Digital BW, The Print

Sirs,

Thank you for your comments. I do not know how to reply, except by trying to be specific in explaining my reasoning.

"Clog" and "clogged" seem tio be wrong.

A "clog" is a "portion of a substance cleaving together in a thick nondescript mass". "Clogged" means "blocked, blocked-up, bunged up, plugged. stopped". To "clog" means to "become filled with extraneous matter" or to "unite in a mass" or to "clot".

What was "the problem", the fact or the event the cause of which I needed to know?

Terrible prints and nozzle check patterns

What was the probable cause?

The inks had clogged the nozzles

How could I verify it?

I replaced the carts with Epson's carts and checked the nozzles.

What was the result?

The nozzle check patterns were immaculate, "spotlessly clean". 

What was my conclusion?

The nozzles of the printhead were not clogged - it was extremely unlikely that Epson's inks could have dissolved immediately any "thick nondescript mass".

Again: What was the probable cause of the problem?

Inks did not come out of the cartridges as they should.

What are the probable causes of this?

The inks are not homogeneous enough? They are not suitable for the printhead in some other way - uncoated or something else? There is something wrong with the cartridges (Chinese?) or the way they were filled? - I have heard only "questimates", not verified facts - the causal mechanism is still unknown.

A pertinent fact, or distinction, is that the size, or extent, of the problem varied. Sometimes everything went well, but I got finally enough when a cartridge was completely useless.

The problem persists. Elwood Spedden reported it here only about a week ago.

I used MIS's inks only on my Epson 1290 which I already donated away. I could now dedicate my Epson 2100 to B&W.

BTW, a Matte Black cartridge for Epson 2100 costs here $ 22. A MIS Ebony Black cartridge costs about $ 24, shipping, import duty and sales tax included.

Regards,

Ukko Heikkinen


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

<Again: What was the probable cause of the problem?>

Air in the cart.

If the head was "clogged", then the Epson carts wouldn't have worked 
either, until the head was "unclogged" (or cleaned or whatever....).

Scott

Yes.  I think the issues are less the ink and more the cartridges.  Ukko,
check for air bubbles around the poppet valve.  If so re-prime the cartridge
with the bottom fill adapter (tipping the sucked out ink back into your
bottle) and try again.

> From: scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:34:18 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The Case of the Clogged Nozzles - Reply to Clayton
> and Paul
> 
> <Again: What was the probable cause of the problem?>
> 
> Air in the cart.
> 
> If the head was "clogged", then the Epson carts wouldn't have worked
> either, until the head was "unclogged" (or cleaned or whatever....).
> 
> Scott
> 
>

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "scott_now_coming"

"Air in the cart"

How could one verify this? 

What is the probable cause of this? 

How could one prevent it?

"Adaptive action" - wasting inks on cleaning cycles or replacing carts when cleaning does not help is expensive at $ 24 a cart.

Ukko Heikkinen

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Steve Kale wrote:

"Yes.  I think the issues are less the ink and more the cartridges.  Ukko,
check for air bubbles around the poppet valve.  If so re-prime the cartridge
with the bottom fill adapter (tipping the sucked out ink back into your
bottle) and try again."

Why only MIS's carts, why not Epson's?

Ukko Heikkinen



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well I think we have established why and a quick glance at the
structure/design of an MIS cart vs an Epson one is informative.  MIS are
aware of the problem and the "clear carts" represent an advance forward.  As
of a week or so ago, though, they did not have an eta on clear carts for the
21/2200.

> From: Ukko Heikkinen <ukko.heikkinen@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 17:56:25 +0300
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: The Case of the Clogged Nozzles - Reply to
> Clayton and Paul
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
> "Yes.  I think the issues are less the ink and more the cartridges.  Ukko,
> check for air bubbles around the poppet valve.  If so re-prime the cartridge
> with the bottom fill adapter (tipping the sucked out ink back into your
> bottle) and try again."
> 
> Why only MIS's carts, why not Epson's?
> 
> Ukko Heikkinen

I agree that air (or foam) and carts can be sources of trouble.  But, most
of us seem to get good results from the carts MIS finds.  Searching for the
best carts is clearly a significant job that MIS does, indirectly for us. 

