Turn off laser printer with power strip?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gary Vocks
  • Start date Start date
Thanks for this Tony,.

we should become a tag team or something ;-)

Art
The following are demonstrable facts.
HP use EEPROMS in many of their laser and inkjet printers
Canon use EEPROMS in many of their inkjet printers
Brother use EEPROMS in many of their inkjet printers
OKI use EEPROMS in many of their LED printers
Epson Use EEPROMS in many of their laser and inkjet printers
Lexmark use EEPROMS in many of their laser printers
If you want model numbers I can provide them. I bet the above list is
incomplete.
Click to expand...

(cut)
 
Art,

I'm glad you're still hanging in there... I've given up arguing with w_tom,
since he doesn't seem to read and understand what others have written before
going off on his "junk science" tirades. You could tell him the sun comes
up everyday; he'll say you're wrong because two weeks ago it was raining.

I found this HP web page that explains in detail how page counts are stored
inside HP printers:
http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/Document.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&objectID=c00040807.

Straying even farther from the original post regarding the best way to
de-energize laser printers, this web site has an excellent explanation of
the differences between EPROM, EEPROM, Flash EPROM, NVRAM, and other memory
devices: http://www.arlabs.com/help.htm.

John
 
Did I say they did not use EEPROMs. No. Not one minute. So why did
you and Arthur Entlich jump to that conclusion? EEPROMs are not
'write many' devices. They are devices that can be programmed after
the circuits are manufactured AND can be modified 'a limited number of
times'.

Does the motherboard also have EEPROMs. Yes. Having said that
earlier, then why jump to wild speculation that I said otherwise?
Motherboards also have EEPROMs - as I stated earlier. But those
motherboard EEPROMs do not store changing configuration - the CMOS
data. Real time information is not stored in a printer's EEPROM.
Again, please read with care what I had posted. A printer that
repeatedly stores configuration - real time information - in its EEROM
would wear out and destroy that ERPROM prematurely.

To make this simpler - (probably) ALL printers have EEPROMs. But any
printer that must 'reset its EEPROM' to solve a problem is the brand
name printer identified so we all don't buy another such defective
device. Again, notice that it has an EEPROM. But because it was
designed by a responsible person, then the printer's computer does not
constantly write to that EEPROM. In normal operation the printer does
not write anything to the EEPROM. Therefore there is nothing to reset.

Information in non-volatile memory could be reset. But some here
assume all non-volitile memory is EEPROM. That memory that stores CMOS
configuration in a PC is also called non-volitile memory - and it is
not EEROM.

Actually, I suspect Arthur is confusing EEPROM reset with a program
correction. It sounds more like he did not understand - the
manufacturer installed defective software in some printers. What he
called a reset is really reprogramming the EEPROM because it contains
defective software.

If a printer's EEPROM need be reset as described by Arthur Entlich -
who seems to have a techniclans rather than an engineers grasp of
electronics - then printer was defectively designed. Printer EEPROM is
written to when its internal computer gets a new program - not written
to during normal printer operation. This 'limited number of writes' is
also why computer motherboards use battery backup memory and not the
existing EEPROM to store configuration data. Why battery backup
memory? Why don't they use the existing EEPROM? Limited number of
times an EEPROM can be written to - stated again because it was not
understood in that previous post.

There is no reason to 'reset' any properly designed printer as Arthur
Entlich has claimed. Any printer that is locked into an unrecoverable
condition - a condition not reset by power up - is defective by design.
So how often do we 'reset' car computers because the engine was turned
off unexpectedly? For same reasons - never.

If a "printer may suddenly stop working right in the middle of a
project and have to be brought in for a EPROM reset", then the printer
was defective by design. Arthur Entlich has been asked to identify
this printer so that good consumers need not get stuck with the
defective design.
 
Art
A tag team? Do we get to choose our opponents or do they choose us???

