Turn off laser printer with power strip?

[w_tom]

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.

Nice people are politicians. We elect them because they are nice -
they lie. Honest people say things that are not so politically
correct. As for libel, well, some here even claimed a surge protector
can be burned out by a laser printer. How can someone be so naive? An
honest and technically accurate response is libel?

This thread is full of half truths - often by people who did not
first learn the underlying science. Turning off a laser printer as the
original poster asked is not destructive to a laser printer.
Obviously. Some who claim to know otherwise also assume an EEPROM is
reset. That little detail suggests one just knows for unknown reason -
IOW does not know why.

This could have been a nice discussion if you buried your emotions
and asked questions technical - as an honest person does. But somehow,
you want to kill the messenger. Somehow you are sure a technician with
maybe ten years experience knows more than an engineer with more than 3
times that experience.

Meanwhile those who told the original poster that a power strip would
cause laser printer damage and other myths are suspect. They even
thought one 'resets' an EEPROM. That could only be stated if that
poster did not have a grasp of the underling principles and basic
facts.. Meanwhile another accurately challenged your erroneous
declaration. He noted that a power-up sequence should recalibrate
everything back to a nominal configuration - therefore no reason to
'reset EEPROMs. Are you calling him a liar also? No reason exists to
reset EEPROMs as Arthur Entlich had erroneously posted earlier.

The honest response notes Arthur Entlich claimed he was 'resetting'
EEPROMs. AND that he was resetting EEPROMs to fix something that should
never happen. One does not reset EEPROMs. And a printer resets itself
on power up. Sorry for saying you were wrong - but to be honest, you
were wrong. To be nice would only be to lie about it. Unfortunately
you are too attached to your myths to post nicely - to accuse of libel
only because you were caught in a technical lie. Not nice - just the
honest facts. That you thought were were resetting EEPROMs
demonstrates assumptions not based in technical knowledge.

 

[w_tom]

Tony posts:

4. Most of the manufacturers I quoted do not shadow EEPROM in their printers.

But I never said they did. So why did you even bring this silly point
up - if not only to argue? 'Shadowing' was only listed as an example
so that you might better comprehend the concept. Instead you have
turned 'shadowing' into a major dispute. Why do you want to argue
about EEPROMs when the point only demonstrates why a technician would
lie about 'reseting printers by resetting EPROMs'.

Even the difference between resetting and reprogramming is obviously
significant. It requires different operations. He claimed he was
resetting EPROMs. Not only was he doing something not required -
resetting a printer - but he further added myths by 'resetting EPROMs'.
Why was he 'resetting' EPROMs? Because he did not even understand
all minimally acceptable printers must reset themselves. No technician
is required for that reset despite what Arthur Entlich claims - when
he also promoted a myth about 'resetting EPROMs'. So why do you argue
about EEPROMs rather than address the issue - a technician who has
posted incorrectly about resetting printers. Because you want to
argue? That statement about 'resetting EEPROMs' further suggests why
he would erroneously claim a tech is required to 'reset a printer'.

Meanwhile, the original poster need not worry about powering down
from a power strip or from a wall switch despite what others posted
here. The original poster is just fine using a power strip. The
original poster is advised better to power a laser from same circuit
that powers computer. Technical reasons posted earlier. Just another
of so many challenged myths in this thread. No way nice when
correcting technical errors that were based in myths. This thread -
especially posts from John Smith - have been chock full of
misrepresented facts. This idea that that an acceptable printer would
would need a tech to reset it is myth. Along with that myth was some
nonsense about 'resetting an EPROM'. Maybe he tells that to customers
who would not know any better. But that myth does not stand
unchallenged here.

 

[John Smith]

w_tom, since you seem to have difficulty staying on subject, I will
concisely address only one point in this post.

The original poster is advised better to power a laser from same circuit
that powers computer. Technical reasons posted earlier.