If one does too many cleaning cycles it appears the printer tries to suck
out ink faster than the sponge can release it.  I speculate that the printer
then starts to pull air in around the intake.  

"Priming" the easy-refill carts is very important at first due to an air
pocket at the outlet that is only eliminated if there was a good, original
vacuum fill.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hello Paul

Do you mean that MIS changes the cartridge supplier every so often?

Ukko Heikkinen

Palu Roark wrote:

"But, most of us seem to get good results from the carts MIS finds.  Searching for the
best carts is clearly a significant job that MIS does, indirectly for us."


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ukko Heikkinen wrote:

> Do you mean that MIS changes the cartridge supplier every so often?


From what I can tell they are constantly looking for better cart suppliers.
And they do testing of carts and send samples to beta testers like me when
they think they've found better ones.  The clear, easy-refill carts are the
best I've used so far, including the spongeless ones for the 1280/1290.  

Frankly, I was going to abandon the 1280 before MIS found the clear carts.
I think those carts give it a bit of a longer lease on life, although I have
now abandoned it anyway, in part because have too many printers and, in
part, because I think printers made for pigments are more reliable.  Even if
it is just the built-in cleaning routines, the bottom line is that I think
there is less trouble with pigment printers than those made for dyes.
However, the 1280/1290 has given many users many years of good service.  So,
I don't want this read as my saying that printer is not a good one ... but
pigment printers are better.  

I push the C86 for entry level in part due to this.  I think it is the most
likely by far to give new users a positive experience -- it's made for
pigments and doesn't need any curves or extra software.  Once B&W
photographers see what can be done, they'll be more patient with the curves
and rips that we most often use with the higher end (pigment) printers.
It's terribly frustrating when these systems don't work, whether from the
occasionally foam problem or curves that aren't right for the particular
printer.

Also, there is a range of printer quality out there.  Some are enough off
the mark, for example, that the curves don't work.  Either an "EZ" slider
approach or rip with semi-automatic linearization is the cure for that.  

I'm also suspicious, however, that the printers with the individual carts
might eliminate any slight input/output spacing variation that could cause a
less than perfect seal around the pegs of printers that use multi-chamber
carts.  As such, for a variety of reasons, I'm not sure I want to deal any
more with printers that don't use individual carts, although they also can
sometimes have a fit problem with some cart batches.

At any rate, my 2200 has been extremely reliable, and the C86 is the printer
I use the most.  My limited experience with large format printers -- 7500
and 7600 -- is that they are better made than the desktop units and more
reliable.  At the other end, if one gets a C86 that is not well made or
breaks, it's cheap enough to just though away and start over.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 



______________________________

> 
> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> "But, most of us seem to get good results from the carts MIS finds.
> Searching for the
> best carts is clearly a significant job that MIS does, indirectly for us."
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
> MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Ukko,

>BTW, a Matte Black cartridge for Epson 2100 costs here $ 22. A MIS
>Ebony Black cartridge costs about $ 24, shipping, import duty and 
>sales tax included.

With the new easy top fill carts these is no reason to buy prefilled
ones any more.  I get the inks in 4oz bottles and refill the carts. 
After the initial investment the ink is about $2 or so per refil. 
Maybe there's a problem with those carts.  The top fill ones are
different and I have almost no problems with them.  I've used 20 or
more in my experiments over the past months and have had one bad cart
and
one bad chip, best I can remember.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

My comments apply to the refillable carts (purchased empty).  I have
purchased 23 of them and have had problems with almost all (no chip
problems).  They are particularly prone to issues if you swap them out - say
swapping from a B&W setup to colour.