I just couldn't ignore that level of misinformation, something that I suspect
you and I have in common.
Fortunately the biggest source of misinformation in this ng seems to be self
destructing ;-)
Tony
 
John Smith so often gets confronted because his knowledge comes from
summary articles without first learning underlying electrical concepts.
For example, he cited an HP article that says data is stored in NVRAM
(Non-Volatile RAM). He then assumes this is EEPROM. As I noted, such
data would not be written into EEPROM. In his own citation entitled
"Learn about EPROMs and more", www.arlabs.com describes NVRAM -
which is not EEPROM. They even cite part numbers from Dallas
Semiconductor (now Maxim) and Xicor - which make it easy for John to
understand difference between EEPROM and other NVRAM. Why was a
DS1228(?) used to store computer motherboard configuration data - why
was EEPROM not used? DS1228 NVRAM is not EEPROM. It is battery
backed up static RAM. It is conventional memory that does not have the
'limited number of writes' problem found in EEPROM. It is therefore
where CMOS configuration data is stored - and not in EEPROM. This was
described in my earlier post that John Smith did not understand.

John Smith has numerous problems with my replies since he lacks
sufficient technical knowledge and yet posts like he was an expert.
More often he is accurate - and therefore I don't reply. But when I do
reply, John is again wrong - promoting classic urban myths.

I never said printers don't have EEPROM. But I defined Arthur as
wrong for claiming one may need to reset the EPROM or EEPROM. Now if
he had identified resetting battery backup NVRAM, that would have been
completely different. My problem with Arthur's post? He though
EEPROM gets reset. Reprogrammed - something electrically different.
Meanwhile, even after citing articles, John Smith still does not
comprehend basic electronic concepts.

John also has cited articles (in another post) that are obviously
wrong and totally irresponsible. Powering a laser printer through a
common power strip is not problematic AND avoids other potential
problems that have previously causes laser printer damage. Remember
those HP LaserJet II printers that suffered data port damage? A
problem created because the laser printer was not connected to same
power strip or wall receptacle as the printer.

If a laser printer causes excessive brownouts as John Smith claimed,
then a human must locate and correct defective building wiring. If
wall receptacles are wired using rear 'push-in' connections, then Laser
printers may cause unacceptable problems - excessive brownouts. A
problem created when wire to each receptacle was not fully wrapped
around connecting screw (on receptacle side). Never use rear 'push-in'
connections on any circuit that has electronics. An excessive
brownout created by a laser printer is the 'canary in the coalmine'.
Those articles cited by John Smith instead would have you ignore the
problem. Building wiring must be corrected. Neither laser printer nor
power strip is reason for those brownouts - even though John Smith
would claim otherwise.

But again, John Smith did not first learn underlying principles. He
found some misguided articles from the internet and assumes that makes
him expert. Demonstrated here is how he has confused EEPROM with
NVRAM. Also how he blames a shared power strip or wall receptacle for
what is really a building wiring problem. His erroneous claims due to
lack of sufficient technical knowledge has often resulted in direct
challenges to what he posts. Then he replied (previously) with insults
because he does not have sufficient technical knowledge to reply with
facts and numbers. We've been here before when John did not learn
basic electrical concepts.

Laser printer can share a power strip. Any resulting brownout is a
'canary in a coalmine' - warning an owner to fix electrical problems
located elsewhere in that circuit. John should have known that like he
also should have known the difference between NVRAM and EEPROM.

Meanwhile, the power strip protector is best replaced by a
conventional power strip - as long as that power strip includes an
essential circuit breaker.
 
I neither wrote nor implied that EEPROM is the same as NVRAM, and I
challenge you to identify where I made such a claim. In fact, the reason I
posted the arlabs.com reference was so we could all see the difference
between the various devices. (Of course, some of us already were experts on
memory devices, as well as all other matters concerning electricity,
electronics, printers, and computers...)

This issue illustrates my criticism of your posts: You seem to read a few
sentences somebody else has written, think they were written specifically to
contradict you, then before reading the rest of the post and understanding
it you launch into a fresh tirade to tell us that you are the expert and
everybody else is wrong. Or maybe the problem is that you are not
expressing your thoughts clearly.
If wall receptacles are wired using rear 'push-in' connections, then Laser
printers may cause unacceptable problems - excessive brownouts. A
problem created when wire to each receptacle was not fully wrapped
around connecting screw (on receptacle side). Never use rear 'push-in'
connections on any circuit that has electronics.
Click to expand...

