79 82.0 .96 94.8
.10 .10 9.6 .15 12.6 .14 4.C
Coat Same (Hi) 100 1.47 .39 51.5 .77 79.7 1.11 92.5
.16 .16 17.5 .14 4.7 .14 7.1
150 1.62 .53 65.5 1.07 91 .7 1 .43 98.2
.08 .12 8.4 .15 3.1 .12 .8
1B Coat Opt (Lo) 100 1.30 .28 40.8 .57 72.2 .87 89.0
.07 .02 3.1 .05 2.7 .07 1.7
150 1.45 .40 54.7 .84 84.8 1.18 95.0
8.6 6.7 .18
4.1
.07 .09 .09
Uncoat Same ( Lo ) 100 1.03 .32 43.2 .56 73.0 .77 88.8
.05 .02 2.2 .04 1 .8 .05 1 .2
150 1.06 .39 52.8 .66 80.7 .88 93.0

.09 .06 6.8 .10 4.0 .12 3.3
Uncoat Opt (Hi) 100 1 .10 .38 51.5 .67 80.3 .93 94.3
.08 .05 5.4 .08 4.6 .09 2.7
150 1 .08 .44 60.6 .77 86.5 .98 96.7
.10 .08 7.9 .15 6.5 .14 2.7
Coat Same (Hi) 100 1.47 .37 48.5 .74 78.5 1 .08 92. C
.06 .13 14. 3 .18 10.7 .14 5.6
150 1.63 .52 64.5 1.05 91 .2 1 .44 98.2
.08 .11 7.7 .14 2.6 .11
2 Coat Opt (Lo) 100 1 .24 .29 40.0 .57 71 .2 .85 89. C
.10 .03 3.8 .04 1 .6 .05 .
r
150 1.26 .37 51 .3 .72 81 .2 1 .02 94.2

.13 .04 4.4 3.9 .14
2.1
.09
Uncoat Same ( Lo ) 100 .94 .32 44.7 .55 74.5 .75 90.-:
.05 .01 1 .5 .01 1 .8 .02 1 .-
150 .95 .38 53.3 .62 80.7 .80 93 . :

.05 .03 3.4 .06 3.6 .05 1 . 1
Uncoat Opt (Hi) 100 1 .03 .34 46.7 .60 76.3 .85 92.2
.13 .04 4.8 -09 4.5 .14 3.3
150 1 .07 .46 60.8 .78 87.2 .98 97. C
Coat Same (Hi) 100 1 .40 .35 48.5 .75 80.0 1.17 93.3
.06 .10 10.9 .04 5.1 .05 2 . t
;
150 1 .48 .51 62.3 1.09 89.2 1 .34 96.
.09
.12 10.7 .05 3.9 .07
77
APPENDIX F (CONTINUED)
PRESS RUN 1, INKS 1 AND 2 (CONTINUED;
Fill- m Slur =) Total
% % %
Den Micr Gain Den Micr Gain Micr Gain
.52 27.1 10.7 .53 1.6 .6 28.6 11.3 Mean

.04 5.3 2.1 .05 3.6 1 .4 8.3 3.3 St Dev
.77 41 .0 24.2 .79 1.9 1 .1 42.8 25.3 Mean
.13 10.5 6.2 .13 .9 .5 10.4 6.1 St Dev
.52 43.1 17. C .53 2.3 .9 45.4 17.9 Mean
.04 4.2 1.7 .04 1 .3 .5 4.3 1.7 St Dev
.64 42.5 25.1 .64 .8 .5 43.3 25.5 Mean
.11
9.7 5.7 .11
1.7 1.0 8.8 5.2 St Dev
.59 53.3 21 .8 .64 8.7 3.4 62.0 24.4 Mean
.07 .7 4.6 .08 11.7 4.6 16.2 6.4 St Dev

.76 55.1 32.5 .74 -3.1 -1.8 55.1 32.5 Mean
.14 9.5 5.6 .12 13.3 7.8 9.6 5.7 St Dev
.57 30.1 11.9 .74 26.8 10.6 57.0 22.4 Mean
.14 10.6 7-7 .19 10.6 2.2 21 .8 8.6 St Dev

