Micron nozzle dimension measurement

[kkx]

Hi,

I was having problems with paint initiation, fine line, low psi atomization for my Olympos microns. They just can't match the two SPBs.

I have an MPA and MPB plus two SPB. So I have 4 micron heads (each of the MP have a spare head), 6 nozzles and 7 nozzle caps (one extra spare cap on top of what is in the heads and SPB). Have not used them for over 7 years. I might have swapped nozzle cap and nozzle between them. So I was trying to sort out what is what.

So things are a bit confusing and I wanted to sort things out.

I might have replaced nozzle with Iwata 0.23 to get an MPC like performance. The 7 nozzle caps vary in size (the diameter of the hole) and I am sure one of them is anIwataa nozzle cap for 0.23 (which I brought together with the 0.23 nozzle) and the rest should be original Olympos.

So I end up spending a lot of time matching the nozzle caps to nozzles to get good performance for all of them. Finally had that sorted this week.

Along the way, I have encountered a few interesting facts that I didn't know before and would like to verify with the knowledgeable people here.

1. The Iwata .23 nozzle will not work with the Olympos 0.18 needle. I forget if an MPC needle works (will test that tonight). But a 0.2 needle from H&S seems to work.

2. In the process, I took pictures of the nozzle and cap to help my effort. The size of the nozzle varies a lot.

3. I recently purchased a PS770 head and was surprised by the size of the nozzle. See the attached picture taken with a 400x USB microscope for comparison between the PS770 nozzle and the 0.18 nozzle on an SPB. The last photo is for the Iwata 0.23 nozzle (excuse the nozzle placement, it is not sitting dead center, I will need to adjust that later). I have only one or very few samples, so can't be conclusive. But it is interesting to see how big is the PS770 nozzle. BTW, it performs very well. Fine line and superb atomization. Could it due to the thin nozzle wall and a very small gap at the nozzle cap?

 

[Vladimir]

Thin wall means a lot. That's why chinese Abs can not produce thin lines.
Small gap works for better atomization of the paint flow.

Needles between the different nozzles may work or may not due to their tapers and needle diameters. They're just needles.

 

[kkx]

Thin wall means a lot. That's why chinese Abs can not produce thin lines.
Small gap works for better atomization of the paint flow.

Needles between the different nozzles may work or may not due to their tapers and needle diameters. They're just needles.

I see, just as I have suspected. That makes sense.

Then I am curious about the relatively thick wall of the Olympos nozzle (see attachment). The MPA perform well (thin line matching PS770 head but a bit poorer in atomization), so that seems to works too.

I wonder if I can manage to sand the nozzle wall and reduce its thickness, will I get better performance? Another tuning option?

About the small gap, I have some nozzle caps that have a big (or bigger) hole. One way I try to compensate is to push the nozzle further out. This way with some tuning, I still can get a good paint initiation, fine line, and atomization. The atomization is not as good as with narrow gap and sometimes need higher PSI. So it is a compromise and I have only tested with ink, will move on to testing with some real paint next. Since these nozzle cap come with the original Olympos micron, I guess there are not "broken", so trying to make it works.

-kk

 

[DaveG]

The PS770 nozzle is the same as what is currently used on the Iwata .18 as well. The nozzle hole is indeed larger, the nozzle caps fit tighter tolerance than Olympos. Many Olympos nozzles seem to be rolled in toward the nozzle opening, rather than being flat edged like your photo's - could speculate that this is an indicator of approximate age, perhaps? Not real sure about that.

 

[Robbyrockett2]

I suspect some of the differences you are seeing to be due to the calibration of optics here.
Getting truly accurate measurements with such a device in my experience is all but impossible without having the calibration card in the same frame and focus as what you're measuring.
From what I can tell the focus and magnification is certainly a bit different in each pic...change the focus or distance..change the calibration.

Other measurements I've seen of .18 olympos put them fairly steady around .356-.358
So .28 seems off.....
But .380 seems about right for a new .18
Just a guess.

Especially with the .23 iwata coming in at .31....far smaller than a .18 iwata.....?
Something isn't working right here.

I wouldn't try to sand down the nozzle wall, you'll simultaneously be creating an even larger air gap so probably just trading one aspect for another.

 

[kkx]

The PS770 nozzle is the same as what is currently used on the Iwata .18 as well. The nozzle hole is indeed larger, the nozzle caps fit tighter tolerance than Olympos. Many Olympos nozzles seem to be rolled in toward the nozzle opening, rather than being flat edged like your photo's - could speculate that this is an indicator of approximate age, perhaps? Not real sure about that.