To summarize, you allege:

1. Laser printers may cause excessive brownouts if they are connected to AC
receptacles which are wired with push-in connections.
2. The electrical problem with push-in connections is created when a wire
wrapped around the receptacle's screw terminal is not fully wrapped around
the screw.
3. Electrical outlets should never be wired with push-in connections if the
external circuit will be used to power an electronic device.

Rubbish. Sounds to me like junk science and an urban myth spread over the
Internet by people with little technical training. Please show us
references which support your claims and explain the underlying theory. I
never saw this type of warning on a receptacle or its instructions, and
surely the manufacturer would warn us of such important considerations.

Do not give us a long explanation of how a wire connected loosely to a screw
terminal increases electrical resistance, nor how the wire may be too short
to wrap securely around the screw or how insulation may be caught under the
screw head. We understand those potential terminal screw problems, but
those are not the issues you allege in your post. You allege a problematic
mechanical relationship between a receptacle's screw terminal and push-in
connectors and an incompatibility between push-in connectors and electronic
devices, specifically laser printers. Please advise.
 
This has become silly.

You wrote "Printer would not repeatedly update configuration data in an EEPROM
for same limited write-only reasons and for a few other reasons".
Canon use EEPROMs in most if not all of their inkjet printers and the EEPROM
contains information that in most of their printers is updated every page
(unless Canon are lying in their service manuals and actually have some other
form of non volatile memory that they don't want me to know about!), this is
page count and other information. Brother and Epson also use EEPROMs for the
same kind of information that is updated every page. Hence EEPROMs can be, and
are, updated many thousands of times with these printers.
Maybe you should point that out to Canon, Epson and Brother or maybe the
technology has improved. I have not bothered to research further but you may
wish to add these three makes to your list of printers to avoid buying. I
suspect that with a little research I could add several other makes to your
list. These three manufacturers believe that EEPROMs can be updated almost
indefinitely, and they are clearly correct in my experience having never seen
an EEPROM failure.

You also wrote "If a printer's EEPROM need be reset as described by Arthur
Entlich -who seems to have a techniclans rather than an engineers grasp of
electronics - then printer was defectively designed. Printer EEPROM is written
to when its internal computer gets a new program - not written to during normal
printer operation."
I have demonstrated above that this is not correct, several manufacturers
update EEPROM data repeatedly during normal operation. Whether Art Entlich is a
technician or an engineer is irrelevant (I don't know what his qualifications
are), I am not sure why you made a snide remark like that, as it happens I am
an engineer and my opinion of technicians is extremely high.

You also wrote "There is no reason to 'reset' any properly designed printer",
that is also not correct.
There are many reasons to do a cold reset on HP lasers (only an example, and
yes I know that in HP's case this is invariably NVRAM) that have nothing to do
with poor design. For instance resetting the network card to default values or
initialising the printer to factory defaults is often an easy way to diagnose
network, driver and computer related printer issues that have nothing to with a
printer failure. It is also a good way to re-install a printer in a different
environment where the tray and paper configurations may be different, it can
save lots of time particularly with large multitray lasers.

Finally without wishing to confuse this thread many people confuse power strips
with surge protectors (you and I may agree about this).
Surge protectors and some printers are incompatible, I have on many occasions
demonstrated this to doubting customers. It is probable that this is mainly to
do with the surge protector not having a high enough specification but I am not
convinced. HP recommends connecting laser printers directly to a wall socket
and therefore bypassing UPS's and power strips (HP's words, not mine) when
diagnosing 50.4 errors, I have found this useful occasionally. Often this
results in customers replacing their UPS or surge protector with a model with
higher specs.

It is unhelpful and counterproductive to accuse people of ignorance or lack of
formal training under almost any circumstances but particularly when they are
trying to help or become involved in a debate, we all need to be careful about
how we choose our words in an imprecise forum like this. I have several times
made typos or misunderstood someone elses posts but hopefully have managed to
survive the experience without being offensive and with a knowledge increase.
Tony
 
Yes, that is a lot of write cycles IF a program does not update its
configuration data in real time. For example, an EEPROM in an ink jet
cartridge might be written to because cartridge lasts only a short time
and then is disposed. Printer cannot store its real time configuration
because it would easily exceed write cycle number. Older EEPROM
technology is limited to 10,000 cycles.

