Epson C82 is designed to fail, several times over

[nononono]

This is a sad story about a printer that was designed to fail.

I am not talking about the ink measuring system which will
force you to replace a brand new original full cartridge with
another fresh one just because the printer thinks it is empty,
although that is one of its features.

And I am not talking about a hidden counter which will stop the
printer dead when the secretive number reaches 44436. No, this
printer died at a very young age, with that counter at 4943,
with 90% of its life not lived.

We are talking about a problematic Epson Stylus Colour C82.

It was given to me, as beyond repair and they were right. I
have a reputation as a fixer, so I got the odd jobs and repairs
nobody else would touch with a barge pole. Just like this one.
Seldom used, guarantee expired, service doesn't want to know.
Plenty of ink but it prints blanks. Not a dot. But no errors
either. A head cleaning job, was my immediate conclusion. So we
started cleaning. And cleaning. On the third one the ink lamp
lights up. Out of black, it said. But plenty of ink inside, the
cartridge is heavy and you can hear it sloshing inside. So we
got a new one but it was getting obvious the problem lies
somewhere else as the ink pump was pumping something away, and
the ink levels were dropping.

Following excellent manual I dismantled the beast some more and
took the head out. It was soaked in ink as you would expect. So
I wiped it clean again and again but the cyan just wouldn't
stop leaking out of the seams. I put on my second pair of
glasses and realised the ink is actually leaking between the
electronic board and a seal. That is bad, said I. Not wanting
to kink the ribbons (flat electric cabling) I pulled them out
and immediately noticed a black burned corner where larger
ribbon entered the connector. A short. Nice. It was obvious.
But I had to see it with my own two eyes. The head is held
together with two slim long screws that are screwed directly
into the plastic body. The head is a sandwich of a plastic body
in two halves, a 2 large rubber seals (1.5" square or 10 cm
square each), a print board, and a piezo head that is
permanently fixed to the board. The interesting bit is how the
ink path is designed to cross from one side of the housing
through the rubber seal through the electronic board through
another seal through second half of housing and into the piezo
element. And all that was holding it together and making those
enormous seals hold the ink contained were two very slim screws
tightened into a bit of plastic. And of course the seals
failed. And of course water-based ink (cyan) leaked all over
sensitive and very dense electronic board. And there was a
short. And there was a power surge that burned a corner of
connector away and probably melted head drivers (another piece
of electronic board mounted elsewhere) away as well.

Well done Epson!! Only an idiot would design a device that
conducts water through the middle of electronic circuits in
such a fashion that it must leak. What caused it? Vibration or
temperature expansion movement were probably the immediate
cause but it was designed to leak and cause a multiple
catastrophic failure.

I say, with a great sadness, stay away from Epson. I am sure
there is a large number of happy customers but I wouldn't like
their engineers to design the brakes of my car, or plumbing in
my bathroom or for that matter anything else for me.

My two cents.

Latest update:

The same printhead is used in CX5200 and CX5400. New head is
£90.

You can buy a new printer for less.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

We are talking about a problematic Epson Stylus Colour C82.

a) you have WAY too much time on your hands

b) this is a disposable printer

c) nobody cares

 

[ib]

Every time I buy a printer it dies after about a year and I promise myself
never to buy from that make again. Think I've had them all now, so I'll
probably start with canon again!

 

[Shooter]

Truely a sad story, but if we go back to the original owner who most likely
only had the printer for the twelve month warranty, had he taken Epsons
extended three year warranty Epson would have swapped out the printer. It's
all very well saying this after the event but could be worth consideration
for others making purchases. Because this printer changed hands as a none
working item it is always difficult to establish how it was looked after by
the original owner.

You do bring into the conversation the number of points that are allowed in
manufacture, in this case 44436 which seems about right for that printer,
perhaps the first owner had already re-set the machine, and one has to ask
how many times before seals fail.You could be right in saying it is bad
design but with millions of these printers out there one would have to ask
how many have failed with this problem. Regarding the design for holding the
head together ir could be said that the system used by Epson was enough to
give a fair life to that model, one must also consider the price of this
printer and divide into that the life expectancy add to this how it was used
in that time and it may come out that there is not much difference between
any manufacturer.

