Walgreens Cart Refill for Epson?

Art
In terms of the number of printhead problems we see for all makes there is
little or no difference between OEM and compatible inks, this seems to match
your experience.
We rarely attempt to recover printheads because it makes no economic sense to
the customer. Often however they will use their own labour with some success.
In terms of "mess", have you seen the Dataproducts range of ink refill kits?
http://www.dpc.com/airs.asp
They make automatic refill systems (not for Epson printers) and I have no
financial affiliation with them, I have not even used one of these but I know
several people who have and they think they are terrific. I understand that
there is zero mess, a great step forward from the older kits which used
syringes etc. It would be interesting to hear from anyone here that has used
any of these kits.
Tony

Arthur Entlich wrote:
Just to give credit where it is due, Jan Alter is the person who really
pioneered the switch over from Durabrite to dye colorant inks when he
ran into serious problems with the C series Epson printers which
normally use the fast drying OEM pigment/resin inks. He is the person
who found alternative refillable cartridges and a good dye ink source
and tested them in a school environment.

I can attest to the problems with the Durabrite ink printers, because I
get mostly clogging problem reports about them, in massively larger
numbers than any other ink formulations, INCLUDING 3RD PARTY. This is
why I find claims of "buy only OEM ink" so annoying, because many people
I deal with, not only with Durabrite inks, but also with dye inks,
testify to me they have never used anything but OEM inks and still get
clogs.

In recent years, (in at least the last 5 years) since the 3rd party ink
industry has consolidated and refined the formulation and manufacturing
process, although I have not run scientific statistical analysis, I find
no meaningful differences between using OEM and 3rd party inks in terms
of reported clogs, when the inks are designed for the appropriate
printer model (not generic refill inks, in other words), and, as I
stated, in the case of Durabrite inks, the use of dye colorant inks
(which are almost always 3rd party) often resolves the problem once the
printer has been flushed clean using cleaning cartridges.

Although I agree that each manufacturer's methods differ in cartridge
and head design and that needs to be considered, in general, most inks
sold today by refillers work reasonably well, or they would lose their
business. I don't believe that Epson's heads are any more vulnerable to
clogs as a technology than Canon, for instance, both of which use
permanent or semi-permanent heads and in most cases, the heads can be
cleared with the proper techniques.

Without taking sides in this discussion, GMAN's comments are based upon
his experience and reflect that of many who get refilling done, and it
provided useful and experiential information.

On the other hand, I don't know who the other quote came from,
but "Refilling, the big mess saves nothing." is blatantly untrue as a
generalization. Refilling almost always saves considerable money, and it
may or may not be a big mess depending on the type of cartridge and the
technique used.

Art


Richard Steinfeld wrote:
GMAN wrote:

Bull****, I have refilled my HP 96 carts 6 times each. That has saved
me at least $20'ish each time!!!

Gman, please read enough on this NG and learn about the unique
differences between HP and other brands of printers as regards their ink
feed, formulation, and print head requirements before submitting a post
like this.

The OP is asking about Epson, which is a substantially different breed
than HP. Epsons, in general, are famous for clogging; bad clogging. The
models intended for "Durabrite" ink are famous in this NG for this
problem. Arthur has pointed out many times that such printers will
perform a lot better when refilled with dye-based ink rather than the
pigment-based ink they were originally intended for. The user may suffer
a loss in image permanence, but permanence is of no use when the machine
won't print at all.

That's the issue: what kind of ink does Walgreens use when filling these
cartridges? I have no idea.

Richard

In article sECFj.111142$pM4.27444@pd7urf1no, Arthur Entlich wrote:
Just to give credit where it is due, Jan Alter is the person who really
pioneered the switch over from Durabrite to dye colorant inks when he
ran into serious problems with the C series Epson printers which
normally use the fast drying OEM pigment/resin inks. He is the person
who found alternative refillable cartridges and a good dye ink source
and tested them in a school environment.

I can attest to the problems with the Durabrite ink printers, because I
get mostly clogging problem reports about them, in massively larger
numbers than any other ink formulations, INCLUDING 3RD PARTY. This is
why I find claims of "buy only OEM ink" so annoying, because many people
I deal with, not only with Durabrite inks, but also with dye inks,
testify to me they have never used anything but OEM inks and still get
clogs.