26.5 9.6 5.7 54.5 32.2 Mean
.35 44.9 .98
.10 7.2 4.2 .05 10.2 6.0 9.8 5.8 St Dev

.52 27.0 10.6 .52 1.9 .7 28.8 11.2 Mean
.03 3.5 1 .4 .05 3.4 1.3 7.0 2.8 St Dev

.76 40.6 24.0 .76 .6 1.5 41 .2 24.3 Mean
.12 9.7 5.8 .13 1.5 .9 11 .0 6.5 St Dev

.52 43.6 17.2 .53 3.0 1 .2 46.5 18.3 Mean
.04 5.4 2.1 .04 3.2 1.3 5.4 2.1 St Dev

42.0 24.8 .63 -.6 -.4 42.0 24.8 Mean
.63
.11 9.2 5.4 .1 1 1.2 .7 9.2 5.4 St Dev

54.8 21 .6 .62 6.7 2.6 61 .4 24.2 Mean
.59
.08 14.1 5.5 .07 10.0 3.9 14.4 5.7 St Dev

30.0 0.0 50.9 30.1 Mean
.71 50.9 .71 .1
9.8 5.8 .11 5.9 3.5 8.5 5.0 St Dev

.13
29.2 11.5 .68 19.8 7.8 49.0 19.3 Mean

.57
.12 19.8 7.3 .11 7.5 3.0 13.9 5.5 St Dev

26.5 7.9 4.6 52.7 31 Mean
44.9
.1
.96
.85
.11 7.6 4.5 .14 9.0 5.3 8.6 5.1 St Dev
.52
30.1 11.8 .53 2.2 .8 32.2 12.7 Mean
3.2 1.2 .03 1.8 .7 2.8 1 .1 St Dev
.03
.61 32.1 19.0 .63

2.1 1.3 34.2 20.2 Mean
4.1 4.8 2.9 3.5 2.1 St Dev
.10 6.9 .07
4.0 1.6 52.1 20.5 Mean

.51 48.1 18.9 .52
7.0 2.8 .02 3.2 1.3 4.7 1.9 St Dev

.02
25.2 43.6 25.8 Mean

.58 42.7 .59 .9 .5
1 1 2.6 1.5 St Dev

.03
2.6 .5 .03 .1 .7
2.6 1 54.6 21.5 Mean

.56 52.0 20.5 .57
.1
2.7 2.5 1 5.7 2.3 St Dev

.08 6.9 .08
.1
32.2 54.6 32.2 Mean

.75
54.6 .73 -1 .0 -.6
6.4 2.4 1 9.0 5.3 St Dev

.15
10.8 .12
.4
18.3 -.8 44.6 12.5 Mean

.64 46.5 .65 -1.9
6.2 2.4 .13 2.9 11.8 29.5 11.6 St Dev

.05
36.1 1.01 61 36.1 Mean

1 .01 61.2 -1 .1 -.7 .2
1 6.0 3.5 4.6 2.7 St Dev

.04 1.9 .1 .10
78
Run Ink Ink Scr 2 5% 50% Sq 75%

No. No. Paper Level Rul. Sol Den Dot Den Dot Den Dot
1 3 Coat Opt (Lo) 100 1.36 .37 52.0 .76 83.2 1.15 95.2
.13 .06 6.8 .13 5.1 .18 2.k
150 1.36 .48 64.2 1.00 91.8 1.25 97-5
.13 .08 6.4 .19 4.1 .15 3.3
Uncoat Same (Lo) 100 1 .01 .38 53.0 .64 80.7 .88 94.3
.05 .03 3.0 .05 2.1 .06 1 .2
150 1 .02 .45 62.7 .76 88.5 .93 97.0