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:31:09 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The Case of the Clogged Nozzles - Reply to Clayton
> and Paul
> 
> Ukko,
> 
>> BTW, a Matte Black cartridge for Epson 2100 costs here $ 22. A MIS
>> Ebony Black cartridge costs about $ 24, shipping, import duty and
>> sales tax included.
> 
> With the new easy top fill carts these is no reason to buy prefilled
> ones any more.  I get the inks in 4oz bottles and refill the carts.
> After the initial investment the ink is about $2 or so per refil.
> Maybe there's a problem with those carts.  The top fill ones are
> different and I have almost no problems with them.  I've used 20 or
> more in my experiments over the past months and have had one bad cart
> and
> one bad chip, best I can remember.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Ukko,

Having run MIS carts, their pigment inks and CFS systems for almost 5 years 
in various Epson printers, I now can leave my 1160 and 2200 without printing 
for a weeks at a time and expect to get a perfect nozzle check with, at 
most, one cleaning cycle. Let me give you my observations:

1.) Proper filling of the carts is crucial and not "idiot-proof", as this 
idiot can testify since I had to invent my own procedure back in the early 
days to get reliable fills every time (it's the suction method, bottom-fill, 
now recommended by MIS for CFS systems, more or less). Air in the carts is 
probably the cause of 90+% of the "clogs" reported. I'm still using the 
original-design carts with the plastic foam insert which is/was the cause of 
most trapped-air problems.

In all these years there has been only one instance where I found what was 
observably a clog - the cyan nozzle in an Epson 1200 finally yielded a small 
clot of pigmented material when I pulled the plunger on my syringe after 
slowly injecting isopropyl alcohol directly into the nipple in the print 
head. In all but one other cases where I had a problem printing, clearing 
foam from the cart and sucking plenty of fresh liquid ink through the cart 
solved the problem - that one case was because the pick-up tube in the 
reservoir got pushed against the bottom and was essentially blocked in the 
reservoir - I could feel that it was nearly impossible to suck ink through 
the cart to get it clear of foam.

2.) Storage and handling of the filled carts can cause problems - I am 
careful to make sure that a spare cart (like the matte black for the 2200 
which is not now in use) is stored in the upright position, never shaken or 
otherwise disturbed. It sits in a clamp behind the printer where I never 
have to go for any reason except to swap carts and I am sure that I can swap 
it into the printer with very little liklihood of problems getting it to 
print, as I have done that a half a dozen times.

3.) I think the tubing for the CFS systems is the same old Tygon tubing I 
used to use in the lab all the time and, as I recall, it is not impermeable 
to air, so that, if left to sit for an extensive period, you will get 
bubbles in the tube that will be sucked into the cart when put into use 
(gases dissolved in the ink can also separate and cause bubbles in the 
system). If this happens, sucking a lot of fresh ink through the cart with a 
syringe with a bottom adaptor before installation will clear the air/foam, 
if it is more than the cart can handle.

4.) It has been reported that eventually the filter screens in the carts 
will get plugged and not enough ink will flow to the print head. At that 
point the cart is dead and must be replaced - it takes a few years or a good 
amount of printing for that to happen, it's never happened to me, I only 
print for myself and only do a few hundred super-B prints a year.

From my experience, then, I have to say that Epson carts aren't proved to 
work better than MIS's. Even with the much more complicated CFS systems I 
use, MIS products have been very reliable when handled properly - don't 
forget Epson carts are almost never repeatedly cycled in and out of a 
printer like my 2200 Ultrachrome MK/PK black carts are and its color carts 
and the "7600" inks in the 1160 CFS have been totally reliable as were the 
original ESC-ARC color and black only inks in that machine which has been in 
use with CFS systems for about 4 years (including a period of several months 
when the printer was in storage while I moved). The 1200 had most of the 
problems I've described.

Good luck whith your printing,

Frank