An 80% Foam Cut Does Not Prove Retrofit Payback
Can the foam reduction Gallus says it tested at about 15 companies be converted into less downtime and waste?
Gallus says, in undated past material, that it tested a square ink chamber at about 15 companies and reduced foaming by 70–80%. But that percentage alone does not reveal the payback period for a retrofit or the reduction in wasted labels. What matters for the decision is not the amount of foam, but how many minutes the machine stopped and how many metres of good output were lost.
Gathered with AI. Thought through on the shop floor. Written for the future of print.
BPJ WIRE: stories selected and drafted by the BPJ desk from world news, fact-checked against the source ledger — published alongside the editor's own picks.
Translated from Japanese by AI. The Japanese original is authoritative.
Gallus says, in undated past material, that it tested a square ink chamber at about 15 companies. Alexander Feit, the company’s Customer Success Manager, said: “We changed only the shape. The effect was very significant,” and explained that foaming fell by 70–80% (translated from the original). However, results by customer and measurement methods have not been disclosed.…
Get the weekly digest — free
Enter your email to register free and get a weekly digest of new stories.
The rest is for members
Read the full article. Our feature reports also carry an archive-grade one-page brief (BPJ VISUAL BRIEF) — every figure with its source.
Already a member? Log in
Sources
Beyond Printing Journal — read the world through print, and print the future.