 

[Davy]

I had a C62 clogged on the 2nd day, a replascement somewhile later
clogged on the 4th day with OEM ink.

When stripping mine down, I found a leak round the head trim, they
both started with wanting more and more nozzle cleans. What Epson
told me that you moust never evet do more than about 6 head cleans in
one go or the heads will be damaged, also I have in writing from them
that air bubbles will also damage the heads, Epson technical said
that, whether right or wrong who am I to argue with them.

I now have a Canon ip5000 not one single problem since purchased last
June/July no manual head cleans and I go running to the shops at
least three times less for ink tanks.

Yes Epson do print good pictures but you can not rely on them as you
have to check each print for flaws with the Canon I can print and
forget, scouring through ALL ngs and user comments its not just the C
series that has problems it's the R series as well.

I 'feel' its not the ink that does it but the delivery system, lets
face it an peizo head relies on gravity and the force of the nozzles
as they viberate, where as a bubble jet relies on air expansion, if
like mine you'll probably find the head chamber all caked up.

One thing to note one problem is that the waste pipe comes adrift from
the docking bay, when this happens you don't get nozzle cleans as the
pump draws the ink from the heads, the pump is driven from the paper
feed rollor
In my case the ink could be drawn through the pipe but no ink when
printing a classic head failure, for where does the ink come from
when cleaning if the head is blocked???

Surely if the head is blocked it can not be cleaned using the
printers nozzle clean button...!

"Don't get clogged with an Epson" - It could be expensive.

Davy

 

[nononono]

I know the owners well otherwise I wouldn't touch it. The ink
pads were clean and unused so I believe the number is genuine.
I was the first to open it anyway. It is a sad thing that our
rubbish heaps are groving exponentially being filled by items
that were designed to fail.

 

[Shooter]

Well in that case it could be down to build quality, you have some poor sod
on minium wage putting self tappers into plastic to hold a head together, no
doubt he couldn't care less, it's food in his mouth and nothing else. I do
agree with you that spec on how the head is held is a point that Epson
should look to but how far in designing a printer at this cost do you go to.
You wouldn't do it as I also wouldn't but I doubt Epson would care at all.
It's really down to a years warranty at what cost to them the rest is
profit.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

In spite of what Elmo thinks, when he believes he speaks for everyone
here, I appreciated your investigation and conclusions.

Inkjet printers have not and should not be disposable, and they
certainly should not have inherent defects of design or manufacture.

Art

 

[Fred McKenzie]

Inkjet printers have not and should not be disposable, and they
certainly should not have inherent defects of design or manufacture.

Art-

I sympathize with your statement. I've spent many hours giving new life
to discarded electronic equipment, especially back when I couldn't afford
anything new. Equipment does fail.

I believe most such printers are replaced by newer models before
end-of-life, perhaps being donated to a Thrift Shop for resale. If
someone purchases it, they may or may not get it to work again, but it
will be discarded at some point.

Whether a clogged print head, a torn flex cable, a blown fuse or a broken
electrical cord, the average user can't or won't repair it since a newer
model printer can be had for the potential cost of repair. That fact
alone, makes the inexpensive inkjet printer "disposable".

The advancement of technology obsoletes it, so it doesn't have to be
designed to fail, it just doesn't have to be designed to last forever.

Fred

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

In spite of what Elmo thinks, when he believes he speaks for everyone
here, I appreciated your investigation and conclusions.

You're right--I don't speak for those who don't have lives.

Those of you who don't have lives, enjoy each other.

The rest of us will think you weird.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Inkjet printers have not and should not be disposable

Tell that to the product manufacturers.

When you can buy an inkjet printer full of ink for $39, and replacing
the ink cartridge(s) costs $49, the printer is disposable.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Whether a clogged print head, a torn flex cable, a blown fuse or a broken
electrical cord, the average user can't or won't repair it since a newer
model printer can be had for the potential cost of repair. That fact
alone, makes the inexpensive inkjet printer "disposable".

Fact.

And it's so obvious, I'm amazed Arthur can't see it.

Or maybe he doesn't *want* to see it...

 

[Jan Alter]

--

Tell that to the product manufacturers.

