Feeding behavior
Dimensions, fragility, dust, orientation, static, bridging and representative challenge samples determine the feeder—not the model number.
Commercial comparison · configure before you choose
DPP-260 vs DPP-250 Blister Machine
Compare the two platforms by the approved product, blister drawing, materials, packs per stroke, accepted-output target, inspection boundary and FAT evidence—not by model number alone.
- Pack geometry
- Material route
- Accepted output
- Tooling scope
- FAT proof
DPP-260 platformMedium-speed flat-plate Alu-PVC / Alu-Alu reference
DPP-250 platformPublished DPP-250F Alu/Plastic / Alu/Alu reference
Reference images identify the machine families; the ordered station set, guards, controls and tooling are project-specific.
Quick answer
There is no automatic winner between DPP-260 and DPP-250
The DPP-260 reference has a 245 × 112 mm maximum forming area and 40–120 mm feed stroke. The published DPP-250F reference has a 250 × 112 mm maximum forming area and 30–120 mm stroke. The larger model number therefore does not prove a larger usable pack, a faster accepted output or a better project fit.
Choose only after both proposals use the same product, materials, blister drawing, feeder, inspection, reject logic, downstream interfaces and test conditions.
Start with the packFreeze cavity geometry, web structure, lidding foil, registration, forming depth and cut position.
Calculate accepted outputUse cycles per minute × finished packs per stroke × verified operating factor—not a headline rate.
Compare the proofNormalize test materials, run duration, sampling, reject accounting and retained records before comparing price.
Published manual references
Compare the documented platform boundary first
These are reference values from the available DPP-260/360K technical document and DPP-250F manual. They are not a promise for every configuration.
| Decision item | DPP-260 reference | DPP-250F reference | What the quotation must confirm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Process route | Flat-plate Alu-PVC / Alu blister packing platform | Published Alu/Plastic and Alu/Alu operating references | Exact forming route, station set and material construction |
| Maximum forming area | 245 × 112 mm | 250 × 112 mm | Approved blister drawing inside the usable tooling boundary |
| Feed stroke | 40–120 mm | 30–120 mm | Finished card length, index, print registration and perforation |
| Cycle-rate reference | 10–60 cycles/min depending on stroke and feeding difficulty | 20–50 cycles/min Alu/Plastic; 20–30 cycles/min Alu/Alu | Guaranteed test rate for the nominated product, feeder and material |
| Forming depth | 12 mm Alu-Alu; special-machine reference up to 25 mm | Confirm from the ordered format and approved drawing | Product clearance, draw ratio, wall thickness and seal land |
| Installed power reference | 11 kW | 7.5 kW | Destination voltage, frequency, options and utility schedule |
| Material reference | PVC/PVDC/PE forming web and PTP lidding references are documented | Alu/Plastic and Alu/Alu references are documented | Actual grades, thicknesses, roll drawings and sealing lacquer |
| Accepted output | Depends on packs per stroke, feeding and agreed operating factor | Depends on packs per stroke, feeding and agreed operating factor | Good packs during an agreed sustained run, with stops and rejects recorded |
Important: DPP naming is not a universal industry specification. The signed technical agreement, approved drawings and FAT protocol control the purchased machine.
Accepted-output worksheet
Compare finished packs, not catalogue cycles
Enter the cycle rate that each supplier will test, the finished packs produced per stroke, and a realistic operating factor. The worksheet makes the calculation visible; it does not replace a FAT guarantee.
Accepted packs/min = test cycles/min × packs/stroke × operating factor
DPP-260 scenario
136 accepted packs/min
65,280 per 8-hour shift
65,280 per 8-hour shift
DPP-250 scenario
136 accepted packs/min
65,280 per 8-hour shift
65,280 per 8-hour shift
Selection logic
Choose the platform that fits the complete project
A useful comparison separates verified fit from assumptions still requiring samples, drawings or trials.
Format boundary
Cavity drawing, web width, stroke, forming depth, seal land, registration and cut position must fit the tooling envelope together.
Interfaces
Confirm printing, inspection, reject confirmation, card transfer, cartoning, utilities, guarding and data responsibilities.
Acceptance evidence
Define run duration, materials, sampling, accepted packs, rejects, stops, deviations and retained records before the order.
Model-fit discussion
When each platform deserves closer review
These are screening conditions, not automatic recommendations. The final choice follows the approved pack and test plan.
Review the DPP-260 when
- Your forming route needs the documented DPP-260 Alu-PVC / Alu platform boundary.
- The 40–120 mm stroke and 245 × 112 mm reference forming area fit the approved drawing.
- Your project needs the DPP-260 station, controls or option architecture after technical review.
- You can test the nominated feeder, materials and accepted-output target on the configured build.
Review the DPP-250 when
- The documented DPP-250F Alu/Plastic or Alu/Alu reference matches the intended route.
- The 30–120 mm stroke and 250 × 112 mm reference forming area fit the approved drawing.
- Your tooling, feeder, inspection and downstream interfaces fit the selected DPP-250 configuration.
- The supplier can prove the required accepted output with your representative materials.
One comparison sequence
Normalize both quotations in five steps
Freeze the product
Name each SKU, geometry, condition, batch and representative challenge sample.