Limited write cycles is a reason we (engineers) designed EEPROM
'shadowed' with volatile RAM, or updated very infrequently, or simply
used only for program storage. But again, EEPROM has limited write
cycles which is why that datasheet lists write cycle number - up top
where critical information is summarized. That write cycle limitation
is a critical design parameter that I suspect other posters here never
knew.

Other parameters are beyond the scope of this discussion including
write time. Two EEPROM technologies are NAND and NOR. They have
different timing (read and write), storage density, costs, and other
parameters. These differences are why both types may exist in cell
phones. As that HP technical note cited by John Smith says, real time
data is written to NVRAM - not EEPROM as John Smith assumed. EEPROM,
as I noted in earlier posts, would simply fail prematurely. All this
to remind which one here posted with accurate knowledge and experience
- which so many failed to read with care AND failed to learn before
drawing conclusions.

Meanwhile, one does not reset EPROMs or EEPROMs. One may reload an
EEPROM with new data. A technician may confuse 'resetting with a
program reload. But reset or initializing (as is also performed to
computer motherboards) is (for example) 'removing battery backup from
static memory'. Battery backup converts static memory into NVRAM.
Other technologies such as Iron based memory exist. But again, EEPROMs
are not reset. EEPROMs would be reprogrammed.

This write limitation and why real time configuration is not stored
in EEPROM should have been obvious with basic electronics knowledge.
This EPROM or EEPROM question was because one with minimal electronics
knowledge should have known all this.
 
In a discussion as to why EEPROM is not used for storing real time
configuration, John Smith then cited an HP tech note that discusses
storing this data ... in NVRAM. Why would John cite this HP sheet in a
discussion of EEPROM? He did not know the difference between NVRAM and
EEPROM.

If you knew the difference, then why did you cite an HP tech note
that has no relevance? You did not understand that the HP tech note
had no relevance. You did not know the difference between EEPROM and
NVRAM.

Meantime, you have nerve. You constantly attack rather than ask
questions to first learn. You post as if you had engineering knowledge
which you even admit you do not. This engineer with decades of
experience repeatedly replies with technical facts that now cause you
to always post with insult. John Smith. I don't really care whether
you took insult. I owe you reams of insults - in spades. By your own
admission, you have no engineering knowledge. As a result, every
discussion we have had is because you were soundly wrong. And every
time, you don't even have the integrity to admit it.

Well, again, you are wrong. You posted an HP tech note about storing
data in NVRAM because you did not understand NVRAM was not EEPROM.
Admit it. You were again wrong. But you won't. I have caught you in
error too often. Your defense is to insult.

Don't be an ass. Those 'push in the rear' wire connections for wall
receptacles have often been problematic to electronics. Apparently
you are still too young - too wet behind the ears - to realize when you
don't know something. Sounds like your life ambition is to be a
politician. When a laser printer causes extreme brownouts, then
building wiring is a usual and first suspect. Power strips are
irrelevant. To someone so sure of yourself, that should have been
obvious. For others, John Smith does not even know about a common
problem created by 'push-in the rear' connections. So again, he
attacks as if that were technical proof.
 
Whilst this is all very entertaining, EEPROM vs NVRAM, does it matter?

From personal experience I know that printers store information in some
form that is not battery backed-up, but the exact form of the chip
involved I'm not too bothered about, as I'm sure different machines of
different ages from different companies will work in different ways.
 
Alas, as I suspected would happen, you did not even attempt to defend your
allegation that wrapping a wire incompletely around an AC receptacle's screw
terminal somehow interferes with a different wire that has been pushed into
the back of that receptacle (your claim #2, below). Nor did you tell us why
a push-in wire connection would cause a problem for a laser printer (claim
#1), all electronics (claim #3), or for that matter any problem whatsoever.

Rather than attempting to defend your claims you went off on a tangent
again, this time using 80% of your post to question why I previously posted
the links I did. The only defenses you mustered for claims #1 and #3 were
that the problem is "common" and that push-in connectors "have often been
problematic to electronics." For a man so insistent on seeing numbers to
backup everybody else's claims, your defense is weak. So, show us some
numbers to back up your junk science claims. A statement from a receptacle
manufacturer, Underwriters Laboratories, or the National Electrical Code
would also be appropriate. (Your statement that "[w]hen a laser printer
causes extreme brownouts, then building wiring is a usual and first suspect"
is imprecise and may or may not be true, but in any case is irrelevant to
the three AC receptacle claims you were asked to defend.)