.04 .04 3.1 .06 2.3 .05 .6.
Uncoat Opt (Hi) 100 1.01 .40 54.2 .68 82.2 .87 93.3
.06 .05 6.3 .07 4.0 .08 2.3
150 1 .02 .49 64.8 .79 89.0 .94 97.5
.06 .08 7.5 .09 3.5 .10 1 .5
Coat Same (Hi) 100 1 .40 .34 48.8 .73 81 .2 1 .16 95.7
.10 .04 4.3 .10 3.5 .13 1.9
150 1.38 .43 59.3 .94 90.2 1 .28 98.2
.06 .06 4.4 .1 1 3.8 .09 .5
4 Coat Opt (Lo) 100 1.32 .40 51.2 .86 87.3 1 .17 96.5
.14 .07 6.6 .08 5.9 .12 2.3
150 1 .37 .57 71.5 1.14 96.2 1 .31 99.2
.03 .03 1.6 .03 .41 .04 .4
Uncoat Same (Lo) 100 .98 .39 53.8 .66 82.5 .86 94.8
.04 .03 2.9 .06 2.9 .06 1.3
150 1 .00 .51 68.3 .83 90.5 .96 98.5
.02 .05 4.9 .05 2.4 .04 .8
Uncoat Opt (Hi) 100 .99 .40 54.7 .68 83.3 .88 94.3
.05 .04 4.8 .07 3.8 .07 1 .c
150 1 .02 .52 69.3 .83 92.2 .98 98.7

.01 .03 2.7 .04 1.6 .02 .5
Coat Same (Hi) 100 1.35 .41 55.2 .86 86.3 1 .19 97. C
.05 .08 8.1 .12
7.1 .09 2.3
150 1.38 .60 73.2 1.18 96.8 1.35 99.6
.06 .04 2.3 .04 .41
.07
."4
5 Coat Opt (Lo) 100 1.19 .43 59.0 .84 88.7 1.08 96.7
.07 .06 5.5 .13 3.2 .07 2.0
150 1.19 .57 72.8 1 .00 94.8 1.13 98.8
.06 .10 6.1 .08 2.6 .08 1 .3
Uncoat Same (Lo) 100 .95 .42 59.3 .68 85.5 .63 95.5
.06 .05 4.8 .06 2.4 .08 1 .4
150 .94 .53 72.5 .80 92.8 .90 97. t

.08 .06 3.8 .09 1 .7 .09
Uncoat Opt (Hi) 100 1.01 .43 59.0 .73 86.7 .93 96. 8
.03 .03 3.6 .04 2.1 .04 .4
150 .98 .54 70.8 .82 92.0 .94 98.2

.07 .10 8.3 .11
3.7 .10 1 .7
Coat Same (Hi) 100 1.32 .43 58.3 .92 88.7 1 .23 97.8
.06 .06 5.2 .14 7.9 .14 2.4
99.=
150 1.36 .64 75.0 1.15 96.3 1.31
.07 .07 7.0 .10 2.7 .09
79
PRESS RUN 1, INKS 3 THROUGH 5 (CONTINUED)
Fill- In Slur ( -) Total
% % %
.71 55.2 21 .7 .69 -2.6 -1.0 55.2 21 .7 Mean

.14 19.3 7.6 .09 7.4 2.9 14.1 5.6 St Dev
.99 63.6 37.5 .99 -.7 0.0 63.6 37.5 Mean
.14
4.9 2.9 .15 6.0 3.5 6.7 4.0 St Dev
.62 65.4 25.7 .62 0.0 0.0 65.4 25.7 Mean
.06 5.7 2.2 .05 2.2 .8 5.7 2.2 St Dev
.75 59.8 35.3 .73 -3.0 -1.8 59.8 35.3 Mean
.07 4.8 2.8 .07 1 .4 .8 4.9 2.9 St Dev
.63 67.9 26.7 .63 .4 .1 68.3 26.9 Mean
.09 12.1 4.8 .07 6.5 2.6 9.4 3.7 St Dev
.79 62.9 37.0 .77 -1.5 -.9 62.9 37.0 Mean
.09 5.8 3.4 .10 2.1 1 .2 6.4 3.8 St Dev
.67 49.7 19.6 .66 -.2 -1 .1 49.7 19.6 Mean
.10 11 .7 4.6 .08 3.5 1 .4 8.9 3.5 St Dev
.88 53.9 31 .8 .85 -2.3 -1 .4 53.9 31 .8 Mean
.12 8.3 4.9 .11 1 .6
.9 8.2 4.8 St Dev
.78 70.4 27.7 .76 -1 .6 -.6 68.8 27.1 Mean
.1 1 8.8 3.5 .09 2.3 .9 6.7 2.6 St Dev
1.10 70.9 41 .9 1 .13 1 .6 1.0 72.5 42.8 Mean
.03 1.9 1 .1 .02 1 .0 .6 1.5 .9 St Dev
.61 67.7 26.6 .63 2.7 1 .1 70.4 27.7 Mean
.06 6.7 2.7 .06 2.9 1 .1 7.2 2.8 St Dev
.79 65.4 38.6 .80 1 .1 .7 66.5 39.3 Mean
.06 5.0 2.9 .05 1.9 1 .1 4.0 2.4 St Dev
.63 71 .8 28.3 .65 2.0 .8 73.8 29.1 Mean
.09 12.8 5.0 .05 .8 0.0 12.7 5.0 St Dev
.82 67.6 39.9 .87 -.2 -.1 67.7 39.9 Mean
.04 3.5 2.0 .05 2.0 1 .2 4.3 2.6 St Dev
.80 72.9 28.7 .30 -.5 -.2 72.9 28.7 Mean
.07 7.3 2.9 .07