Please show us where these technical reasons are posted. Don't tell us
about anything else. Just show us the quote where these technical reasons
are posted.

 

[Tony]

Quod erat demonstrandum

You made 2 errors.
1. You said that EEPROMS are not repeatedly updated in printers (not an exact
quote).
2. You implied that there is no harm in turning a laser printer off at a power
strip even if the printer is designed to run the fans for a while after
powering off at the printer.
Both are wrong and you do not have the humility to acknowledge that both are
wrong.
Everything you have posted since then is obfuscation, you have deliberately
changed the direction of the thread, deliberately misunderstood what others
were clearly trying to say and you have accused others of anger and lies with
no reason to do so. Presumably to deliberately confuse and hide your errors.
You have also arrogantly assumed the level of knowledge and skill that other
people have with no basis at all for your judgement. To make a mistake is easy,
to acknowledge it requires integrity.

I have also made 2 errors.
1. I had failed to realise that you know more about EEPROM design and
utilisation than the combined engineering teams of Canon, Epson and other
printer manufacturers.
2. I have permitted myself to continue to be involved in this discussion
despite the fact that your 2 original errors have now been recognised.
My second error is now fixed, this is the last post I shall make in this thread.
Please learn to read and please read to learn.
Tony

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Well, (e-mail address removed),


You can repeat your assertions as many times as you like. When
(e-mail address removed) is willing to admit to the fact that his basic premise
about EEPROMs is incorrect, that might prove to be a big step for
(e-mail address removed). The issue was not if I used the term "reset" or not.
Epson uses the term reset themselves in their service manuals, because,
as I attempted to explain to you, in the case I was referring to, there
is a feature in Epson printers which advances a number with cleaning
cycles until the firmware no longer allows the printer to work once a
certain number is reached (this is called the waste ink pad protection
number). To get the printer to work again, there is a procedure to RESET
the EEPROM so it again reads that number as zero. But that wasn't really
the issue you made anyway. You, (e-mail address removed), stunk up the place with
your assertion that EEPROMs can't be used to store regularly changing
values because they would fail too rapidly, because they can't handle
that many rewrite cycles. You, (e-mail address removed), STILL have not admitted
to your error, but you, (e-mail address removed), go on and on about your
theoretical knowledge, and about my being a technician and you're an
engineer and smarter than everyone else, and other foolishness that no
one cares about, but not once have you yet acknowledged your error.
Instead you go back to a typo made in a posting two weeks ago.

I explained to you that the EPROM reference was a typo, but I discovered
it was actually the standard spell checker in Netscape that changed the
EEPROM to EPROM, and I have since altered that. While I may have a
spell checker that is apparently a bit out of date, you, (e-mail address removed),
have a personality dysfunction that will take a lot more work to fix.

So, as I stated before, I am not going to answer you point by point,
because most of your points are meaningless triviality and have no
point. You, (e-mail address removed), are trying to sidestep the issue, with the
same dishonesty as those politicians you claim you do not admire. I will
not play your infantile games with semantics. You, (e-mail address removed), are
going to have to find someone else with more tolerance for your interest
in minutia than I have. You, (e-mail address removed), have no interest in either
truth or knowledge. You, (e-mail address removed), are in pursuit of being found
"right" at any cost, and you, (e-mail address removed), just try to wear people
down by being a moving target. Your basic assertion, and one by which
you tried to crucify several other posters with, is flawed.

You can be right about hundreds of other things, but that doesn't change
the fact that you tried to use your "deep knowledge" to try to discredit
others and you only discredited yourself. The honorable thing to do in
this case is admit the error in your information, and move on. You,
(e-mail address removed), brought this on yourself.