In recent years, (in at least the last 5 years) since the 3rd party ink
industry has consolidated and refined the formulation and manufacturing
process, although I have not run scientific statistical analysis, I find
no meaningful differences between using OEM and 3rd party inks in terms
of reported clogs, when the inks are designed for the appropriate
printer model (not generic refill inks, in other words), and, as I
stated, in the case of Durabrite inks, the use of dye colorant inks
(which are almost always 3rd party) often resolves the problem once the
printer has been flushed clean using cleaning cartridges.

Although I agree that each manufacturer's methods differ in cartridge
and head design and that needs to be considered, in general, most inks
sold today by refillers work reasonably well, or they would lose their
business. I don't believe that Epson's heads are any more vulnerable to
clogs as a technology than Canon, for instance, both of which use
permanent or semi-permanent heads and in most cases, the heads can be
cleared with the proper techniques.

Without taking sides in this discussion, GMAN's comments are based upon
his experience and reflect that of many who get refilling done, and it
provided useful and experiential information.

Thank you. Thats all i meant to add to the discussion is that while yes I
sometimes will run across a cart that after refilling does not work right, I
at least received 2-6 refills with the HP carts before burnout. Epson is a
whole different animal that Measakite does not understand.


On the other hand, I don't know who the other quote came from,
but "Refilling, the big mess saves nothing." is blatantly untrue as a
generalization. Refilling almost always saves considerable money, and it
may or may not be a big mess depending on the type of cartridge and the
technique used.

Art




Refilling my color carts saves me $35 each and every time i refill
those HP 97's if i was to pay full retail for the OEM ones.


Richard Steinfeld wrote:
GMAN wrote:

Bull****, I have refilled my HP 96 carts 6 times each. That has saved
me at least $20'ish each time!!!

Gman, please read enough on this NG and learn about the unique
differences between HP and other brands of printers as regards their ink
feed, formulation, and print head requirements before submitting a post
like this.

The OP is asking about Epson, which is a substantially different breed
than HP. Epsons, in general, are famous for clogging; bad clogging. The
models intended for "Durabrite" ink are famous in this NG for this
problem. Arthur has pointed out many times that such printers will
perform a lot better when refilled with dye-based ink rather than the
pigment-based ink they were originally intended for. The user may suffer
a loss in image permanence, but permanence is of no use when the machine
won't print at all.

That's the issue: what kind of ink does Walgreens use when filling these
cartridges? I have no idea.

Richard

In article , Tony wrote:
Art
In terms of the number of printhead problems we see for all makes there is
little or no difference between OEM and compatible inks, this seems to match
your experience.
We rarely attempt to recover printheads because it makes no economic sense to
the customer. Often however they will use their own labour with some success.
In terms of "mess", have you seen the Dataproducts range of ink refill kits?
http://www.dpc.com/airs.asp
They make automatic refill systems (not for Epson printers) and I have no
financial affiliation with them, I have not even used one of these but I know
several people who have and they think they are terrific. I understand that
there is zero mess, a great step forward from the older kits which used
syringes etc. It would be interesting to hear from anyone here that has used
any of these kits.
Tony

Those are what i use and they have been very successful when used. Nothing any
easier than snapping the cart in place, turn upside down, and letting gravity
slowly take its course. After an hour , its completely, evenly filled with 0
mess!!!!!! No messing with syringes or guessing how much to add to each
chamber.


Cool thing about these Dataproduct refill kits is that you can also then buy
huge bottles of the ink and then refill the refill kits for mondo savings!!!!


Arthur Entlich wrote:
Just to give credit where it is due, Jan Alter is the person who really
pioneered the switch over from Durabrite to dye colorant inks when he
ran into serious problems with the C series Epson printers which
normally use the fast drying OEM pigment/resin inks. He is the person
who found alternative refillable cartridges and a good dye ink source
and tested them in a school environment.

I can attest to the problems with the Durabrite ink printers, because I
get mostly clogging problem reports about them, in massively larger
numbers than any other ink formulations, INCLUDING 3RD PARTY. This is
why I find claims of "buy only OEM ink" so annoying, because many people
I deal with, not only with Durabrite inks, but also with dye inks,
testify to me they have never used anything but OEM inks and still get
clogs.