7.0 2.8 9.7 3.8 St Dev
1.14 72.7 42.9 1.14 .3 .2 72.9 43.2 Mean
.06
1 .3
.8 .05 1 .0 .6 .8 .5 St Dev
.73
70.4 27.7 .79 9.9 3.9 80.3 31 .6 Mean
.12 15.0 5.9 .13 1 .6 .7 14.7 5.8 St Dev

69.0 40.8 .98 1 .8 1 .1 70.8 41 .8 Mean
.96
.07 2.8 1 .7 .09 1.6 .9 3.8 2.3 St Dev
.63 74.7 29.4 .68 10.0 3.9 84.7 33.3 Mean
.06 6.3 2.5 .05

5.2 2.1 3.0 1 .1 St Dev
67.3 39.8 .80 3.8 2.3 71 .2 42.0 Mean

.77
.08 3.6 2.1 .06 3.8 2.2 2.0 1 .2 St Dev

7.7 3.0 83.7 32.9 Mean
.68 76.0 29.9 .72
5.0 2.2 .04 4.0 1.6 6.0 2.4 St Dev

.03
38.0 4.2 2.5 68.8 40.6 Mean

.79 64.3 .82
4.8 3.2 1.9 5.7 3.4 St Dev

.12 8.2 .10
79.8 31 .4 .87 3.8 1.5 83.6 32.9 Mean

.84
11 4.6 .1 1 2.0 .8 10.7 4.2 St Dev

.11 .7
41 1 4.0 2.4 73.9 43.6 Mean

1 .09 69.9 .3 .15
6.0 3.5 .11 2.4 1 .4 4.0 2.3 St Dev

.13
80

No. No. Paper Levels Rul Sol Den Dot Den Dot Den Dot
2 1 Coat Opt (Lo) 100 1 .46 .28 39.0 .61 72.8 .99 90.5
.07 .02 2.8 .05 2.9 .05 1 .1
150 1.52 .34 48.2 .75 80.0 1.19 94.3

.13 .07 8.0 .08 4.9 .17 3.1
Uncoat Same ( Lo ) 100 1 .05 .31 42.8 .56 72.5 .82 90.5
.09 .03 4.3 .07 4.0 .10 2.9
150 1.06 .38 52.3 .65 79.2 .93 95.2
.12 .07 6.9 .09 7.2 .08 3.3
Uncoat Opt (Hi) 100 1.09 .31 43.7 .57 73.2 .82 89.2
.06 .02 2.0 .05 3.5 .06 3.4
150 1.08 .38 53.2 .67 81.2 .92 94.3
.06 .05 5.4 .09 5.0 .09 2.3
Coat Same (Hi) 100 1.57 .30 44.7 .64 75.3 .99 90.8
.07 .08 8.5 .17 2.6 .04 2.8
150 1.51 .40 56.0 .86 86.0 1 .27 95.7
.07 .05 4.9 .08 4.6 .08 2.3
2 Coat Opt (Hi) 100 1.26 .26 41.5 .53 71 .3 .83 88.7
.11 .03 2.8 .04
1.9 .05 .82
150 1.37 .26 40.7 .55 71.7 .39 89.5