When you can buy an inkjet printer full of ink for $39, and replacing
the ink cartridge(s) costs $49, the printer is disposable.

Your supposition is a myth, otherwise the printer companies would still not
be selling the printer so cheaply. They continue to market in this manner
because the vast majority of people will go out and purchase the ink
cartridges rather than throw the printer away. Even given the instance of
saving $10 to get a brand new printer rather than new cartridges it is not
enough for people to budge, even though slightly tempting for some and a few
who will do it.Those folks are of the same G-factor of the printer companies
if they do it regulaly.
It is unfortunate for everyone that this greed mentality exists rather
than endeavoring to utilize resources in an efficient environmental manner.
I would much rather pay for the true value of the printer and be able to
easily refill cartridges without chips or sponges and expect the same
quality that came with the printer originally, and simultaneously save
plastic from landfills and wasted energyt trips to the store to buy new
cartridges . I don't know how except through legislation to get printer
companies to get back on the correct track, They could still make their
money by charging what the printer should cost, unfortunately they're much
much greedier than that, and that's precisely why a change needs to be made.

Jan Alter
(e-mail address removed)
or
(e-mail address removed)12.pa.us

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

When you can buy an inkjet printer full of ink for $39, and replacing
the ink cartridge(s) costs $49, the printer is disposable.

Your supposition is a myth, otherwise the printer companies would still not
be selling the printer so cheaply. They continue to market in this manner
because the vast majority of people will go out and purchase the ink
cartridges rather than throw the printer away.[/QUOTE]

How the bulk of the people behave in no way changes the fact that if the
printer is $39 and the ink is $49, it's a disposable printer--and plenty
of people will see it for what it is.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

I would much rather pay for the true value of the printer and be able to
easily refill cartridges without chips or sponges and expect the same
quality that came with the printer originally, and simultaneously save
plastic from landfills and wasted energyt trips to the store to buy new
cartridges . I don't know how except through legislation to get printer
companies to get back on the correct track, They could still make their
money by charging what the printer should cost, unfortunately they're much
much greedier than that, and that's precisely why a change needs to be made.

Human nature says that humans respond to getting the razor for free and
paying for the razors a little at a time over the course of time.

If you had to pay $200 for a razor handle, would you? Even if you could
get blades cheap?

Fact: you'll pay for your prints one way or another. The fewer you
make, the more you'll pay per print. The more you make, the less you'll
pay per print.

Here's an idea: go buy a Xerox 3535 color copier/printer. $20K or so,
maybe a bit less at the end of the month. 8.9 cents per print, flat, no
matter how big or how much ink you lay on the page. A 320% 11x17 page
is still 8.9 cents--and that includes the ink and all maintenance for
the printer.

You're saying you'd rather do it that way. You're wishing that you
could do it that way. I'm telling you that you CAN do it that
way--right now, today. Just pick up the phone and do it.

But you don't, for the same reason that others don't. They'd rather pay
75 cents to a dollar a print every now and then for the few prints they
make. It's like going to Kinko's, only they get to stay home and print.

So the industry accommodates them with cheap printers and expensive
supplies. They get to buy their prints by the drink, if you will,
instead of by the bottle or case, like with an expensive printer.

The less you pay per print, the more you pay for the printer. The less
you pay for the printer, the more you'll pay per print. It's rather
simple--they'll get their money out of you one way or another.

Anyway, like I said, the system you want is out there today. No need
for silly legislation. Just go do it.

Or else come in here and tell us WHY you're not taking advantage of
doing it the way you say you want to do it.

 

[Jan Alter]

Human nature says that humans respond to getting the razor for free and
paying for the razors a little at a time over the course of time.

If you had to pay $200 for a razor handle, would you? Even if you could
get blades cheap?

Fact: you'll pay for your prints one way or another. The fewer you
make, the more you'll pay per print. The more you make, the less you'll
pay per print.

Here's an idea: go buy a Xerox 3535 color copier/printer. $20K or so,
maybe a bit less at the end of the month. 8.9 cents per print, flat, no
matter how big or how much ink you lay on the page. A 320% 11x17 page
is still 8.9 cents--and that includes the ink and all maintenance for
the printer.