Art

PS: And now, perhaps you, (e-mail address removed), might also understand how
annoying it is to be continually referred to in the third person,
(e-mail address removed). And if your idea is to raise your posts to the top of
the search lists, well, two can play the same game.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Working with only half the information you need, (e-mail address removed), you
make several more false assumptions. Someone with a true desire to
learn something would take the time to actually go to the same
references the other person was using, and see why certain terms might
be used, and what the purpose of the process was. But you,
(e-mail address removed), would much rather "be right" than be smart, and in this
case you have proven yourself neither.

And you wonder why other people aren't defending you, (e-mail address removed)?

Has Tony violated the engineer handshake, by not siding with you? Poor
w_tom!

Just to keep the record straight, not that I see any disgrace in being a
technician, but I am not a technician. It wouldn't surprised me if my
formal and informal education surpasses yours, but I won't hold it
against you, nor will I give you, (e-mail address removed), any points if yours
happens to surpass mine, since it appears you allow yourself to trip and
fall on your book learning. Theoretical knowledge is great stuff, but
when you just sweep practical knowledge away because your (outdated)
books say otherwise, it can become a dangerously slippery road.

Those books used to say the sun revolved around the earth.

Art - now, Dr. Tech!

 

[w_tom]

Thank you for finally defining one printer that we don't want to buy
- as I asked long ago. Any printer that calls for a tech to 'reset the
EEPROM' is clearly a bad product. As you said:

To get the printer to work again, there is a procedure to RESET
the EEPROM so it again reads that number as zero.

No decent and minimally acceptable product requires such procedure.
However I doubt Epson really did that. I more suspect you did not
understand what is happening. "But that REALLY WAS the issue ".
Once you posted EPROMs are reset, then I became suspicious. Then you
posted EEPROMs are reset. I got further suspicious of your technical
knowledge. Then when you claim a printer must be taken to the shop to
be 'reset', well, that was the final straw. That is when I realized
you only have a technician's grasp of how printers and electronics
work.

Meanwhile you did post other good responses such as:

Most equipment today is well fused and not that easily damaged,
even by spikes.

So yes, you did have some good experience which is more than I can say
about one poster who repeatedly demonstrated insufficient knowledge -
John Smith.

The only person who can discredit you is you. I have provided a long
list of technical corrections to many posters who all but outrightly
lied - posted myths. The king of lies is that John Smith post: "Laser
printer powerup can fry a surge protector". But myths did not stop
coming. From lack of basic knowledge about 'rear push-in' connections
on wall receptacles, what UL does, that brownouts are destructive to
electronics, brownouts created by a laser printer would not be symptoms
of building wiring problems, that power strip protectors have effective
EMI/RFI filters, "printers need separate circuits to protect the
computer from brownouts", total confusion between EEPROM and other
types of non-volatile RAM, misrepresenting what was posted into some
myth that I claimed printers don't use EEPROMs, and finally, that
printers require a technician to reset them, . As Fred McKenzie
accurately noted:

... the power-up sequence should recalibrate everything back to
a nominal configuration.

These same people who posted so many myths and misrepresentations
also told the OP to not power off using a power strip and to not use a
power strip. It's called credibility, Arthur. Your credibility is in
what you have posted. I have simply demonstrated that you have posted
in error. If your credibility is tarnished, well, you did that to
yourself. You do demonstrate a good grasp of underlying electronic
concepts. Your denial that resetting EEPROMs and reprogramming
EEPROMs are same suggests you don't understand an underlying technical
concept. The killer here is that you claim a tech must reset an EEPROM
in an Epson. If true, then all lurkers should have been advised *by
you* to not purchase that Epson printer.

And again, the OP is advised to go ahead - use that laser printer on
that power strip as he intends. This in contradiction to posted myths
especially from John Smith who even claimed a laser printer would fry a
power strip protector. It is called credibility. John admitted that
he does not have necessary electrical training. But he still posts
those myths.

Meanwhile, one does not care whether a post is in first or third
person. What is relevant is not even emotions. The only thing
relevant here is technical honesty - responsible answers to the OP's
original post. That answer, despite what so many have posted: the
power strip is not problematic to his laser printer as he will use it.
That heat damage has been observed to cause warping was acknowledged as
a post from one who would know from experience - Arthur Entlich. But
again, in the OP's case, that power strip would cause him no problem.