.03 .01 1 .2 .01 .56 .02 1 .1
Uncoat Same ( Lo ) 100 .95 .29 41.7 .53 73.2 .74 89.2
.04 .02 1.5 .03 1.7 .03 2.3
150 1 .01 .39 55.0 .66 82.2 .35 93.7
.02 .03 4.3 .05 3.0 .03 1 .2
Uncoat Same (Hi) 100 .97 .29 41.5 .57 72.0 .74 89.0
.04 .03 4.2 .04 3.0 .04 1 .3
150 1 .02 .38 54.0 .66 82.2 .84 93.0

.04 .03 3.6 .05 2.7 .05 1 .6
Coat Same (Hi) 100 1 .37 .26 40.7 .55 71 .7 .89 89.5
.03 .01 1.2 .01 .52 .02 1 .1
150 1 .41 .37 54.5 .74 82.7 1 .08 94.5

.05 .01 1 .1 .04 1 .8 .09 1 .8
3 Coat Opt (Lo) 100 1.31 .26 38.2 .55 71 .2 .88 89.3
.06 .02 3.1 .02 1 .2 .03 .82
150 1.27 .33 48.5 .68

79.5 1 .00 93.5
.09 .05 6.2 .11 4.8 .04 1 .8
Uncoat Same ( Lo ) 100 .98 .31 43.7 .56 74.5 .78 91 .2
.02 .01 2.7 .02 1.8 .02 .75
150 .96 .37 53.0 .64 82.3 .84 94.8

.08 .06 7.5 .08 3.1 .1 1 2.6
Uncoat Same (Hi) 100 1 .01 .32 45.8 .57 75.2 .79 90.8
.05 .02 1.6 .03 .98 .04
.75
150 .99 .39 56.3 .66 82.7 .84 93.8

.06 .05 4.6 .07 3.7 .08
1.9
Coat Opt (Hi) 100 1 .32 .28 42.5 .58 73.0 .94
91.5
.06 .02 2.7 .03 2.0 .08 1.5
150 1.28 .36 51.5 .73 82.8 1.12 96.5
.07 .07 7.3 .10 5.8 .11 2.6
PRESS RUN 2, INKS 1 THROUGH 3 (CONTINUED;
Fill- in Slijr <:) Total
% % %
.54 26.0 10.2 .55 1 .4

.5 27.3 10.8 Mean
.03 2.9 1 . 1 .01 4.1 1.6 3.0 1.2 St Dev
.67 30.8 18.2 .64 -3.9 -2.3 30.8 18.2 Mean
.09 8.0 4.7 .12 3.5 2.0 10.8 6.4 St Dev
.52 42.8 16.9 .57 1 .4 .6 44.3 17.4 Mean
.04 2.4 1.0 .04 14.1 5.5 13.0 5.1 St Dev
.64 42.8 25.3 .62 -1.3 -.8 42.8 25.3 Mean
.12 9.3 5.5 .11 2.1 1.3 8.1 4.8 St Dev
.52 39.8 15.7 .53 2.6 1.0 42.4 16.7 Mean
.04 4.1 1.6 .03 1.8 .7 2.8 1 .1 St Dev
.64 41 .9 24.7 .63 .4 .2 42.2 24.9 Mean
.08 7.5 4.4 .06 6.1 3.6 7.1 4.2 St Dev
.57 27.4 10.8 .57 .6 .2 28.0 11.0 Mean
.04 8.2 3.2 .05 3.7 1 .4 9.1 3.6 St Dev
.75 38.5 22.8 .74 -1 .2 -.7 38.5 22.8 Mean
.11 10.6 6.3 .11 2.9 1.7 11.3 6.7 St Dev
.49 23.3 9.2 .49 .2 .1 23.4 9.3 Mean
.03 3.5 1 .4 .04 3.7 1.5 6.2 2.4 St Dev
.51 14.7 8.7 .53 3.3 2.0 18.1 10.7 Mean
.02 2.4 1 .4 .03 1.6 .9 3.6 2.1 St Dev
.49 43.0 16.9 .49 -.1 0.0 43.0 16.9 Mean
.03 5.1 2.0 .04 5.8 2.3 9.9 3.5 St Dev
.59
40.1 23.7 .60 1.6 .9 41 .6 24.6 Mean
.02 3.5 2.1 .04 1.9 1 .1 4.5 2.7 St Dev
41 .4 16.3 .52 6.2 2.5 47.6 18.7 Mean
.49
.02 2.5 1 .0 .03 4.7 1.8 4.6 1 .8 St Dev