In recent years, (in at least the last 5 years) since the 3rd party ink
industry has consolidated and refined the formulation and manufacturing
process, although I have not run scientific statistical analysis, I find
no meaningful differences between using OEM and 3rd party inks in terms
of reported clogs, when the inks are designed for the appropriate
printer model (not generic refill inks, in other words), and, as I
stated, in the case of Durabrite inks, the use of dye colorant inks
(which are almost always 3rd party) often resolves the problem once the
printer has been flushed clean using cleaning cartridges.

Although I agree that each manufacturer's methods differ in cartridge
and head design and that needs to be considered, in general, most inks
sold today by refillers work reasonably well, or they would lose their
business. I don't believe that Epson's heads are any more vulnerable to
clogs as a technology than Canon, for instance, both of which use
permanent or semi-permanent heads and in most cases, the heads can be
cleared with the proper techniques.

Without taking sides in this discussion, GMAN's comments are based upon
his experience and reflect that of many who get refilling done, and it
provided useful and experiential information.

On the other hand, I don't know who the other quote came from,
but "Refilling, the big mess saves nothing." is blatantly untrue as a
generalization. Refilling almost always saves considerable money, and it
may or may not be a big mess depending on the type of cartridge and the
technique used.

Art


Richard Steinfeld wrote:
GMAN wrote:

Bull****, I have refilled my HP 96 carts 6 times each. That has saved
me at least $20'ish each time!!!

Gman, please read enough on this NG and learn about the unique
differences between HP and other brands of printers as regards their ink
feed, formulation, and print head requirements before submitting a post
like this.

The OP is asking about Epson, which is a substantially different breed
than HP. Epsons, in general, are famous for clogging; bad clogging. The
models intended for "Durabrite" ink are famous in this NG for this
problem. Arthur has pointed out many times that such printers will
perform a lot better when refilled with dye-based ink rather than the
pigment-based ink they were originally intended for. The user may suffer
a loss in image permanence, but permanence is of no use when the machine
won't print at all.

That's the issue: what kind of ink does Walgreens use when filling these
cartridges? I have no idea.

Richard

GMAN wrote:

In article <sECFj.111142$pM4.27444@pd7urf1no>, Arthur Entlich wrote:



Just to give credit where it is due, Jan Alter is the person who really pioneered the switch over from Durabrite to dye colorant inks when he ran into serious problems with the C series Epson printers which normally use the fast drying OEM pigment/resin inks. He is the person who found alternative refillable cartridges and a good dye ink source and tested them in a school environment. I can attest to the problems with the Durabrite ink printers, because I get mostly clogging problem reports about them, in massively larger numbers than any other ink formulations, INCLUDING 3RD PARTY. This is why I find claims of "buy only OEM ink" so annoying, because many people I deal with, not only with Durabrite inks, but also with dye inks, testify to me they have never used anything but OEM inks and still get clogs. In recent years, (in at least the last 5 years) since the 3rd party ink industry has consolidated and refined the formulation and manufacturing process, although I have not run scientific statistical analysis, I find no meaningful differences between using OEM and 3rd party inks in terms of reported clogs, when the inks are designed for the appropriate printer model (not generic refill inks, in other words), and, as I stated, in the case of Durabrite inks, the use of dye colorant inks (which are almost always 3rd party) often resolves the problem once the printer has been flushed clean using cleaning cartridges. Although I agree that each manufacturer's methods differ in cartridge and head design and that needs to be considered, in general, most inks sold today by refillers work reasonably well, or they would lose their business. I don't believe that Epson's heads are any more vulnerable to clogs as a technology than Canon, for instance, both of which use permanent or semi-permanent heads and in most cases, the heads can be cleared with the proper techniques. Without taking sides in this discussion, GMAN's comments are based upon his experience and reflect that of many who get refilling done, and it provided useful and experiential information.



Thank you. Thats all i meant to add to the discussion is that while yes I sometimes will run across a cart that after refilling does not work right, I at least received 2-6 refills with the HP carts before burnout. Epson is a whole different animal that Measakite does not understand.



