QTR-Quadtone RIP

Have you compared performance/reliability/grief of CIS setups from Ink
Supply/MIS vs Cone/Piezo ? 

Not talking about the ink, just the CIS.

I've been negative on the CIS idea for years due to all the bad
reports, but my remaining 2200 has served well and I figure it's OK to
take this risk in its old age (will eventually replace with 2400-II or
whatever). 

Which is best? I'd rather pay a premium than struggle (my MIS carts
were junk, but CIS might be another ball game). Is another CIS else
better?

>...

>I've been negative on the CIS idea for years due to all 
>the bad reports, but my remaining 2200 has served well 
>and I figure it's OK to take this risk ...

I used to have a dim view of CISs also, but I'm changing my views. I bought
one of the $50 eBay "SuperJetUSA" CISs for my 2200, and it's been fine.  

The documentation is bad, the hardware that holds the tubing needed beefing
up, and the tanks need to be set at a height such that the top of the ink in
the tanks is just above the head level.

To hold the tubing, I use an aluminum bar (1/8 x 1") cut to span the printer
opening, about 12" from the left end of the printer.  I think another forum
member just used a paint stick.  I used adhesive Velcro on the ends of the
"bridge" and the printer case.  The SuperJet plastic holder was placed on
this bridge.

I cut the case -- a diagonal piece under the lip of the opening -- at the
left end of the head travel to make more room for the tubing at that end.
Packing tape made my crude cut (multiple drill holes) smooth.

To load the CIS, I used the modified MIS bottom fill adapter
(http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Modified-Bottom-Fill-Adapter.pdf), held
the carts upside down, and just pulled out all the air until the ink was
flowing.

I have the tanks sitting on an empty MIS ink cart box -- 2 inches above
where they'd be if they were just on the shelf with the printer.  The ink
will siphon either direction if the level of the top of the ink in the tanks
is too different than the head.  I suspect the viscosity of the ink and the
small nozzle size is the only guard against this.  So, if the pressure is
too great either direction, you'll either end up pouring your ink into the
waste tank or pulling air into the tubing.  Holding the ink level slightly
above the head -- like the OEM carts -- appears to be a critical aspect of
these systems.

I just turned the old 2200 on for the first time in several weeks, and it
produce a perfect nozzle check (Carbon-6).  It's been a cheap and reliable
printing platform.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

do all CIS's need such customizing?

--- On Fri, 9/26/08, Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:

From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
Subject: RE: [QuadtoneRIP] CIS: Ink Supply (MIS) vs Cone (Piezo)
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, September 26, 2008, 12:05 PM






>...

>I've been negative on the CIS idea for years due to all 
>the bad reports, but my remaining 2200 has served well 
>and I figure it's OK to take this risk ...

I used to have a dim view of CISs also, but I'm changing my views. I bought
one of the $50 eBay "SuperJetUSA" CISs for my 2200, and it's been fine. 

The documentation is bad, the hardware that holds the tubing needed beefing
up, and the tanks need to be set at a height such that the top of the ink in
the tanks is just above the head level.

To hold the tubing, I use an aluminum bar (1/8 x 1") cut to span the printer
opening, about 12" from the left end of the printer. I think another forum
member just used a paint stick. I used adhesive Velcro on the ends of the
"bridge" and the printer case. The SuperJet plastic holder was placed on
this bridge.

I cut the case -- a diagonal piece under the lip of the opening -- at the
left end of the head travel to make more room for the tubing at that end.
Packing tape made my crude cut (multiple drill holes) smooth.

To load the CIS, I used the modified MIS bottom fill adapter
(http://www.paulroar k.com/BW- Info/Modified- Bottom-Fill- Adapter.pdf), held
the carts upside down, and just pulled out all the air until the ink was
flowing.

I have the tanks sitting on an empty MIS ink cart box -- 2 inches above
where they'd be if they were just on the shelf with the printer. The ink
will siphon either direction if the level of the top of the ink in the tanks
is too different than the head. I suspect the viscosity of the ink and the
small nozzle size is the only guard against this. So, if the pressure is
too great either direction, you'll either end up pouring your ink into the
waste tank or pulling air into the tubing. Holding the ink level slightly
above the head -- like the OEM carts -- appears to be a critical aspect of
these systems.

I just turned the old 2200 on for the first time in several weeks, and it
produce a perfect nozzle check (Carbon-6). It's been a cheap and reliable
printing platform.

Paul
www.PaulRoark. com 

 














      

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

> ... do all CIS's need such customizing?