.62 43.8 25.9 .61 -1.6 -.9 43.8 25.9 Mean
5.0 2.9 .06 1 .4 .8 5.7 3.3 St Dev
.05
.51 22.8 9.0 .53 5.0 2.0 27.2 10.9 Mean
.02 3.5 1 .4 .03 2.3 .9 4.8 1.9 St Dev

36.2 21.3 .69 -.7 -.4 36.2 21.3 Mean
.69
.04 3.3 1.9 .06 2.8 1.6 5.5 3.2 St Dev

.51 24.2 9.5 .53 5.2 2.0 29.3 11.5 Mean
.02
3.1 1 .2 .02 2.1 .8 3.5 1 .4 St Dev
.62 31.5 18.6 .61 -.3 -.1 31.5 18.6 Mean

.10 9.5 5.6 .07 3.6 2.1 7.2 4.3 St Dev
17.7 6.1 2.4 51.0 20.1 Mean
.51 44.9 .53
.01 1.0 .4 .02 3.6 1.4 4.2 1.7 St Dev

26.1 44.3 26.1 Mean
.60 44.3 .59
-.6 -.3
2.3 1.5 4.9 2.9 St Dev

.06 3.9 .07 .9
17.2 4.1 1.6 47.6 18.8 Mean

.52 43.7 .54
3.0 1 .2 .03 3.8 1.5 4.5 6.8 St Dev

.01
26.2 0.0 0.0 44.3 26.2 Mean

.61 44.3 .61
5.1 3.0 .07 1.7 1.0 5.4 3.2 St Dev

.06
10.6 7.3 2.9 34.1 13.4 Mean

.52 26.9 .56
2.2 .03 3.1 1.2 3.4 1 .4 St Dev

.02 .9
40.1 23.7 Mean

.70
40.1 23.7 .68 -2.7 -1.6
4.1 2.4 12.3 7.3 St Dev

.10
8.3 4.9 .13
82
APPENDIX F (CONTINUED;

No. No. Paper Level Rul. Sol. Den Dot Den Dot Den Dot
2 4 Coat Opt (Lo) 100 1 .40 .38 53.3 .78 83.2 1.15 94.7
.11 .06 7.6 .11 7.6 .07 4.8
150 1.33 .54 67.5 1.05 91 .8 1 .30 98.5
.10 .10 7.6 .14
5.7 .12 1.8
Uncoat Same (Lo) 100 .99 .38 53.7 .65 82.2 .85 94.3
.04 .03 4.6 .02 1.8 .04 1.2
150 .98 .49 66.3 .77 89.5 -91 96.8
.11 .11 10.0 .13 4.9 .14 2.4
Uncoat Opt (Hi) 100 1.05 .41 58.3 .70 84.2 .92 95.5
.03 .01 1.5 .03 1.7 .04 1 .4
150 1.01 .48 66.2 .75 87.7 .89 95.8

.08 .11 9.6 . 1 1 4.7 .13 4.1
Coat Same (Hi) 100 1.43 .40 56.8 .86 87.2 1.23 96.8
.10 .04 4.1 .07 3.9 .10 4.8
150 1.37 .50 62.8 .97 87.5 1 .18 96.0
.08 .13 8.5 .22 3.9 .19 4.3
5 Coat Opt (Lo) 100 1 .41 .52 66.7 1 .04 92.0 1 .32 98.5
.07 .10 7.7 .12 2.6 .07 1 .8
150 1.39 .67 75.2 1 .15 94.3 1.37 99.3

.07 .08 5.7 .13 2.8 .05 .82
Uncoat Same (Lo) 100 1 .00 .44 62.2 .76 88.7 .93 97.2
.06 .09 9.1 .1 1 4.9 .09 1 .7
150 .98 .54 71.3 .82 92.2 .93 97.5