You're saying you'd rather do it that way. You're wishing that you
could do it that way. I'm telling you that you CAN do it that
way--right now, today. Just pick up the phone and do it.

The point is not for me but for ALL, and right now it's inconvenient because
of marketing mentality.

But you don't, for the same reason that others don't. They'd rather pay
75 cents to a dollar a print every now and then for the few prints they
make. It's like going to Kinko's, only they get to stay home and print.

People would not "rather"... they would like to pay as little as possible as
you say, and go for the cheapest methodology unless they can be convinced
that paying more will pay off in the end. Usually that takes a leader to
convince them who can make his point easily understood or who is a good
actor.

So the industry accommodates them with cheap printers and expensive
supplies. They get to buy their prints by the drink, if you will,
instead of by the bottle or case, like with an expensive printer.

The industry hardly accommodates. They choose and structure it as such.

The less you pay per print, the more you pay for the printer. The less
you pay for the printer, the more you'll pay per print. It's rather
simple--they'll get their money out of you one way or another.

Anyway, like I said, the system you want is out there today. No need
for silly legislation. Just go do it.

Fortunately, for the the very few who are willing to take the extra steps,
there is the opportunity to refill, but it is hardly as easy as the
technology could make it if printer companies would adapt their machinery to
making it easier and thus invite the majority to accept it as practice
rather than inconvenience. As for myself, I do all three: buy cheap
aftermarket cartridges, expensive OEM cartridges, and refill, but I don't go
to Kinkos.

Or else come in here and tell us WHY you're not taking advantage of
doing it the way you say you want to do it.

How many examples of legislation to practice would you like me to point out
before understanding why legislation is necessary?I really don't think it's important whether you call printers disposable or
not What is necessary is to change the pattern that has developed for the
waste that has been created and to get people onto a different mindtrack.

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

You're saying you'd rather do it that way. You're wishing that you
could do it that way. I'm telling you that you CAN do it that
way--right now, today. Just pick up the phone and do it.

The point is not for me but for ALL, and right now it's inconvenient because
of marketing mentality.[/QUOTE]

It's not inconvenient at all. There are many, many machines on the
market whereby you pay what the machine's worth up front and pay little
for ink and maintenance as you use it.

So you have a choice. You aren't *forced* into buying a cheap machine
with expensive supplies. So why would you, if that's not what you want
to do?

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

So the industry accommodates them with cheap printers and expensive
supplies. They get to buy their prints by the drink, if you will,
instead of by the bottle or case, like with an expensive printer.

The industry hardly accommodates. They choose and structure it as such.[/QUOTE]

no, perhaps you weren't listening. You CAN buy expensive machines with
cheap supplies, and you CAN buy cheap machines with expensive supplies.

Your choice.

You've said you want to buy the expensive machine with the cheap
supplies, which you are more than welcome to do--the industry
accommodates that quite nicely. Why are you focusing on the fact that
the industry ALSO accommodates the cheap machine with expensive supplies?

 

[Elmo P. Shagnasty]

Or else come in here and tell us WHY you're not taking advantage of
doing it the way you say you want to do it.

How many examples of legislation to practice would you like me to point out
before understanding why legislation is necessary?[/QUOTE]

Plenty. Tell us why we need legislation for this.

Tell us what the legislation would accomplish.

Tell us what's lacking in the market today that you want to buy, that
you can't.

I just explained it to you: you want an expensive machine with cheap
supplies, and you can buy that TODAY.

Why aren't you, then?

You can buy liquor by the case and get it cheap. But if you go into a
bar, a single drink costs you five bucks. Do we need legislation to
preven that, too?

 

[Fred McKenzie]

Tell that to the product manufacturers.

When you can buy an inkjet printer full of ink for $39, and replacing
the ink cartridge(s) costs $49, the printer is disposable.

Elmo-

In the over-all picture, I agree that the printer is too quickly disposed
of, but not for the reason you suggest. While there may be some really
cheap printers that satisfy your premise, The C82 isn't (wasn't) one of
them.

Even if I keep it many years, being able to repair an old printer (if it
is broken) will not stop me from replacing it when a new computer requires
a different interface, or a company (like HP) stops making cartridges for
it.

Fred