For the record, YOU made the claims about the push-in connectors. I
challenged you to provide technical proof, which you should be able and
willing to provide. Contrary to your post, my request for that proof does
not constitute my technical argument against your claims. IF you provide a
link for your claims, we will then be able to debate the technical merits of
your citation.

Incidentally, although I am not a degreed engineer I never made an
"admission" that I "have no engineering knowledge." I would demand you
identify the quote in which I supposedly made that confession, but it's
obvious my demand will go unanswered.

By the way, I'm not sure why you feel I was offended by your attacks - or
why you currently still owe me "reams of insults" (in spades, no less!), but
by all means fire away if you find it releases frustration for you. We
don't want anyone going postal on us. You should realize, though, that a
well known defense for a weak argument is a personal attack on your
opponent.
 
Look w_tom, who hides behind an alias and doesn't even sign his
postings... just to be clear to anyone who is still bothering to read
this thread...

Beside being downright disrespectful to a number of people on this group
who I would trust over your theoretical knowledge any day, it is
becoming more and more clear that you are confused regarding what you
are taking about. Further you either have some difficulty with the
language we are using, or in basic comprehension, or you are being
intentionally misleading, because I have noticed you have misinterpreted
and downright misquoted what several of us have said during this thread,
and you have an amazing ability to backpedal regarding what you,
yourself have stated in earlier postings.

So, I am NOT playing this game anymore. It is wasteful of my time, and
it is just a bunch of useless minutia to most everyone else.

However, as just one point to prove the rest of your information is a
house of cards, (since much of your premise is based upon this fallacy)
you have not only stated, but your INSIST that EEPROMs are not used in
circumstances where they are rewritten to often because they will fail
under those circumstances.

I happen to know that some of the EEPROMs used by Epson in their
circuitry are rated for something approaching 100K rewrites (that's
100,000 times). Even assuming that the particular EEPROM (and sometimes
there are several in use each storing different information in different
registries) was written to, on average 30 times a day (which would be a
high count for the type of functions I referred to) with the expected
rewrite capability of that type of EEPROM, it could be rewritten to
every day, 30 times per day, FOR OVER NINE YEARS!! Do you still think
that kind of rewrite ability would be overtaxed by the types of
functions I spoke about being controlled by an inkjet printer?

If you want to be credible, you can't insist you are right about
something just because you say you are. I know some engineers think they
are god and therefore the normal conditions of discourse and debate
don't apply to their actions, but as painful as it may be for you to
hear, it has been ascertained that engineers are not gods. If they
were, I wouldn't have a basement full of failed electronic and
mechanical devices which were designed by engineers.

So, enough "w_tom", OK? You have nearly libled several nice people in
this group who are not deserving of such treatment, and you certainly
haven't helped your own reputation one bit (or is that byte ;-)), either.

Art
 
John, there will be no end to this. 'w_tom' has a fragile ego, and until
you tell him he is "right" he will not let thing go. He will deny or
recreate his own history so his errors are either hidden or never
existed, but he will dredge up the slightest typo or "misspoken" phase
and claim they are proof of your ignorance and lack of knowledge. You
will never get a admission of error from him, or a honorable apology or
even an acknowledgment that he has learned something new from someone else.

Might I humbly suggest, like I myself have decided, that you allow him
to huff and puff to himself, and save the newsgroup the unending debates
over minutia and the "he said/he didn't say" that he will continue
otherwise. This is a lose-lose situation. At best, w_tom will fade
away never admitting to his errors, and at worst case, he will continue
to try to prove his theories, even in the face of the obvious.

It just ain't worth it ;-)

Art



John said:
Alas, as I suspected would happen, you did not even attempt to defend your
allegation that wrapping a wire incompletely around an AC receptacle's screw
terminal somehow interferes with a different wire that has been pushed into
the back of that receptacle (your claim #2, below). Nor did you tell us why
a push-in wire connection would cause a problem for a laser printer (claim
#1), all electronics (claim #3), or for that matter any problem whatsoever.
Click to expand...