I assume part of what MIS and the others do that make their CISs more
expensive is provide a more turn-key approach, and making things simpler
might well be worth paying for. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I have tried two different CIS systems for my R1800 and 2200, both  
eBay cheapies (but more than Paul's $50!).

Both seemed to work well for two or three months, after which I could  
not keep the supply tubes filled with ink.  Even with repeated priming  
and repositioning the supply bottles, air would leak into the tubes  
and eventually cause problems.

In both cases the problem arose in late winter, after several months  
of low humidity in my house, but I can't see how that would break the  
seal either around the attachment to the head or around the supply  
line attachment to the damper/cartridge.

I'll probably give it another try this year, though...  hope springs  
eternal.

Myron

On 26 Jan, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Paul Roark wrote:
> >...
> >I've been negative on the CIS idea for years due to all
> >the bad reports, but my remaining 2200 has served well
> >and I figure it's OK to take this risk ...
>
> I used to have a dim view of CISs also, but I'm changing my views. I  
> bought
> one of the $50 eBay "SuperJetUSA" CISs for my 2200, and it's been  
> fine.  ...
>

Hi Myron

There are a number of factors affecting the performance of CI systems.

One of the most common problems with cheap CI systems is the quality (or lack of it) of tubing used.  Ink can evaporate through osmosis, causing air pockets within the tubing.  Additionally, the inside of the tubing wall can be rough, leading to a "thrombosis" condition due to the adhesion of small ink particles on the wall of the tubing, and eventual clogging.

It is important to use quality components when making a CI system, especially when it is intended for long term use and when there might be periods CI inactivity.  CI systems are at their best when used constantly.

Paul Banks

----- Original Message ----
From: Myron Gochnauer <goch@...>
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 29 September, 2008 14:00:43
Subject: Re: [QuadtoneRIP] CIS: Ink Supply (MIS) vs Cone (Piezo)


I have tried two different CIS systems for my R1800 and 2200, both 
eBay cheapies (but more than Paul's $50!).

Both seemed to work well for two or three months, after which I could 
not keep the supply tubes filled with ink.  Even with repeated priming 
and repositioning the supply bottles, air would leak into the tubes 
and eventually cause problems.

In both cases the problem arose in late winter, after several months 
of low humidity in my house, but I can't see how that would break the 
seal either around the attachment to the head or around the supply 
line attachment to the damper/cartridge.

I'll probably give it another try this year, though...  hope springs 
eternal.

Myron

On 26 Jan, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Paul Roark wrote:
> >...
> >I've been negative on the CIS idea for years due to all
> >the bad reports, but my remaining 2200 has served well
> >and I figure it's OK to take this risk ....
>
> I used to have a dim view of CISs also, but I'm changing my views. I 
> bought
> one of the $50 eBay "SuperJetUSA" CISs for my 2200, and it's been 
> fine.  ...
>

    


      

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

This is a bit off-topic for the QTR group, but it is on-topic for this 
thread.  I have a CIS for an R2400.  It's not a cheapie.  It works 
fine for a while, but after each (printer-initiated) head clean there 
are usually quite large gaps in the nozzle check pattern.  These gaps 
are hard to clear, and believe me I've tried everything.  Purge 
patterns, head cleans, automatic head cleans, raising the bottles, 
taking the lids of the bottles, install new dampers, etc.  Patience 
seems to work best, but there are regular head cleans with this 
printer, so there is frequent waiting between printing.

I can only conclude that air is getting in during the clean, either 
because the suction is too great or because the ink nipples are 
fractionally too small.   There is no sign of any air in the lines or 
any of the other problems mentioned by Paul.

I have found one other person with this problem, with a different 
brand of CIS (also a known quality brand).  My only guess is that both 
printers are slightly out of spec in some way.  Before I give up 
entirely and either ditch the CIS or the printer, does anyone have any 
ideas?