.10 .14 11.9 .16 5.5 .10 2.4
Uncoat Opt (Hi) 100 .99 .45 62.5 .74 88.0 .89 96.0
.08 .07 6.2 .11 4.1 .10 2.6
150 .98 .56 73.8 .85 93.7 .95 98.7
.09 .13 9.4 .13 3.4 .12 1 .8
Coat Same (Hi) 100 1.47 .52 66.3 1 .07 92.2 1 .37 98.5
.07 .09 7.3 .14 3.5 .09 1 .1
150 1.45 .73 79.3 1.25 97.2 1 .40 99.5

.08 .09 7.7 .08 1.3 .07 .55
83
PRESS RUN 2, INKS 4 AND 5 (CONTINUED;
Fill-:Ln Slur ( -) Total
% % %
.78 57.4 22.6 .84 6.8 2.7 64.2 25.3 Mean
.07 20.9 8.2 .13 6.5 2.5 24.2 9.5 St Dev

1 .06 70.2 41.5 1.07 0.0 0.0 70.2 41.5 Mean
.12 4.8 2.8 .09 3.3 1.9 2.2 1.3 St Dev
.61 66.0 26.0 .65 7.9 3.1 73.8 29.1 Mean
5.4 2.1 5.6 2.2 St Dev
.03 4.9 1.9 .04
2.7 1.6 66.2 39.1 Mean

.77 63.5 37.5 .79
.16 10.4 6.2 .14 3.2 1.9 7.7 4.6 St Dev

68.6 27.0 .68
5.1 2.0 73.8 29.0 Mean
.67
8.4 3.3 .04 4.2 1 .6 5.0 2.0 St Dev

.05
36.4 61 36.1 Mean

.77 61.7 .77 -.6 .3 .1
.14 11.1 6.5 .14 2.7 1 .6 11 .9 7.0 St Dev

2.8 1 67.6 26.6 Mean
.77 64.8 25.5 .79
.1
3.1 1 8.8 3.5 St Dev

.09 8.9 3.5 .09
.2
3.3 2.0 62.4 36.8 Mean

.95
59.1 34.9 .99
.20 12.0 7.1 .17 3.3 1 .9 9.5 5.6 St Dev

37.2 1 4.0 1.6 98.4 38.7 Mean
1 .01 94.5 .04
.10 7.0 2.8 .09 1 .2 .9

6.0 2.4 St Dev
1.15 2.3 1 72.6 42.9 Mean
1.11 70.3 41.5 .4
1.9 1 3.9 2.3 St Dev

.10 3.2 1.9 .11
.1
2.6 1 90.2 35.5 Mean

.75 87.6 34.5 .75
.0
6.1 6.9 2.7 10.4 4.1 St Dev

.12 15.5 .10
2.7 1.6 70.3 41.5 Mean

.81 67.6 39-9 .83
5.4 3.2 3.8 2.3 St Dev

.12 6.5 3.9 .09
35.0 2.3 91 35.9 Mean

.73 89.0 .75 .9 .2
3.6 1 8.2 3.2 St Dev

.10 8.6 3.3 .09
.4
71 42.4 Mean
.85
71.6 42.3 .85 .2
.1 .7
3.8 6.6 3.9 St Dev

.13 6.5 .13 .9 .5
38.0 1 2.1 98.6 38.8 Mean

1 .06 96.6 .08
.8
3.4 3.4 1.3 5.8 2.3 St Dev

.1 1 8.5 .09
44.0 1 2.2 1 76.7 45.3 Mean

1 .22 74.5 .27
.3
1 1 2.9 1.7 St Dev

.07
2.1 .2 .10 .4 .9
84
APPENDIX G
TACK VALUES AND RELATION TO VISCOSITY
Ink Number 1 2 3 4 5
% Solvent 0 5 10 15 20
Time Tack at Med ium Speed
20 seconds 9.6 7.0 4.7 4.6 4.0
1 minute 10.2 7.5 5.0 4.9 4.1
2 minutes 11 .3 8.0 5.2 5.0 4.2
3 minutes 12.4 8.8 5.6 5.3 4.4
4 minutes 13.5 9.7 6.0 5.6 4.5
5 minutes 14.8 10.3 6.7 6.0 4.7

