Dye ink

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob Headrick
  • Start date Start date
Barry Watzman said:
Well, Epson and some HP printers have permanent printheads. They can only
be replaced at a service depot (and shipping round-trip costs as much as
the entire printer).
Click to expand...

Agreed - that is basically what I said in my last post.
And there are fairly long tubes connecting stationary ink tanks (the only
thing the user replaces) to the moving printhead. Epson has been this way
mostly forever (in some printers, the tank is mounted on the printhead and
moves with it, but the printhead is still permanent).

The fact is, a non-OEM ink legitimately can destroy a printhead, it
happens, and the manufacturer has every right to void the warranty. Not
because the ink was non-OEM per se, but because it's formulation,
different from the OEMs in significant ways, truly did destroy the
printhead.
Click to expand...

That is why knowledgeable people on this NG who refill their carts insist on
using and suggesting inks that are especially formulated for their printers.
Especially to be avoided are "generic" inks that are labeled to be used on
several different printers. I've used good quality aftermarket bulk inks to
refill Canon carts for four years and replaced one printhead after three
years of heavy use. Not exactly what I would call destructive non-OEM inks.
In addition, for what I've saved in ink costs I could have purchased half a
dozen replacement printers. Great prints - every bit as beutiful as OEM
prints of the same files.

There are no laws that prevent a manufacturer from voiding a warranty if
you use a consumable that is both out of spec AND not supplied by the OEM.
Click to expand...

You just added an additional caveat - that inks grossly out of spec would
destroy it. Same thing I said above - only use inks that have a good
reputation with lots of actual users and are formulated for your printer.
As far as I know, US law prevents printer manufacturers from forcing inkjet
printer users to use OEM inks or lose their warranty. As it should be.
Obviously, if they can demonstrate that the ink you used was responsibly for
damaging your printhead they have grounds for voiding the warranty. No
argument from me on this count.

Just try putting Crisco cooking oil in your car and getting GM to replace
the engine under warranty when it burns up. It's the exact same thing.
Click to expand...


Exactly the same thing? No way! That might be equivalent to using grape
juice to refill carts! I don't know anyone that stupid. I'll repeat -
There are good non-OEM refill inks that are specifically formulated for
individual printers. My experience indicates that they do not damage
printheads.

The issue isn't just that you used after-market inks, per se, it's that you
used inks that were grossly out-of-spec for the printer and that truly did,
as a consequence, destroy it.
Click to expand...

But I don't use inks that are even a little bit out-of spec for the printer,
and my printers have survived nicely for several years with good quality
non-OEM inks
You seem to be under the impression that all HP printers ... even low-end
ones ... have the printhead on the ink cartridge.
Click to expand...

Wrong - re-read my post. I discussed those HP printers that have the
printhead on the ink cart. Nowhere did I indicate that all HP printers have
the printhead on the cart .

That is no longer true for all of their printers, and in fact I don't
think it's even any longer predominantly true. The primary ink system
right now in current production HP consumer printers is the "02" cartridge
set, and those are stationary tanks with tubes leading to the permanent
printheads.
Click to expand...


Why are you so argumentative? Just for the purpose of arguing? Looks like
we agree more than we disagree. It does appear that you have a definite spin
in your posts against non-OEM inks. The implication, as I read it, is that
one should avoid non-OEM inks or lose your warranty. I take that from your
quote, "The fact is, a non-OEM ink legitimately can destroy a printhead". I
would add, as a "fair and balanced" statement, that a good quality non-OEM
ink , formulated for your printer, will NOT harm your printer. This has been
my experience and the experience of many people on this NG.

The majority of print head problems, as reported on this NG, are from lack
of use or permitting an ink cart to run dry. Our resident troll, however,
tries to blame every printer malfunction that anyone reports on this NG on
non-OEM inks.
 
As you know, most Epson printers are pretty forgiving of ink types, as
long as the ink is well formulated and designed for piezo ink heads.