Hi Dave,

I have read your post elsewhere stating that Iwata nozzle is "different" (bigger) than Olympos, so I was kind of expecting that the PS770 to be bigger. But wasn't expecting it to be so much bigger.

The weird thing is, the spare two.jpg in my first post shows an Iwata 0.23 (From memory, it could be a 0.18, but pretty sure it is Iwata) and it is not as big as the PS770.

Calibration and measurement error can be an issue (see my reply to Robby later), but without buying an actual Iwata nozzle to compare, we can never be 100% sure.

The PS770 do spray very well, so all is good. Just trying to understand a bit more about what makes things work better.

I am just happy now that all my brushes are working ok.

Will test with more challenging paint and go from there.

-kk

 

[Robbyrockett2]

Calibration and measurement error can be an issue (see my reply to Robby later), but without buying an actual Iwata nozzle to compare, we can never be 100% sure.

-kk

I know Dave has measured both with pin guages, verified by micrometer so when he says they're the same he's not guessing.

 

[DaveG]

Hi Dave,

I have read your post elsewhere stating that Iwata nozzle is "different" (bigger) than Olympos, so I was kind of expecting that the PS770 to be bigger. But wasn't expecting it to be so much bigger.

The weird thing is, the spare two.jpg in my first post shows an Iwata 0.23 (From memory, it could be a 0.18, but pretty sure it is Iwata) and it is not as big as the PS770.

Calibration and measurement error can be an issue (see my reply to Robby later), but without buying an actual Iwata nozzle to compare, we can never be 100% sure.

The PS770 do spray very well, so all is good. Just trying to understand a bit more about what makes things work better.

I am just happy now that all my brushes are working ok.

Will test with more challenging paint and go from there.

-kk

I have given up on using the "size" indicated by manufacturers to mean any more than about small, medium, and large - as they rarely accurately identify anything. Olympos brushes have been out of production for quite some time, while Iwata has continued to manufacture, or at least have manufactured - there has been changes in machining processes, machines, and specs have changed, and been updated throughout the production range. The p770 nozzles, and Iwata Micron nozzles come from one common source - there are other threads pointing this out. Olympos brushes have always been known for their very fine atomization, and softness -which was accomplished with a nozzle/nozzle cap relationship that features a larger gap - the price paid by the design is the ability to produce a very fine, and sharp line - very fine, yes, but they are always on the soft side. Iwata moved to a different angel, less gap between the two. Produces a very fine, sharp line in comparison, while still allowing for fine atomization. Using your PS770, and one of your SP's, you can probably pull a line that is just about equal in size, with the PS770 being the darker of the two.

 

[DaveG]

I know Dave has measured both with pin guages, verified by micrometer so when he says they're the same he's not guessing.

I will have to dig out my notes, but when I measured all the nozzles I had - the Iwata .18 does have a larger opening than the Olympos .18, but the iwata .2 was smaller than both of them

 

[Robbyrockett2]

I will have to dig out my notes, but when I measured all the nozzles I had - the Iwata .18 does have a larger opening than the Olympos .18, but the iwata .2 was smaller than both of them

Huh, well maybe the .23 is smaller than the .18 then....idk
I recall your olympos .18's coming in around .356 though, ....280 seems way off

 

[Robbyrockett2]

Did you ever bother measuring the pz360 nozzles?

 

[DaveG]

The three nozzles pictured here are the Iwata .2 on the left, an Olympos .18 center (note the outer cone contour is very different), and an Iwata .18 - when pin gauged, the .2 Iwata had the smallest actual opening.

 

[DaveG]

ooops, thought that posted earlier....

 

[kkx]

I suspect some of the differences you are seeing to be due to the calibration of optics here.
Getting truly accurate measurements with such a device in my experience is all but impossible without having the calibration card in the same frame and focus as what you're measuring.
From what I can tell the focus and magnification is certainly a bit different in each pic...change the focus or distance..change the calibration.

Other measurements I've seen of .18 olympos put them fairly steady around .356-.358
So .28 seems off.....
But .380 seems about right for a new .18
Just a guess.

Especially with the .23 iwata coming in at .31....far smaller than a .18 iwata.....?
Something isn't working right here.

I wouldn't try to sand down the nozzle wall, you'll simultaneously be creating an even larger air gap so probably just trading one aspect for another.

I am not sure about the absolute measurement, so I will just compare these relatively.

I focus the microscope at 400X, put it down and never touch it again. Then I position each nozzle to get good focus. The result is repeatable and error between trial is very small. I get exactly the same measurement for most nozzles in a repeated trial. Only a few varies by 0.01 or 0.02.

