[Table of Contents] [Search]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Standing Presses



Pete,

I tend to agree with you.  But, who makes the press you mention with the
built-in poly edged boards?  Is it your creation? And are there specks?

Please advise...

Kathy Parulski

Capricorn Bookbindery
Bristol, CT


Peter JERMANN wrote:

> >>Date:    Wed, 4 Aug 1999 13:24:56 -0700
> From:    Claudia Stall <cstall@MAIL.SDSU.EDU>
>
> I am unclear if we are talking about repaired books or newly made
> ones. =
> <<<
>
>     Both.  Probably 80% of the output from my bindery are books newly
> made =
> (primarily periodical bindings and rebound paperbacks)  The remaining
> 20% =
> are repairs.  I use a short press time whether it's a hinge repair or
> a =
> full casing in. =20
>      On the good chance that I overstated my case in my initial
> message =
> let me state the details of my experience.     The books I bind are
> basic, =
> non-rare library materials.  The materials I use for binding are
> standard =
> library grade covering materials (F grade buckram and C-cloth),
> standard =
> LBS endsheets made with an 80# paper stock, and LBS cotton
> specification =
> backlining material.  I have used two glues for casing in, Widsom R172
> DT =
> and Widsom R896A.  The R172DT has become my current glue of choice
> because =
> it is more flexible and adheres better than the R896A in the
> situations I =
> demand of it.  I slightly thin (maybe 10%) the R172DT with methyl =
> cellulose solely for the purpose of making it more spreadable with a =
>
> brush.  With these materials I find our average press time of 3 to 5 =
>
> minutes has been adequate.
>      Generally speaking, a press is  a press. It needs to apply
> pressure =
> adequate for a given job.  If it does this it matters little to the
> end =
> product whether it is a bench top, single book press or a large
> standing =
> press.  I object to the large standing press because, >>>IF you don't
> need =
> a long pressing time<<<, I think a standing press is inherently
> inefficient=
> . =20
>     First I think the process of stacking is tedious particularly if
> you =
> are setting the grooves with  edged boards (cords, dowels, whatever).
> You =
> need to keep the pile even, centered and properly shapped (pyramid
> like if =
> the books are of different sizes).  You also need a set of boards for
> each =
> book in the stack.  =20
>    Secondly, stacking requires a press of greater strength and
> pressing =
> capability than a press that only presses one book.   A book resists a
> =
> press to a degree that requires we apply a certain amount of counter =
>
> resistance to get the book flat and our materials glued tight.
> Hypothetica=
> lly, let's say it takes 50 lbs. of pressure to do the job.  If we
> stack =
> ten books, each providing its own resistance, then we would need 500
> lbs. =
> of pressure to do the job (caveat: I'm sure there are many variables
> and =
> this is an oversimplification -the point is that more books require
> more =
> pressure).  Because of this the standing press needs to be built to
> apply =
> the maximum required pressure for a stack of books (lots of steel, big
> =
> screw, big heavy platens, large handwheel that can be leveraged,
> etc.)   =
> On the other hand, a press designed for one book at a time can be
> produced =
> more economically as a lighter frame, simpler platens, smaller screw
> and a =
> smaller handwheel or crank are more than adequate for the required
> job.   =
> Both the standing press and the single book press will do the same job
> to =
> a single book provided adequate pressure is applied where it is
> needed.
>     Thirdly, because a standing press is so massive, the work
> generally =
> goes to the standing press rather than the standing press coming to
> the =
> work.  A small, lightweight, benchtop press can locate wherever the
> work =
> is being done.  Rather than taking the work to the press the press
> comes =
> to the work.    This cuts "travel" time and improves efficiency.  =20
>    The press I use, the Casing Press,  is lightweight, mobile and
> designed =
> for a single book.  Since it is designed for a single book, the boards
> =
> with raised edges (polycarbonate rather than brass) are built right
> into =
> the platens.  I don't have to keep a stack of boards near by as the
> only =
> two I need are already integral to the press.  The screw is offset
> toward =
> the front of the platens putting maximum pressure near the joint.
> This =
> design allows me to press  books that range from 3"  to  9" wide
> without =
> having to worry about centering the book under the screw.  My
> experience =
> over the last 8 or so years (my best guess) I have been using this
> press =
> is that it is far more efficient than the stacking presses I
> previously =
> used.    Of course, for this to work in a high volume operation, the
> dwell =
> time in the press must be short.  With the materials and techniques I
> have =
> used I have found this to be no problem.  As soon as the next book is
> =
> ready to be pressed, the previous book is pulled from the press and
> placed =
> in a freestanding stack to continue drying until the next day.
>     Having rambled on (when I really should be binding books), let me
> say =
> that  these are my opinions and my experiences rather than universal =
>
> truths,  and are offered simply for the sake of consideration and =
> discussion.
>
> Pete Jermann
> Preservation Officer/Bookbinder
> Friedsam Memorial Library
> St. Bonaventure University
> St. Bonaventure, NY 14778
> Tel. (716) 375-2324


[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]