 

[larry moe 'n curly]

John Smith wrote:

EMI/RFI filtering in power strip protectors is just another example
of junk science.

Can't it be verified, at least somewhat, by comparing radio and TV
reception with and without the filter-equipped surge protector?
Because when I plugged a cheapo computer PSU into a backup supply
equipped with an EMI/RFI filter, the interference on AM radio went way
down (no audible reception previously), and TV ch. 3 cleared up quite a
bit. I did use a shielded power cord between the PSU and UPS, but this
didn't seem to be much of a factor because when I plugged the cord
directly into a wall outlet it, there was no noticeable improvement
over an unshielded cord.

 

[John Smith]

Art, I think the w_tom guy is borderline senile so maybe we should cut him
some slack. As everyone here has seen, he misquotes other people, he
misquotes himself, he can't give a straight answer to a question, he can't
read clearly, he can't write clearly, and he can't think clearly. If he's
not suffering from dementia now, I have a hard time believing he was ever an
employed engineer. Anybody that hired him in the state he's in now would
have kicked his ass to the curb before his second week on the job.

I nailed him on his AC receptacle theory. First he said:

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).

So in his own words, he claimed the screw problem created the push-in
problem.

When I questioned his theory, he responded:

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.

So suddenly he's talking about a "firm" screw connection instead of a wire
"not fully wrapped around the connecting screw"! He never did explain why
push-in connectors are bad or provide any proof for his crackpot theory.
Yet he insists on seeing manufacturer documentation that recommends a
cooling fan finish cooling the electronics before the fan is turned off.

Further incontestable examples are his claims regarding my quotes and the
"frying" of surge protectors.

On 2/11 at 1634 he said my knowledge was so insufficient that

John Smith even claimed "Laser
printers will not burn out power strip protectors."

Then on 2/13 at 1514 he wrote almost the exact opposite:

The king of lies is that John Smith post: "Laser

printer powerup can fry a surge protector".

As it turns out, I made neither claim. Actually, for the past week or so
I've only been questioning his claims, which I believe is why I aggravate
him so. When I've asked him to respond to conflicting claims like these, he
ignores me and begins a new misquote, apparently angered at his own
inability to write clearly.

As we all know, his posts are full of inconsistencies. We can't pin him
down if he is constantly changing his theories and fabricating quotes as he
goes along. I believe your earlier post regarding futility was appropriate.
Arguing with w_tom is like arguing with an senile, old man sitting in a
nursing home somewhere, bitter at the world and desperate to prove he is not
a loser. Maybe it is better to tell him, "Yup, you're the mac daddy of all
engineers," pat him gently on his head, and leave him to rule his own
fantasy world in solitude.

 

[John Smith]

LM&C,

It's no use. You are recommending an equipment test, but w_tom is already
convinced that he is right and you are wrong. You'll see.

He will want you to provide original engineering data, preferably
photocopied from the engineer's notebook, to prove that surge protectors
that are labeled with EMI/RFI protection specs really do include that
protection. On the other hand, he claims that AC power receptacles that
source power to laser printers and other electronic devices should not be
wired using the push-in terminals in the back, and he refuses to provide
proof or a reason other than his opinion that the connectors have "often
been problematic."

As you can read in the thread, we have been going round and round with this
guy for almost two weeks now. If you take him on, he will misquote himself
and he will misquote you. If you catch him in a mistake he will change the
subject. If you question his outlandish claims he will either ignore or
attack you. I can almost guarantee he will criticize your test plan and
tell you that you have no technical knowledge. Be prepared for his
tangential emphasis on minutia such as the definition of a shielded power
cord, and him telling you that you don't know the difference between a surge
protector and a UPS.

