Digital BW, The Print

I am ready to switch to MIS U7 for my 2200.  

(1)  Can I use both Eboni Bk and Pk (and in what position, if so) at 
the same time, so I can print on both matte and semi-gloss or 
equivalent without switching ink?

(2)  To switch back to Epson OEM for color printing, do I need to do 
anything special to clear out the MIS inks or vice versa?  I do about 
50/50 printing (color mainly for family pics) but tend to do them in  
batches.

(3)  Is the 1280 a good printer to dedicate to one or the other with 
MIS inks?  Which?

Nancy

>I am ready to switch to MIS U7 for my 2200. 

 

>(1) Can I use both Eboni Bk and Pk ... at 

>the same time, so I can print on both matte and 

>semi-gloss or equivalent without switching ink?

 

The way I set it up at http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/UT-2200-Readme.htm ,
the system can print on glossy papers with Eboni installed by using the dark
gray inks to generate the black.  

 

>(2) To switch back to Epson OEM for color printing, do I need to do 

>anything special to clear out the MIS inks or vice versa? I do about 

>50/50 printing (color mainly for family pics) but tend to do them in 

>batches.

 

You don't need to use cleaning fluid between inks, but it's possible you'd
save money if you did.  It takes a few cleaning cycles or several purge
pages to eliminate the residual color or B&W inks from the head.  The less
of this you have to do with expensive OEM inks, the better.

 

>(3) Is the 1280 a good printer to dedicate to one or the other 

>with MIS inks? Which?

 

It has a spotty record with respect to clogging with third party pigmented
inks.  Many have used it successfully for years, others not.  My 1280s did
not live as long as the more recent Epson printers.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>   

 

 

 

 

 

Nancy

 



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

Nancy, I agree with Paul that sometimes the 1280 will work fine with
third party pigmented inks and sometimes not.  I've begun using third
party coloured inks in one of mine and so far so good.  

The reason the heads clog is that the 1280 with OEM dye inks uses
smaller droplets than can be made with most pigmented inks.  Trying to
force the larger droplets through smaller holes causes the clogs.

That said, a print head for the 1280 costs about $90 here in Canada so
I would expect it to be a fair bit less in the U.S.  If you can get a
year or two out of a print head before it clogs to the point it can't
be cleaned, $90 isn't a bad price to pay.


Bob

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
>  
> 
> >I am ready to switch to MIS U7 for my 2200. 
> 
>  
> 
> >(1) Can I use both Eboni Bk and Pk ... at 
> 
> >the same time, so I can print on both matte and 
> 
> >semi-gloss or equivalent without switching ink?
> 
>  
> 
> The way I set it up at
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/UT-2200-Readme.htm ,
> the system can print on glossy papers with Eboni installed by using
the dark
> gray inks to generate the black.  
> 
>  
> 
> >(2) To switch back to Epson OEM for color printing, do I need to do 
> 
> >anything special to clear out the MIS inks or vice versa? I do about 
> 
> >50/50 printing (color mainly for family pics) but tend to do them in 
> 
> >batches.
> 
>  
> 
> You don't need to use cleaning fluid between inks, but it's possible
you'd
> save money if you did.  It takes a few cleaning cycles or several purge
> pages to eliminate the residual color or B&W inks from the head. 
The less
> of this you have to do with expensive OEM inks, the better.
> 
>  
> 
> >(3) Is the 1280 a good printer to dedicate to one or the other 
> 
> >with MIS inks? Which?
> 
>  
> 
> It has a spotty record with respect to clogging with third party
pigmented
> inks.  Many have used it successfully for years, others not.  My
1280s did

> not live as long as the more recent Epson printers.
> 
>  
> 
> Paul
> 
> www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>   
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Nancy
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

>The reason the heads clog is that the 1280 with OEM dye 
>inks uses smaller droplets than can be made with most 
>pigmented inks. Trying to force the larger droplets 
>through smaller holes causes the clogs.

I don't think it's the droplet or head nozzle size that is the problem.
Pigment inks work well in the R800 with much smaller droplet sizes.
Additionally, pigments work very well in the R220, which is made for dyes.
My understanding is that the nozzles size is about 25 microns, whereas the
pigment particle sizes are about 0.1 micron.

