Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "janishilesh" 
<shilesh.jani@s...> wrote:

I also keep the lid down, to the local 
> humidity near the print head is high. This seems to have worked, and 
> I have not had to do any cleaning cycles in the last 4 days (!).


I really have had bad feelings about localizing the humidity. I know 
that some folks put a pan of water near the printer and throw a dust 
cover over the whole thing, and report sucess. What bothers me is 
whether you may create condensation on some electronic circuits, 
connectors, etc. You see what you've got is a small volume of air you 
are trying to regulate water content of.

 Let's say I am trying to pour a gallon of water into another 
container. If the second container is small and I don't watch how fast 
I dump the water, I can cause a puddle overflow to form. Now let's say 
I'm pouring the gallon of water into a big 55 gallon empty drum. No 
problem, I won't splash any.

So, if I put a humidstat into a big volume room, it may take longer 
for it to come to equalibrium, but it will be more accurate than in a 
tiny room, subject to humidity fluctuation due to it lack of humidity 
capacity.

I could wind up with 99%RH in a small enclosure for printer before I 
realized it. In a larger room I can control it more accuractly to 
40%RH say. Yada, yada...

 

> 
> I really hope this works long-term. Otherwise, I have been tempted 
to 
> use the MediaStreet Enhanced Generation black, which apparently has 
> significant dye content, and I surmise may be less prone to clogs.


I was thinking along these same lines awhile back, but one or two very 
knowledgable folks on this list reported second hand reports of 
clogging at least as worse, dye notwithstanding. True or false, I 
stayed with VM inkset. I figure you just can't assume anything makes 
common sense.<g>
Jim H.
 
> But then, I would have to redo my workflow completely, and I don't 
> want to go there.
> 
> Shilesh Jani