This thread was intended to be a serious technical discussion forum where we
all contribute and learn, but at this point after the childlike bickering
most of us realize we are wasting our time debating this demented guy and
are ready to bow out. But welcome to the fray...

 

[Arthur Entlich]

I've decide to just cut him out of my life... Sadly, I can't help him,
so no point in giving both of use ulcers. (Yeah, I know, ulcers are not
caused by excess stomach acid or stress, but by H. Pylori, a bacterium. ;-))

Art

Art, I think the w_tom guy is borderline senile so maybe we should cut him
some slack. As everyone here has seen, he misquotes other people, he
misquotes himself, he can't give a straight answer to a question, he can't
read clearly, he can't write clearly, and he can't think clearly. If he's
not suffering from dementia now, I have a hard time believing he was ever an
employed engineer. Anybody that hired him in the state he's in now would
have kicked his ass to the curb before his second week on the job.

<cut>

 

[John Smith]

"Art said that ulcers are caused by H. Pylori, but they are also caused by
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs), like aspirin and ibuprofen,
and cancerous tumors, so obviously Art is not a doctor and he should be
asking questions rather than pretending he is a brain surgeon, when he even
admits he has not graduated from medical school, unlike myself who has 30
years experience in causing ulcers, and Art even thinks that bacterium is
the same as a virus, which further proves he did not go to Harvard Medical
School like he claims; the patient is advised drink some water and rub the
ear of a cat, because if this was ineffective surely the dog collar I bought
would have warned against it."

!

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Actually, just to not confound some good medical advice (and I fully
appreciate what you're doing here)... it is likely nearly all, if not
all, cancerous tumors of the stomach are caused by H. Pylori that goes
untreated in certain prone people. Secondly, there is research
suggesting that even ulcers caused by NSAID may have the H. Pylori as a
precursor. Lastly, I would never equate a virus with a bacterium,
although I did not go to medical school, I did go to premedical school,
and dogs are one of the principal carriers of H. Pylori (although they
are nonsystematic, usually) which is why it is not a good idea to share
your plate with or kiss your dog. Sharing your water bowl with him is
jut plain disgusting, since more than likely his water bowl is the
toilet. ;-)

And to keep this on topic, my previous bone density scan was printed out
on an inkjet printer, but my most recent one was done on a color laser,
does this indicate medical labs are moving from inkjet to laser? Why or
why not? ;-)

Art

 

[w_tom]

EMI/RFI effects would be more from things like capacitance of MOVs
and small filters used to blunt sharp transient waveforms (to help pass
UL1449 tests). If 'filtering' inside a power strip protector causes
any noticeable improvement, then the appliance itself would have
insufficient filtering.

Yes, cheapo power supplies can be filtered by just about anything
because they are missing internal filters required for FCC compliance.
Filtering that must be part of every power supply would permit an
adjacent AM radio to operate without interference. In your
experiment, even insignificant filtering within a power strip decreased
interference probably because the required internal filter was
completely missing. A missing appliance filter that otherwise would
make power strip filtering irrelevant and trivial.

Particularly appalling is that a cheapo power supply even interfered
with TV. That is massively beyond what is acceptable from any domestic
appliance. Even a simple capacitor would cause significant filtering
because the power supply is so poor - has literally no internal
filtering. Filtering inside a power supply must be so good that TV 3
must not be interfered AND even AM radio suffers no interference. So
again, John Smith's power strip filter is not relevant - has no
purpose. But he promotes it on junk science - using numbers he does
not even understand.

Meanwhile this John Smith filter claim was irrelevant, insignificant,
and provided the original poster with no useful information.

 

[w_tom]

If power wire is pushed in the rear, then wire is not fully wrapped
around a wall receptacles connecting screw. Now I understand why
John Smith has problems understanding that statement. Does John know
the difference between two separate connections on receptacles - 1) is
the rear push-in and 2) is a screw connection? The screw can create
problems for laser printers when not used - when a rear push-in
connection is used instead. But then this was simple electrician
knowledge.