(cut)
 
John - the only attacks upon you were due to erroneous responses you
have provided. You have even misunderstood what I have described about
brownout problems created by poorly wired receptacles - that use rear
push-in connections rather than firm screw connections.

By first grasping the purpose of UL - by first learning reality -
then obviously UL will not address problems created by 'push-in rear'
connections since such connections do not endanger human life. It
helps when you first learn the purpose of a UL rating before posting
your speculations.

You claimed a surge protectors offers useful EMI/RFI filtering. It
does not once we apply the numbers. You insisted that power loss to a
laser printer fan would cause laser printer damage - a concern that
even its manufacture does not warn of. You cite an HP Tech note about
NVRAM to somehow prove that EEPROM are being used - then deny you were
so mistaken. And now you would even deny that extreme brownouts
created by a laser printer are not a building wiring problem. Well at
least you are not being so ridiculous as to claim heavy power consumers
such as laser printers can burn out power strip protectors - or did
you? Yes I believe you also made that ridiculous claim. So many myths
and half truths posted in this thread.

The original poster asked if powering off a laser printer from power
strip is OK. The answer still remains Yes, especially since the OP
said "wouldn't be turning it off immediately after printing something".

Meanwhile, John, again I have caught you posting myths. This is
apparently an ongoing pattern with you - who even admits to
insufficient electrical training. Somehow you just always know that
only you can be right; even denying when caught promoting these myths.

The laser printer can be powered off externally. Laser printer
powerup does not fry a surge protector. Powering a laser printer from
the same outlet or power strip is not destructive AND is better
advised. Laser printers will not burn out power strip protectors.
Power strip protectors don't provide useful EMI/RFI protection. We
don't reset EPROMs or EEPROMs. EEPROMs may be reprogrammed - not
reset. Resetting involves another type of memory - typically battery
backed up memory. w_tom did not say printers don't use EEPROMs - an
accusation because so many posters failed to first carefully read the
post. Brownouts do not harm computers. The power-up sequence should
recalibrate everything back to a nominal configuration - therefore no
reason to 'reset EEPROMs'. There is always the possibility of a power
failure, and the printer should be able to cope with that.

So John, any more myths you want to promote now and get it over with?

John said:
Alas, as I suspected would happen, you did not even attempt to defend your
allegation that wrapping a wire incompletely around an AC receptacle's screw
terminal somehow interferes with a different wire that has been pushed into
the back of that receptacle (your claim #2, below). Nor did you tell us why
a push-in wire connection would cause a problem for a laser printer (claim
#1), all electronics (claim #3), or for that matter any problem whatsoever.

Rather than attempting to defend your claims you went off on a tangent
again, this time using 80% of your post to question why I previously posted
the links I did. The only defenses you mustered for claims #1 and #3 were
that the problem is "common" and that push-in connectors "have often been
problematic to electronics." For a man so insistent on seeing numbers to
backup everybody else's claims, your defense is weak. So, show us some
numbers to back up your junk science claims. A statement from a receptacle
manufacturer, Underwriters Laboratories, or the National Electrical Code
would also be appropriate. (Your statement that "[w]hen a laser printer
causes extreme brownouts, then building wiring is a usual and first suspect"
is imprecise and may or may not be true, but in any case is irrelevant to
the three AC receptacle claims you were asked to defend.)

For the record, YOU made the claims about the push-in connectors. I
challenged you to provide technical proof, which you should be able and
willing to provide. Contrary to your post, my request for that proof does
not constitute my technical argument against your claims. IF you provide a
link for your claims, we will then be able to debate the technical merits of
your citation.

Incidentally, although I am not a degreed engineer I never made an
"admission" that I "have no engineering knowledge." I would demand you
identify the quote in which I supposedly made that confession, but it's
obvious my demand will go unanswered.

By the way, I'm not sure why you feel I was offended by your attacks - or
why you currently still owe me "reams of insults" (in spades, no less!), but
by all means fire away if you find it releases frustration for you. We
don't want anyone going postal on us. You should realize, though, that a
well known defense for a weak argument is a personal attack on your
opponent.
Click to expand...
 