Many people switch to pigment inks from dye without major problems with
Epson printers, it is one of the advantages of the piezo technology in
that the size of the nozzle isn't what dictates the ink dot size, so the
nozzles can have larger holes, allowing for differing viscosities and
colorant particles.

Canon's head technology is not nearly as forgiving. Since it is a
thermal head design, it heats the ink, and there is some evaporation as
well, so ink viscosity is more critical, and the nozzle sizes used
relate to the dot size.

Art
 
Yellow ink is difficult to make in a pigment ink. Trying to produce a
yellow that has good coverage, fade resistance, is bright and has the
necessary density and yet doesn't cause metamerism is tricky, and they
sometimes have a problem with settling and clumping because more solid
matter is required to maintain the characteristics the other colors
have. That makes them more likely to clog.

The earlier Durabrite yellow inks were the weak line in that ink set and
were replaced with less light resistant pigments due to metamerism.

Art
 
Has Measekite changed his address again? Jeez, my email filter keeps on
growing on this list filter

To anyone new to this group, the information below is mainly inaccurate.

3rd party ink use in most countries does not void the manufacturer's
warranty. Even OEM inks may require profiling for those requiring very
accurate results, or using 3rd party papers.

Maybe Pantone inks cost more because they were better quality or more
accurate or used a different ink technology.

Art
 
Oh, and regarding longevity of prints. Some people sell their printed
work for a great deal of money and/or their work is important
culturally, and the Louvre or elsewhere may indeed wish it to be
preserved for over 200 years.

This is all probably well beyond your ability to comprehend, so let me
just ask you to trust me about these things.

Art
 
Consider that OEM inks also cause clogs, and sometimes quite bad ones,
it is awfully difficult for the manufacturer to prove a 3rd party ink is
more clog prone (with permanent heads) than is their own ink.

For that reason, voiding a warranty based upon the ink used is often a
matter of calling a bluff on one side or the other.

Art
 
Many people successfully switch to pigment inks from dye with Epson
printers. The printer head is nearly if not fully the same. The main
difference is that the firmware and cleaning cycles may be different to
better accomodate the ink characteristics.

Since Epson must prove the use of 3rd party inks is the cause of a
failure, they don't jump on this to void warranties. I would think if
someone were to take this matter to court, they could force Epson to
reveal how many units come back for clogged heads and repair in the
warranty group relative to 3rd party ink use.

In fact, I know of someone who converted all the Durabrite ink printers
in his school to 3rd party dye inks and refillable cartridges, and the
result of that test was that the current crop of printers used with 3rd
party inks have done considerably better in terms of clogging issues.

Art
 
Barry said:
Well, Epson and some HP printers have permanent printheads. They can
only be replaced at a service depot (and shipping round-trip costs as
much as the entire printer). And there are fairly long tubes connecting
stationary ink tanks (the only thing the user replaces) to the moving
printhead. Epson has been this way mostly forever (in some printers,
the tank is mounted on the printhead and moves with it, but the
printhead is still permanent).

The fact is, a non-OEM ink legitimately can destroy a printhead, it
happens, and the manufacturer has every right to void the warranty. Not
because the ink was non-OEM per se, but because it's formulation,
different from the OEMs in significant ways, truly did destroy the
printhead.

There are no laws that prevent a manufacturer from voiding a warranty if
you use a consumable that is both out of spec AND not supplied by the
OEM. Just try putting Crisco cooking oil in your car and getting GM to
replace the engine under warranty when it burns up. It's the exact same
thing. The issue isn't just that you used after-market inks, per se,
it's that you used inks that were grossly out-of-spec for the printer
and that truly did, as a consequence, destroy it.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Car oils are rated by an independence organization
financed in part by the car oil companies which rates and classifies
motor oils. They must meet a minimal standard to be approved by the
OEM, but none of them are MADE by the car companies. If you use any
brand that meets the minimal standard, the manufacturer must, by law
honor their warranty in that aspect of engine maintenance. In fact, it
is exactly they car industry that forced legislation be written to
protect the car owners for unreasonable expectations during the warranty
period to maintain the warranty.