Brian Dwn


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Paul Banks <failedthespian@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi Myron
> 
> There are a number of factors affecting the performance of CI 
systems.
> 
> One of the most common problems with cheap CI systems is the quality 
(or lack of it) of tubing used.  Ink can evaporate through osmosis, 
causing air pockets within the tubing.  Additionally, the inside of 
the tubing wall can be rough, leading to a "thrombosis" condition due 
to the adhesion of small ink particles on the wall of the tubing, and 
eventual clogging.
> 
> It is important to use quality components when making a CI system, 
especially when it is intended for long term use and when there might 
be periods CI inactivity.  CI systems are at their best when used 
constantly.
> 
> Paul Banks
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Myron Gochnauer <goch@...>
> To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 29 September, 2008 14:00:43
> Subject: Re: [QuadtoneRIP] CIS: Ink Supply (MIS) vs Cone (Piezo)
> 
> 
> I have tried two different CIS systems for my R1800 and 2200, both 
> eBay cheapies (but more than Paul's $50!).
> 
> Both seemed to work well for two or three months, after which I 
could 
> not keep the supply tubes filled with ink.  Even with repeated 
priming 
> and repositioning the supply bottles, air would leak into the tubes 
> and eventually cause problems.
> 
> In both cases the problem arose in late winter, after several months 
> of low humidity in my house, but I can't see how that would break 
the 
> seal either around the attachment to the head or around the supply 
> line attachment to the damper/cartridge.
> 
> I'll probably give it another try this year, though...  hope springs 
> eternal.
> 
> Myron
> 
> On 26 Jan, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Paul Roark wrote:
> > >...
> > >I've been negative on the CIS idea for years due to all
> > >the bad reports, but my remaining 2200 has served well
> > >and I figure it's OK to take this risk ....
> >
> > I used to have a dim view of CISs also, but I'm changing my views. 
I 

> > bought
> > one of the $50 eBay "SuperJetUSA" CISs for my 2200, and it's been 
> > fine.  ...
> >
> 
>     
> 
> 
>       
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "brian_downunda" <brian_downunda@...> wrote:
>
> This is a bit off-topic for the QTR group, but it is on-topic for this 
> thread.  I have a CIS for an R2400.  It's not a cheapie.  It works 
> fine for a while, but after each (printer-initiated) head clean there 
> are usually quite large gaps in the nozzle check pattern.  These gaps 
> are hard to clear, and believe me I've tried everything.  Purge 
> patterns, head cleans, automatic head cleans, raising the bottles, 
> taking the lids of the bottles, install new dampers, etc.  Patience 
> seems to work best, but there are regular head cleans with this 
> printer, so there is frequent waiting between printing.

Hello Brian, I was given an R1800 with a CIS after the previous owner gave up in 
frustration.   It did not look cheap and was well documented.  I threw the whole CIS mess 
out so I don't have the brand name.

The problem with this one was that  a poppet valve in one of the cartridges leaked when 
the CIS cartridge was installed.  Ink would build up on the parking pad and evaporate into 
a sludgy mess.  Everytime the head parked it would jam some of the goo into the nozzles.  
Multiple head cleanings would clear the nozzles but next time it parked the nozzles would 
jam again.

I've had similar problems with MIS cartridges leaking at the poppet valve and recently 
when installing a new inkset had to throw away five out of twelve cartridges.

The aftermarket products just seem to have a problem at those valves.  Working with 
similar products at my day job I know how high the tolerances must be in insertion 
devices like that and I'm really starting to wonder about the whole industry.  Is there one 
manufacturer popping out all of this stuff and then it gets branded by a dozen different 
people or are all the different manufacturers making the same errors.

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "brian_downunda" <brian_downunda@...> wrote:
>
> This is a bit off-topic for the QTR group, but it is on-topic for this 
> thread.  I have a CIS for an R2400.  It's not a cheapie.  It works 
> fine for a while, but after each (printer-initiated) head clean there 
> are usually quite large gaps in the nozzle check pattern.  These gaps 
> are hard to clear, and believe me I've tried everything.  Purge 
> patterns, head cleans, automatic head cleans, raising the bottles, 
> taking the lids of the bottles, install new dampers, etc.  Patience 
> seems to work best, but there are regular head cleans with this 
> printer, so there is frequent waiting between printing.

Hello Brian, I was given an R1800 with a CIS after the previous owner gave up in 
frustration.   It did not look cheap and was well documented.  I threw the whole CIS mess 
out so I don't have the brand name.

The problem with this one was that  a poppet valve in one of the cartridges leaked when 
the CIS cartridge was installed.  Ink would build up on the parking pad and evaporate into 
a sludgy mess.  Everytime the head parked it would jam some of the goo into the nozzles.  
Multiple head cleanings would clear the nozzles but next time it parked the nozzles would 
jam again.

I've had similar problems with MIS cartridges leaking at the poppet valve and recently 
when installing a new inkset had to throw away five out of twelve cartridges.

The aftermarket products just seem to have a problem at those valves.  Working with 
similar products at my day job I know how high the tolerances must be in insertion 
devices like that and I'm really starting to wonder about the whole industry.  Is there one 
manufacturer popping out all of this stuff and then it gets branded by a dozen different 
people or are all the different manufacturers making the same errors.