Canon i960 head alignment problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Eppley
  • Start date Start date
J

John Eppley

Hi: My i970 is approximately 2 years old, and has seen very light use. In
fact, it may remain in a "powered down" status for many days. Having said
that, the test for "NOZZLE" is nearly perfect. Unfortunately, the test for
"HEAD ALIGNMENT" is very bad. Using the automatic alignment procedure, the
"blue" in pattern "B" has multiple white lines. The "blue" in pattern "G" is
non-existant. NOT THERE, perfectly blank, nada, none.

I have done the recommended realignment many times. No luck.!!

When I try the manual alignment procedure (many times also) column "B" has
very poor patterns in +7 & +6 positions and nothing in the remaining
positions. There is absolutely nothing in the "G" column.

Looks like a sick print head ????

Any advice??

John
 
Whoa......I found the problem........

The CYAN cart was empty, even with the monitor showing 30-40% remaining.

I replaced the CYAN, and the monitor still shows 30-40% remaining. There
must be a problem with the ink monitor.

John
 
John - the monitor on Canon printers, prior to the current chipped carts, is
not like an automotive oil dip stick or gas guage. When you start out it
shows carts as full. It then estimates the ink use as it shows the level
down to about half full. when the reservoir portion of the cart is empty
there is a small prism at the bottom of this section that was covered with
ink and is then exposed. A light shines on it and signals that the ink is
"low." The printer then estimates the usage and shortly after the low
warning signals that the cart is empty. There is still some ink remaining
in the sponge area, but you don't want to run it totally dry as it will ruin
the printhead. When you then put a new cart in (actually any cart that has
ink covering the prism) it signals full again. The key to this monitoring
is that you need the first cart to signal low before it resets with
placement of the new cart.

I'm not sure how much more accurate the chipped carts are at monitoring ink
usage and levels. It's probably still a guessing game! Those of us who
refill our carts visually inspect them as they should be refilled when the
reservoir area is about 80% empty.
 
I am stumped. No matter what I do with the CYAN cart position, the monitor
indicates 30-40% full. Full cart, empty cart, no cart, still says 30-40%.

Any advice other than visually checking all carts on a regular basis.

John
 
John Eppley said:
I am stumped. No matter what I do with the CYAN cart position, the monitor
indicates 30-40% full. Full cart, empty cart, no cart, still says 30-40%.

Any advice other than visually checking all carts on a regular basis.

John
Click to expand...
Whatever cyan cart you have that has ink in it - full or partially full -
put it in and print. Visually inspect it periodically. When the reservoir
becomes empty it should signal that the ink is low in that cart. further
printing will then signal that the cart is empty. putting a new cart in
will then show a full cart. I should add that this only works if the cart
that goes empty has the prism in the bottom of the reservoir and the LED
that shined into the prism and is reflected to the sensor that signals the
reservoir is empty is functioning. If you are using OEM carts they will
have the prism. All the aftermarket carts I have used also have the prism.
If the cart you print with until empty doesn't trigger the low ink signal
you have a problem with the LED or sensor that it reflects back into.
 
Hi Measekite (extraordinary nick!)

As you post thousands of times, all saying (or asking) more or less the
same thing, I'm starting to think you must be on the payroll of an OEM
ink manufacturer. It is possible that *some* generic inks are badly
formulated, but there must be many that have *exactly* the same chemical
constituents as the OEM stuff. After all, any decent industrial chemist
should be able to analyse a sample of OEM ink and determine how to make
it *exactly* the same. In that case, putting an "authorised" label on
it, charging highly, and claiming it's the only safe option is baloney.
The main problems for any bubblejet ink are to not fade unreasonably,
not overload the bubble mechanism or clog the jets by having the wrong
consistency and not degrading by allowing parts of the mixture to
evaporate at unreasonable rates (that is, must maintain the mixture in
the appropriate proportions for its life). Oh, and not to leave a
clogging or corrupting residue (which is really an extension of the
above problem). Once you've mastered those then any amount of OEM
labelling won't make a jot of difference.

It is also highly probable that many generic inks are made by precisely
the same people that make the OEM ones, and in fact the ink may even
come from the same bulk stocks, and just have different labels (and
prices!).

Take pharmaceuticals for example, arguably a damned sight more critical
than bubblejet inks. My qualified pharmacist often offers me a generic
replacement if I want it and has informed me that many generics are made
by precisely the same people and just labelled differently.

Of course, when you think about the needs for a good ink as above, it is
clear that there must be *some* generics that fail to meet the test.
IMHO, this group would be better utilised to endorse particular generic
inks (by reasonably lengthy experience with them) rather that just
arguing about whether they are any good per se.

If I have maligned you, Measekite, I apologise. But currently you have
my suspicion...
 
Hi Measekite (extraordinary nick!)