Since you cannot let go, let's leave it here.
1. Several printer manufacturers use EEPROM's that are repeatedly updated,
despite what you have more than once said.
2. We were not discussing ink cartridges we were clearly discussing EEPROM's
used in the printer electronics.
3. EEPROM's do not fail in printers in my extensive experience therefore these
manufacturers know how to read data sheets and design their technology
accordingly.
4. Most of the manufacturers I quoted do not shadow EEPROM in their printers.
Despite that their technology works, so they really DO know how to read data
sheets.
The question of what is or is not a "reset" or a "reprogram" is irrelevant and
pedantic in the context of this discussion and you have thrown that in as a red
herring. I suspect to save face.
There is no point in continuing this because you will once more change the
subject to suit your own ends whatever they are. I entered this discussion only
because you were propogating incorrect information, that has been amply
demonstrated and I believe has now been corrected.
I hope that you can have the humility to learn from this, I have learned many
things from people here despite years in the printer business and despite the
fact that I am also an engineer. Practical people add common sense to theory
and without that all the theory in the world is almost useless.
Tony
 
Did I say all manufacture's 'shadow' EEPROMs? I must have for you
to post your reasoning. Meanwhile I did not post as you have assumed.
I simply provided one example of how engineers work around EEPROM
limitations. You have taken that to mean all printer manufacturers
must use 'shadowing'. Again, you are selectively reading rather than
first learn what was posted.

EEPROMs may be repeatedly updated. It is why EEPROMs rather than
less expensive EPROMs are used. Not take that statement. Combine it
with every thing else I have posted to appreciate WHY printer EEPROMs
are not reset. Anyone can do as you have done - take statements out of
context.

The difference between 'reset' verses 'reprogram' is major. It is
the little detail that suggests Arthur only knew what technicians do -
and not why. A mistake he would not have made if he grasped basic
concepts.

Purpose here is not to convince you of anything. You have already
declared you cannot learn new facts. The purpose here is to warn
others of people who somehow just know - and yet never bothered to
first learn the technology. See that long list of myths promoted by
John Smith as example. The hope is that you learn why many technicians
have sufficient knowledge to say 'why'. They know what to do: when
this happens, then I do that. Insufficient knowledge to say 'why'
things happen. So insufficient that John Smith even claimed "Laser
printers will not burn out power strip protectors." Other posters also
corrected him.

From the very start, the original poster need not worry about damage
by switching off power at a power strip or wall switch. This in direct
contradiction to what so many - such as John Smith - have posted. Are
you willing to concede - admit how many myths have been posted here?
Or is your anger still causing you to read what I did not write?

To reiterate what another posted accurately- "The power-up sequence
should recalibrate everything back to a nominal configuration -
therefore no reason to 'reset EEPROMs'." If a printer required 'reset
EEPROMs', then we want the name of that defective printer. No way
around that.
 
Once more you have misled.
No you didn't say "all manufacturers use shadowing", but more importantly
neither did I. Where did you find that "gem" I have left my post so you can
re-read it, I have not taken anything to mean that all all manufacturers use
shadowing, that statement does not appear in my post in fact I said " Most of
the manufacturers I quoted do not shadow EEPROM in their printers", didn't I.
Who can't read here?
The difference between reset and reprogram is irrelevant in the CONTEXT of THIS
discussion and you know it, YOU have taken it out of context. You have also
changed the direction of this thread without any regard to logic or the reason
that this newsgroup exists, it is not here for people like you to practice
self-aggrandisement.
I could go on but I intend to terminate my part of this thread right now. I
think you and I are reading and writing a different form of English.
Tony
 
w_tom said:
The laser printer can be powered off externally.
Click to expand...
<SNIP>

Just for clarification (not for you w_tom, but for any other readers here).
If the printer manufacturer designs their laser printer so that when you turn
the power off "at the printer" the fans continue to run for a while.....then
they do that for a reason!
To advise that "The laser printer can be powered off externally" defies logic
for a laser printer that has a delayed fan turn-off and is giving advice that
may cause damage in the long term. This advice is contrary to good technical
training and indeed common sense.
This is provided in the interest of a long term relationship with your printer
instead of the repair shop.
Tony
 
Back
Top