The inkjet manufacturers have provided no private testing guidelines for
ink, that must be abided to. Therefore, the onus becomes that of the
manufacturer to prove the inks used were sufficiently different from
their own to causes damage to the printer.
 
Arthur said:
Has Measekite changed his address again? Jeez, my email filter keeps on
growing on this list filter
Click to expand...

I've not filtered him yet - I find his bizarre posturing mildly
entertaining!

Frank calls him a liar, but lying requires a level of intelligence - an
attribute in which measekite is sadly lacking. We have various sayings
this side of the pond that fit him - 'A sandwich short of a picnic.', 'A
brick short of a load.', 'The lights are on, but nobody's in.' - the
list goes on. He's a clown, a fool in motley - I picture him galloping
around on a hobby horse, wooden sword in hand, paper hat on head, with
his eyes wildly staring and his chin flecked with spittle, shouting
'OEM, OEM!'

Jim Ford
 
Jim Ford said:
I've not filtered him yet - I find his bizarre posturing mildly
entertaining!

Frank calls him a liar, but lying requires a level of intelligence - an
attribute in which measekite is sadly lacking. We have various sayings
this side of the pond that fit him - 'A sandwich short of a picnic.', 'A
brick short of a load.', 'The lights are on, but nobody's in.' - the list
goes on. He's a clown, a fool in motley - I picture him galloping around
on a hobby horse, wooden sword in hand, paper hat on head, with his eyes
wildly staring and his chin flecked with spittle, shouting 'OEM, OEM!'

Jim Ford
Click to expand...

His elevator doesn't go to the top floor.
One taco short of a combination plate.
 
Barry Watzman wrote: Well, Epson and some HP printers have permanent printheads.  They can only be replaced at a service depot (and shipping round-trip costs as much as the entire printer).  And there are fairly long tubes connecting stationary ink tanks (the only thing the user replaces) to the moving printhead.  Epson has been this way mostly forever (in some printers, the tank is mounted on the printhead and moves with it, but the printhead is still permanent).

The fact is, a non-OEM ink legitimately can destroy a printhead, it happens, and the manufacturer has every right to void the warranty.
Absolutely and without a doubt
  Not because the ink was non-OEM per se, but because it's formulation, different from the OEMs in significant ways, truly did destroy the printhead.

There are no laws that prevent a manufacturer from voiding a warranty if you use a consumable that is both out of spec AND not supplied by the OEM.

Correct!!! >:o   Why should their other customers pay to fix a printer owned by some jerk who did not follow the recommendation.
Just try putting Crisco cooking oil in your car and getting GM to replace the engine under warranty when it burns up.
:-D
It's the exact same thing.  The issue isn't just that you used after-market inks, per se, it's that you used inks that were grossly out-of-spec for the printer and that truly did, as a consequence, destroy it.

You seem to be under the impression that all HP printers ... even low-end ones ... have the printhead on the ink cartridge.  That is no longer true for all of their printers, and in fact I don't think it's even any longer predominantly true.  The primary ink system right now in current production HP consumer printers is the "02" cartridge set, and those are stationary tanks with tubes leading to the permanent printheads.



Burt wrote:
"Barry Watzman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
That is simply not true.

Some inkjet printers have the printhead in the consumable, others have permanent printheads, the consumable is just an "ink tank" and there are tubes from the tank to the permanent printhead.

A manufacturer has every right to rightfully void the warranty of a printer with permanent printheads that are genuinely destroyed by a 3rd party ink, and they do it.  On the other hand, the only permanent damage that a consumable with a built-in printhead can do is to leak inside the printer and create a mess, and this doesn't happen often.

Barry - Except for a new model with the printhead in the cartridge (is this what you reference as the consumable?), Canon printheads are user removable and replaceable (although sometimes at about the cost of a replacement printer).  The "ink tanks" sit directly on the printhead and feed into it. No tubes.