As you post thousands of times, all saying (or asking) more or less the
same thing, I'm starting to think you must be on the payroll of an OEM
ink manufacturer. It is possible that *some* generic inks are badly
formulated, but there must be many that have *exactly* the same chemical
constituents as the OEM stuff. After all, any decent industrial chemist
should be able to analyse a sample of OEM ink and determine how to make
it *exactly* the same. In that case, putting an "authorised" label on
it, charging highly, and claiming it's the only safe option is baloney.
The main problems for any bubblejet ink are to not fade unreasonably,
not overload the bubble mechanism or clog the jets by having the wrong
consistency and not degrading by allowing parts of the mixture to
evaporate at unreasonable rates (that is, must maintain the mixture in
the appropriate proportions for its life). Oh, and not to leave a
clogging or corrupting residue (which is really an extension of the
above problem). Once you've mastered those then any amount of OEM
labelling won't make a jot of difference.

It is also highly probable that many generic inks are made by precisely
the same people that make the OEM ones, and in fact the ink may even
come from the same bulk stocks, and just have different labels (and
prices!).

Take pharmaceuticals for example, arguably a damned sight more critical
than bubblejet inks. My qualified pharmacist often offers me a generic
replacement if I want it and has informed me that many generics are made
by precisely the same people and just labelled differently.

Of course, when you think about the needs for a good ink as above, it is
clear that there must be *some* generics that fail to meet the test.
IMHO, this group would be better utilised to endorse particular generic
inks (by reasonably lengthy experience with them) rather that just
arguing about whether they are any good per se.

If I have maligned you, Measekite, I apologise. But currently you have
my suspicion...
Click to expand...

aalaan - if your printer was knocked off your desk and broke, our resident
troll would blame it on non-OEM inks. He's the proverbial "broken record",
and every conceivable malady that can befall an inkjet printer he blames on
aftermarket inks. Killfile the fool and save your breath.
 
Hi Measekite (extraordinary nick!)

As you post thousands of times, all saying (or asking) more or less the
same thing, I'm starting to think you must be on the payroll of an OEM
ink manufacturer. It is possible that *some* generic inks are badly
formulated, but there must be many that have *exactly* the same chemical
constituents as the OEM stuff. After all, any decent industrial chemist
should be able to analyse a sample of OEM ink and determine how to make
it *exactly* the same.
Click to expand...

maybe they should advertise that they violated patents of other companies.
In that case, putting an "authorised" label on
it, charging highly, and claiming it's the only safe option is baloney.
The main problems for any bubblejet ink are to not fade unreasonably,
Click to expand...

read the latest tests done by the accepted henry wilhelm at www.wilhelm.com
not overload the bubble mechanism or clog the jets by having the wrong
consistency and not degrading by allowing parts of the mixture to
evaporate at unreasonable rates (that is, must maintain the mixture in
the appropriate proportions for its life). Oh, and not to leave a
clogging or corrupting residue (which is really an extension of the
above problem). Once you've mastered those then any amount of OEM
labelling won't make a jot of difference.

It is also highly probable that many generic inks are made by precisely
the same people that make the OEM ones, and in fact the ink may even
come from the same bulk stocks, and just have different labels (and
prices!).

Take pharmaceuticals for example, arguably a damned sight more critical
than bubblejet inks. My qualified pharmacist often offers me a generic
replacement if I want it and has informed me that many generics are made
by precisely the same people and just labelled differently.

Of course, when you think about the needs for a good ink as above, it is
clear that there must be *some* generics that fail to meet the test.
IMHO, this group would be better utilised to endorse particular generic
inks (by reasonably lengthy experience with them) rather that just
arguing about whether they are any good per se.
Click to expand...

you need to understand that you can buy 5 times from the same relabeler
and not get the same thing because they changed suppliers after the last
bid. if what you said was true you would not be having the problems you
describe.
 
measekite said:
you need to understand that you can buy 5 times from the same relabeler and not get the same thing because they changed suppliers after the last bid...
Click to expand...

Good point.
if what you said was true you would not be having the problems you
describe.
Click to expand...

Bad point, and you've now completely discredited yourself, because quite
aside from my reasoning, I have *NEVER* used any other cartridge but the
branded one.

So now I'm afraid you've proved true the assertion made by others that
you blame everything on generic inks! Repeat, I've never used 'em!
 
Whoa......I found the problem........

The CYAN cart was empty, even with the monitor showing 30-40% remaining.

I replaced the CYAN, and the monitor still shows 30-40% remaining. There
must be a problem with the ink monitor.

John
Click to expand...


Sometimes the prism in the bottom of the cartridge may be obstructed,
so the detector can't recognize it as empty. If you can stick the
empty one back in, turn things off and back on, then it might detect
the empty. Once it does that, then the new cartridge, when reinserted
will read properly. Worth a try.

Olin McDaniel
 
i think you are having the problem with the monitor not registering
properly because you are not using oem prefilled carts.
 
Besides being anally retentive, what other mental impediment do you have??

Can you take a few minutes of your valuable time to explain to me, and the
newsgroup, the logic behind your ridiculous statement about non-OEM carts. I
need a good laugh.!!

In the meantime, I leave you with the following proverb...."May a horny
camel violate your armpits".

John
 
Back
Top