6 minutes 16.3 11 .5 7.3 6.4 4.9
7 mintues 17.8 12.2 8.0 6.8 5.2
8 minutes 19.2 13.5 8.7 7.3 5.5
9 minutes 20.7 14.4 9.4 7.8 5.7
10 minutes 22.2 15.5 10.2 8.4 6.0
VISCOSITY AND 10 MINUTE TACK FOR INKS
10 Minute Tack
Ink Number % Solvent Viscosity (Poise) (Medium Speed)
1 0 3600 22.2
2 5 2000 15.5
3 10 1120 10.2
4 15 840 8.4
5 20 600 6.0
Corr _
.99
85
APPENDIX H
TEST FORM FOR EXPERIMENT
II
I
: ii
iSS&E

A Study of The Effect of Ink Viscosity On Dot Gain in Offset Lith

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study of The Effect of Ink Viscosity On Dot Gain in Offset Lith

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works

A study of the effect of ink viscosity on dot gain in

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

DAVID GORDON DAI LEY

A thesis submitted in partial fullfillment of the

Thesis Advisors: Dr. Julius Silver

for reproduction is made. I can be reached at the following address.

910 Gail Avenue

Mr. Chet Daniels of the Technical and Education Center of the

experimental planning; Mr. William Eisner of the Technical and

and the Graphic Arts Technical Foundation for assistance during my

Table 1 Correlation of Percent Solvent Ink

Table 2 Smoothness Values of Papers

Table 3 Porosity of Papers

Table 4 Density of K & N Oil on Papers

Table 5 Absorptivity of Papers

Table 6 Area of Slur Targets of Plates

Table 7 Density of Patches and Ink Viscosity

Table 8 Density of Patches and Paper Absorbency

Table 9 Density of Patches and Ink Level

Table 10 Density of Patches and Screen Ruling

Table 11 Density of Patches at Different Ink/Paper Combinations

Table 12 ANOVA Summary Table for Solid Patch

Table 13 ANOVA Summary Table for Fill-in

Table 14 ANOVA Summary Table for Slur

Table 15 ANOVA Summary Table for Total Dot Gain

Table 16 Duncan Test of Viscosity and Solid

Table 17 Duncan Test of Viscosity and Percent Fill-in

Table 18 Duncan Test of Viscosity and Percent Slur

Table 19 Duncan Test of Viscosity and Percent Total Dot Gain

Figure 1 . Enlarged dots showing the effects of

Figure 2 . Equal diameter gain 3

Figure 3. Typical dot gain curve for offset printing 3

Figure 4. How a spot of incident light spreads to a patch of

appreciable size before emerging from the paper 4

Figure 5. Absorption of light on entering and emerging

Figure 6. Effect of tack reducer on dot gain 15

Figure 7 . RIT Symmetrical Test Scale 19

Figure 8. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Ink Viscosity 31

Figure 9. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Paper Absorbency 32

Figure 10. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Ink Level 33

Figure 11. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain vs. Screen Ruling 34

Figure 13. Dot Gain of 25 Percent Patch of 150 Line Screen at

Different Ink/Paper Combinations 36

Figure 14. Percent Dot Gain at 50 Percent Square Dot Target of

100 Line Screen at Different Ink/Paper

150 Line Screen at Different Ink/Paper

Figure 16. Percent Dot Gain at 75 Percent Patch of 100 Line

Figure 18. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain for Different Papers at

High Ink Levels 41

Figure 19- Adjusted Density/Dot Gain for Different Patches for

Figure 20. Adjusted Density/Dot Gain Differences for Uncoated

Figure 21 . Adjusted Density/Dot Gain Differences for Coated

Figure 22 . Standard Order for Experiment 46

and if uncontrolled is one of the main contributors to waste in offset

found to be a major contributor. One property recommended for further

investigation is ink viscosity, which is the resistance to flow of an ink.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of ink

viscosity on dot gain in offset lithography. It was found that as ink

viscosity increases, dot gain will decrease, and if ink viscosity is

optimized, dot gain will be optimized. Experimentation was done on a