I have read that in the US there are laws that prevent a printer company from voiding a warranty because you used aftermarket inks.  Has to do with a company not forcing you to use their consumables as a condition of honoring a warranty.

Using the wrong inks could conceivably ruin a permanant printhead. Duh,  I have been saying that for a long time.
I would expect that using pigment-based inks in an Epson (printhead not replaceable by the consumer) that is designed for dye-based inks might permanantly clog the nozzles  and render the printer not economically repairable.  Refilling carts for a Canon dye-based printer with pigment-based inks would probably cost you an easily replaced printhead.  HP printers with the printhead on the ink cartridge would not be harmed by the use of inks which could damage the printhead.  You would just replace the ink cartridge which comes with a new printhead.
 
Now this must be the new Post Office so I an post my opinions. So now
they are going to filter the Post Office. ha ha ha and not he he he.
So I wonder what the printer expert dinks.
 
measekite wrote:


------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know? According to your own post you've never ever used
non-oem\after market ink, isn't that correct? You're not pathological
liar are you?
Do you have any documented case(s) where an independent lab has
documented and confirmed that after market\non-oem ink has destroyed a
printhead?
Any print head?
Well...do you?
If you do, then you must provide proof and a URL link or otherwise we
will all just think you're some kind of wacko nut case and you must now
and forever STFU about this subject matter, ok?
Thanks.
Frank
 
measekite said:
Now this must be the new Post Office so I an post my opinions. So now
they are going to filter the Post Office. ha ha ha and not he he he.
So I wonder what the printer expert dinks.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think meashershithesd is nothing more than a drunken,
slobbering fool.
He seems to prove it with every post.
Frank
 
Arthur said:
Some reading for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color)

Art
Click to expand...

Thanks. A good explanation of perception/psychology. So, the fact that
my car's paint and matching plastic unpainted door handles represent
quite an achievement. They seem to always look identical regardless of
the light, but now I'm going to look more closely. Who woulda thunk?

And, yes: I've known about those awful spectral "curves" that
fluorescent bulbs put out for many years since I saw them represented in
a professional Kodak technical manual. I can't see how they can be
fixed, since the real charts look something like an earthquake graph.
I've recently removed the compact fluorescents I was using for eBay
photos and replaced them with regular incandescent bulbs because I
simply could not correct my photos adequately. The newer bulbs are
better than the old-type fluorescents, but they're still pretty poor.

We obviously color-balance for compact fluorescents quite a bit in our
minds. The camera does not lie. So, I wonder how the inks come through
this test -- will good aftermarket inks produce results as good as the
car manufacturers?

Very illuminating.

Richard
 
I have some black socks that in some lighting (like at the Laundromat
which has fluorescent lighting) look identical in color, and they
sometimes get "paired" together incorrectly because they otherwise look
the same. Then I go out in daylight, and one of the pair is still what
I'd call a neutral black, but the other one goes a deep reddish purple.
Pretty much anyone with full human color vision would probably see the
difference. It's quite strange, actually.

Epson had a real problem with metameric failure with their yellow
pigment inks. They first tried changing the drivers to distribute the
dot placement differently, which helped, but at the end of the day they
had to formulate a new yellow ink using different pigments and a
different particle size. The problem is more obvious with pigment inks,
probably due to the way they sit on the paper surface, which causes
certain interference light patterns to occur between the ink dots.

We tend to forget that what we perceive as color is actually the
reflection and/or absorption of light wavelengths, and that those
reflected light waves can get quite influenced by one another.

Art
 
Arthur said:
I have some black socks that in some lighting (like at the Laundromat
which has fluorescent lighting) look identical in color, and they
sometimes get "paired" together incorrectly because they otherwise look
the same. Then I go out in daylight, and one of the pair is still what
I'd call a neutral black, but the other one goes a deep reddish purple.
Pretty much anyone with full human color vision would probably see the
difference. It's quite strange, actually.
Click to expand...

So the big question on everyone's lips now - Do you get embarrassed when
you wear odd socks?

r
 
Back
Top