Approve the pack
Issue the cavity drawing, material grades, print controls and acceptance criteria.
Define output
State finished packs per stroke, sustained run, operating factor and reject accounting.
Align scope
Compare feeder, tooling, inspection, coding, line interfaces, documents and services.
Approve proof
Sign the FAT method, sample plan, limits, retained data and deviation workflow.
Commercial boundary
Compare what is included, excluded and still conditional
A lower headline price can hide tooling, inspection, documents, test materials, line interfaces or site work. Put every cost driver in the same matrix.
Baseline equipment
- Frame, guards and standard stations
- Controls and HMI boundary
- Utilities and environmental assumptions
- Standard manuals and drawings
Configured scope
- Format tools and change parts
- Product feeder and contact parts
- Inspection, rejection and coding
- Upstream and downstream interfaces
Proof and handover
- Trials and material quantities
- FAT protocol and retained records
- Documentation and qualification support
- Shipping, installation, training and SAT
Real project evidence
Inspect the stations that control finished-pack quality
FAT comparison matrix
Ask both suppliers to prove the same decisions
| FAT decision | Method to approve | Evidence to retain | Question answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Web handling | Approved material lot, reel setup, tension and splice method | Settings, tracking observations and deviations | Can the exact web feed consistently? |
| Forming repeatability | Approved samples, instruments, locations and limits | Cavity measurements, settings and defect log | Does the web form the approved geometry? |
| Seal process | Agreed appearance and integrity test method | Recorded settings, samples and results | Is there a usable window for the material pair? |
| Registration and cutting | Approved artwork, print mark, cut and perforation limits | Finished cards, measurements and observations | Does the pack match drawing and print controls? |
| Inspection and rejection | Defined challenge set and reject-confirmation method | Detection results, rejected packs and disposition | Are agreed defects detected and segregated? |
| Sustained run | Agreed duration, product, materials and operating condition | Total packs, accepted packs, rejects, waste, stops and interventions | Can the complete process meet the accepted-output target? |
Quotation input pack
Send enough evidence to receive a comparable proposal
A useful inquiry lets engineering compare the two platforms against one frozen boundary.
ProductDimensions, samples, fragility, dust and orientation.
PackCavity drawing, card layout, forming web and lidding foil.
OutputPacks per shift, batches, changeovers and operating days.
QualityInspection points, reject logic, tests and sampling.
LineCoding, cartoning, transfer, utilities and site constraints.
EvidenceURS response, FAT, document index and site support.
Buyer questions
Frequently asked questions
What is the main difference between DPP-260 and DPP-250?
The published reference boundaries differ in forming area, stroke, cycle-rate ranges, utilities and platform configuration. DPP-260 lists a 245 × 112 mm maximum forming area and 40–120 mm stroke; the DPP-250F manual lists 250 × 112 mm and 30–120 mm. The purchase decision must use the approved pack, feeder, materials and FAT target.
Does DPP-260 always produce more blisters than DPP-250?
No. Finished output depends on the tested cycles per minute, finished packs per stroke, feeding performance, material behavior, rejects, stops and the agreed operating factor. Compare accepted packs during the same sustained-run protocol.
Which machine has the larger forming area?
In the available reference documents, DPP-260 lists 245 × 112 mm and DPP-250F lists 250 × 112 mm. This is why model numbers should not be treated as universal dimensions. The approved blister drawing must be checked against the specific quotation.
Can both platforms be configured for Alu-Alu?
The available DPP-260 document describes an Alu-PVC / Alu platform and the DPP-250F manual includes Alu/Alu operating references. The exact forming route, depth, material construction, tooling and acceptance test must be confirmed for the ordered configuration.
Which is the cheaper option?
A defensible comparison requires the same tooling sets, feeder, inspection, coding, line interfaces, documentation, FAT materials, shipping and site services. A base-machine price without those boundaries is not comparable, so current pricing should come from a configured quotation.
Are GMP, CE or validation documents automatically included?
Do not assume that a model name establishes site compliance or that every document is included. State the applicable regulatory and quality requirements, then agree the document index, format, language, revision, approval responsibility and qualification support in the contract.
What should the FAT prove before shipment?
The FAT should use agreed product and material lots to test web handling, forming repeatability, feeding, sealing, registration, cutting, inspection, rejection and sustained accepted output. Retain settings, samples, measurements, rejects, stops and deviations.
What should I send for a DPP-260 vs DPP-250 quotation?
Send product samples and dimensions, blister drawing, forming and lidding materials, card layout, target accepted output, batch structure, tooling list, inspection and coding scope, downstream interfaces, utilities, FAT criteria and required documents.
Continue the decision
Related blister-machine resources
Blister packing machinesCompare the wider platform range and application routes.Review the category →
Blister machine buying guideBuild the product, pack, process and proof boundary.Open the guide →
Real output calculationTranslate cycles and layout into accepted packs.Calculate output →
Blister machine FAT checklistDefine test methods, limits and retained evidence.Build the FAT →
Configure before you compare
Turn two model names into one testable buying decision
Send the product, pack, materials, accepted-output target and FAT boundary. HIJ can compare DPP-260 and DPP-250 against the same project definition.