Yes, on 31 Jan 2006, John Smith posted what he now denies:

Laser printer powerup can fry a surge protector:

Only the niave would even try to make that rediculous claim. It says
that he does not even understand UL safety standards - why a laser
printer obviously could not 'fry' a power strip.

John Smith wrote:
....

 

[larry moe 'n curly]

EMI/RFI filtering in power strip protectors is just another example
of junk science.

EMI/RFI effects would be more from things like capacitance of MOVs
and small filters used to blunt sharp transient waveforms (to help pass
UL1449 tests).

I noticed no reduction in TV and AM radio interference when I used
power strip surge protectors that contained 1 or 3 capacitors in
addition to the MOVs. Only the protectors containing
capacitor-inductor filters helped, and they helped a lot.

If 'filtering' inside a power strip protector causes any noticeable
improvement, then the appliance itself would have insufficient filtering.

But what about my AM radio, which worked off battery?

Particularly appalling is that a cheapo power supply even interfered
with TV. That is massively beyond what is acceptable from any domestic
appliance. Even a simple capacitor would cause significant filtering
because the power supply is so poor - has literally no internal
filtering.

My cheapo PSU had emptyspaces where the EMI/RFI filter components would
normally sit, but when I added just the capacitors (.005 uF between
lines and ground, about 0.22 uF across lines), I noticed no reduction
in interference. The reason I tested first with capacitors alone
because I couldn't find chokes that fit and that didn't seem like
dangerous junk (toroid core wound with vinyl-insulated phone wire).

Filtering inside a power supply must be so good that TV 3
must not be interfered AND even AM radio suffers no interference. So
again, John Smith's power strip filter is not relevant - has no
purpose. But he promotes it on junk science - using numbers he does
not even understand.

If it has no purpose, why did it help so much with my reception? The
AM radio went from totally useless (just a constant buzz/whine/screech)
to about as clear as AM gets, and TV ch. 3 cleared up a lot.

 

[Tony]

Larry (or is it Curly Moe?),
I think w_tom is trying, without success, to say that equipment should be
designed in such a way that it does not interfere with any other equipment, at
least to the extent that is required by law and hopefully to a greater extent
than that.
He is of course correct but conveniently ignores the fact that much equipment
on the market falls short of this laudible intent, which is probably why you
have had some success with your effective modifications and also why the "junk
science" of EMI/RFI filtering in power strip protectors has a huge worldwide
market and actually works!
Unfortunately w_tom has an unpleasantly confrontive way of making his points,
together with an inability to debate logically. This is a common trait with
people who work in a lab and are only released once a day to eat raw meat
thereby denying them the opportunity to develop any social graces. I suggest
that you continue to enjoy your worthwhile successes with practical things and
let w_tom continue to hide from the world in his ivory tower where he can rest
in the sure knowledge that he is much smarter than all of us combined!
Tony

 

[Bob]

e have been going round and round with this
guy for almost two weeks now. If you take him on, he will misquote himself
and he will misquote you. If you catch him in a mistake he will change the
subject. If you question his outlandish claims he will either ignore or
attack you.

Hummm.... a lot like my EX.

 

[Bob]

that it does not interfere with any other equipment, at
least to the extent that is required by law and hopefully to a greater extent
than that.

My understanding of the law is that the FCC does not require consumer
equipment to not interferer with other consumer equipment, but that
consumer equipment does not interfere with commercial equipment.

I confess to reading an interpretation of the law and not the law
itself.

 

[Tony]

My understanding of the law is that the FCC does not require consumer
equipment to not interferer with other consumer equipment, but that
consumer equipment does not interfere with commercial equipment.

I confess to reading an interpretation of the law and not the law
itself.

Bob
You may well be right, I am not familiar with US law. Some countries have
different requirements.
Tony