The 1280, however, has more trouble with high viscosity inks than the newer
printers.  High load pigment inks require a higher viscosity than the dye
inks.  I'd guess some of the 1280 problems might relate to getting high
viscosity inks through the screens in the 1280 head.  The 2000P appeared to
be basically a 1280.  They may have machined a totally different head for
it, but I doubt it.  I'd guess they either used a different screen or higher
voltages to the head.  The 2000P did have a slightly larger droplet size.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

> The 1280, however, has more trouble with high viscosity inks than the 
> newer
> printers.  High load pigment inks require a higher viscosity than the dye
> inks

On another list we were just discussing density on ink, and I found that 
Epson inks all seem to have the same relative density - 1.07 - whether dye 
or pigment, and their viscosity is given as < 5 mPa.

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/Supportmsdsmain.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes

bob frost

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>

Bob,

>> The 1280, however, has more trouble with high viscosity inks 
>>than the  newer printers. High load pigment inks require a 
>>higher viscosity than the dye inks

>On another list we were just discussing density on ink, and 
>I found that Epson inks all seem to have the same relative 
>density - 1.07 - whether dye or pigment,

That is what I've measured also for the pigmented inks.  I've never really
dealt with the dyes.

>-and their viscosity is given as < 5 mPa.

I don't have a sophisticated way to measure viscosities, but for relative
viscosity comparisons, this is the device I've used:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Viscosity_Comparisons.pdf 

You can see the range or relative viscosities I've measured.  

MIS (and their supplier) found with one of their original pigmented inks
that the magenta viscosity was too high for the 1280.  They had to lower the
load and viscosity for this reason.  (I think they called that inkset by
some name that had a "G" in it.  I don't know if it's still on their web
page.)  The old MIS 7600 M has the highest viscosity I've measured, and I
think that was the problem ink.  Current MIS 7600 inks are the same as the
MIS Pro inks, and they have a significantly lower viscosity according to my
way of measuring it.

Out of curiosity, I just measured the relative viscosity of some MIS yellow
dye.  Guess what, you're at least in part right.  The yellow MIS dye
measured exactly the same as what I call the "typical" viscosity of the
pigmented inks I'd measured.  So, I guess at this point I'd have to say that
the magenta pigments I've measured all have higher viscosities than the
"typical" ones I measure, with the MIS old 7600 being the highest.  The
Epson Archival LM was also elevated significantly.  (My notes don't show any
numbers for the Epson Archival or UC Magenta.)


>http://www.epson.com/cgi->bin/Store/support/Supportmsdsmain.jsp?BV_UseBVCoo
kie=yes

(Where does Epson list these statistics on that URL?   I see MSDSs.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

> You can see the range or relative viscosities I've measured.

Thanks for that info on viscosities.

> (Where does Epson list these statistics on that URL?   I see MSDSs.)

Yes, but if you click on any printer and then on one of its inks, up pops 
the relevant MSDS with both the chemical and physical characteristics of 
that ink.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>

Hi Bob,

 

You might be interested in comparing the water-glycerol dilution v.
viscosity table 1 at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TGJ-3YMFMHY-C&_u
ser=4423&_coverDate=03%2F01%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c
&_acct=C000059605&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4423&md5=898ece7e1b118c51
fcba786501d3424d#sec8>
&_udi=B6TGJ-3YMFMHY-C&_user=4423&_coverDate=03%2F01%2F2000&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_or
ig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059605&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4
423&md5=898ece7e1b118c51fcba786501d3424d#sec8 with the composition of my
simple base at http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Viscosity_Comparisons.pdf .  My
simple base appears to be close to the 5 mPa-s viscosity limit Epson throws
out in its MSDSs.

 

My "cheap and easy" capillary viscometer is measuring kinematic viscosity as
opposed to dynamic viscosity. Glycerol-water mixes are considered typical
Newtonian fluids.  Dye inks also appear to be Newtonian.  However, pigmented
inks appear to become non-Newtonian, where the shear rate affects the
viscosity.  See, for example,
http://math.berkeley.edu/~sethian/2006/Applications/ViscoElastic/viscoelasti
c.html  This introduces some variables that are beyond what my little
experiments (and brain) can deal with.  I doubt we'll find much willingness
of the large companies to publish their data on the dynamic viscosities of
their non-Newtonian inks and the relationships with increasing frequencies
required for higher speed and higher resolution printing.  However, my guess
is that pigmented inks and these imperatives of competition are on a
collision course.  And I wonder how the Claria inks fit into all this.  Are
they Newtonian?

 

All very interesting.  As a practical matter, the solution for me is to just
shove some UT-R2 inks into a 260 and see what happens.  (Which is exactly
what MIS should be doing about now.)

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

 



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