So relative comparison should be valid.

 

[kkx]

The three nozzles pictured here are the Iwata .2 on the left, an Olympos .18 center (note the outer cone contour is very different), and an Iwata .18 - when pin gauged, the .2 Iwata had the smallest actual opening.

Interesting, so Iwata .18 is that same as PS770 .18 and it is bigger than Olympos .18 and .23 than I wonder what is the actual size of an Iwata .23.

I wonder if the Iwata .23 (attached photo spare two in my first post) that I think I have is really an Iwata .23. Can't remember exactly what I put on that brush. I will have a look at the taper and see if that will help me verify what it is.

 

[DaveG]

It's cool - the size differences between them can generally be seen with simple magnification...

 

[DaveG]

not something I planed on working on, so I hope I can find my notes from the last time I measured all of these. The Iwata .18 is a brush that has undergone the most physical changes in design and manufacturing among most of the brushes I can think of. What I know is that the combination works the way it is supposed to, and that is all that really matters to me.

 

[kkx]

I have given up on using the "size" indicated by manufacturers to mean any more than about small, medium, and large - as they rarely accurately identify anything. Olympos brushes have been out of production for quite some time, while Iwata has continued to manufacture, or at least have manufactured - there has been changes in machining processes, machines, and specs have changed, and been updated throughout the production range. The p770 nozzles, and Iwata Micron nozzles come from one common source - there are other threads pointing this out. Olympos brushes have always been known for their very fine atomization, and softness -which was accomplished with a nozzle/nozzle cap relationship that features a larger gap - the price paid by the design is the ability to produce a very fine, and sharp line - very fine, yes, but they are always on the soft side. Iwata moved to a different angel, less gap between the two. Produces a very fine, sharp line in comparison, while still allowing for fine atomization. Using your PS770, and one of your SP's, you can probably pull a line that is just about equal in size, with the PS770 being the darker of the two.

I will try it out and see if I can observe the same behavior. My brushes are non-stock (messed up by me) so this will be a good reference point for me. Thanks Dave.

I feel that the narrow gap Iwata setup allow the same vacuum/ paint pull with lower PSI.

One of my nozzle cap have such a large hole that it does not work with any of the nozzle. So I end up trying to reduce the size of the hole, just for experiment before I order a small hole Iwata cap.

I seal the hole with some super glue and then sand it and drill it till it performs ok. See attached photo. The green translucent circle is the superglue layer. It seems to works and I hope it will hold up well unless I meld the superglue layer (if I use strong solvent-based paint). But will need to replace that with a proper nozzle cap eventually.

 

[Robbyrockett2]

I am not sure about the absolute measurement, so I will just compare these relatively.

I focus the microscope at 400X, put it down and never touch it again. Then I position each nozzle to get good focus. The result is repeatable and error between trial is very small. I get exactly the same measurement for most nozzles in a repeated trial. Only a few varies by 0.01 or 0.02.

So relative comparison should be valid.

If you're using a model like mine.... In reality the mag power is the focus , regardless of how it's marked. The actual mag power is a function of the distance so moving your nozzle to the focal point would work, if you had the same focus in each image, it doesn't appear that you do.

Idk your setup exactly or anything, more just trying to relate it to what I've attempted to do with mine. Which I've not been able to measure one nozzle, switch to the next, then go back to the first and get the same measurement, something almost always goes off kilter.
You may be getting better results than I am... Idk... Maybe I'll have to work on my setup.
I have this guy,
https://www.amazon.com/Portable-Mic...t=&hvlocphy=9010174&hvtargid=pla-570926080938

 

[Robbyrockett2]

I will try it out and see if I can observe the same behavior. My brushes are non-stock (messed up by me) so this will be a good reference point for me. Thanks Dave.

I feel that the narrow gap Iwata setup allow the same vacuum/ paint pull with lower PSI.

One of my nozzle cap have such a large hole that it does not work with any of the nozzle. So I end up trying to reduce the size of the hole, just for experiment before I order a small hole Iwata cap.

I seal the hole with some super glue and then sand it and drill it till it performs ok. See attached photo. The green translucent circle is the superglue layer. It seems to works and I hope it will hold up well unless I meld the superglue layer (if I use strong solvent-based paint). But will need to replace that with a proper nozzle cap eventually.

That's pretty cool!
I've thought to do the same with hard solder but I don't have reamer small enough right now and drilling is just going to get Chinese aircap results with a lobe shaped hole.