On the other hand, I don't know who the other quote came from, but "Refilling, the big mess saves nothing." is blatantly untrue as a generalization. Refilling almost always saves considerable money, and it may or may not be a big mess depending on the type of cartridge and the technique used. Art



Refilling my color carts saves me $35 each and every time i refill those HP 97's if i was to pay full retail for the OEM ones.

Like I said you saved nothing.  You did not get the exact same ink.  You spent less and good less.  If that is what you are satisfied with that is OK but do not say you saved anything.






Richard Steinfeld wrote:



GMAN wrote:



Bull****, I have refilled my HP 96 carts 6 times each. That has saved me at least $20'ish each time!!!



Gman, please read enough on this NG and learn about the unique differences between HP and other brands of printers as regards their ink feed, formulation, and print head requirements before submitting a post like this. The OP is asking about Epson, which is a substantially different breed than HP. Epsons, in general, are famous for clogging; bad clogging. The models intended for "Durabrite" ink are famous in this NG for this problem. Arthur has pointed out many times that such printers will perform a lot better when refilled with dye-based ink rather than the pigment-based ink they were originally intended for. The user may suffer a loss in image permanence, but permanence is of no use when the machine won't print at all. That's the issue: what kind of ink does Walgreens use when filling these cartridges? I have no idea. Richard

(GMAN) wrote:
snip
Those are what i use and they have been very successful when used. Nothing any
easier than snapping the cart in place, turn upside down, and letting gravity
slowly take its course. After an hour , its completely, evenly filled with 0
mess!!!!!! No messing with syringes or guessing how much to add to each
chamber.
snip
Cool thing about these Dataproduct refill kits is that you can also then buy
huge bottles of the ink and then refill the refill kits for mondo savings!!!!

OMG, now we have refill kits for refill kits!
This could cause paroxysms in the odd person (very odd I'd say).
Tony

"You have an opportunity to buy a dozen apples for $5.00. Instead you
buy a dozen oranges for $3.00. You then boast that you saved $2.00.
What a joke. You spent less but saved nothing. You did not get the
same thing."

YOU...are assuming he is buying rotten oranges!

wrote:
"You have an opportunity to buy a dozen apples for $5.00. Instead you
buy a dozen oranges for $3.00. You then boast that you saved $2.00.
What a joke. You spent less but saved nothing. You did not get the
same thing."

YOU...are assuming he is buying rotten oranges!

Quite right. Here's another example in the same vein...

It's traditional for my family to have fresh asparagus for Easter
dinner. But because Easter was so early this year, the only available
fresh asparagus was imported from God-knows-where, and cost $2.50 a
pound. We left it there in the store, went home, and pulled some
asparagus out of the freezer that we had grown ourselves, at a cost of
$0. (Because of where we live, our asparagus isn't ready for harvest
until late May.) We knew it wasn't fresh, but it was still asparagus and
tasted very good just the same. We saved at least $7.50.

TJ

wrote:
"You have an opportunity to buy a dozen apples for $5.00. Instead you
buy a dozen oranges for $3.00. You then boast that you saved $2.00.
What a joke. You spent less but saved nothing. You did not get the
same thing."

YOU...are assuming he is buying rotten oranges!

Most got it right the first time. You spent less. You saved nothing.

TJ wrote:
wrote:
"You have an opportunity to buy a dozen apples for $5.00. Instead you
buy a dozen oranges for $3.00. You then boast that you saved $2.00.
What a joke. You spent less but saved nothing. You did not get the
same thing."

YOU...are assuming he is buying rotten oranges!

Quite right. Here's another example in the same vein...

It's traditional for my family to have fresh asparagus for Easter
dinner. But because Easter was so early this year, the only available
fresh asparagus was imported from God-knows-where, and cost $2.50 a
pound. We left it there in the store, went home, and pulled some
asparagus out of the freezer that we had grown ourselves, at a cost of
$0. (Because of where we live, our asparagus isn't ready for harvest
until late May.) We knew it wasn't fresh, but it was still asparagus
and tasted very good just the same. We saved at least $7.50.

TJ
Wrongo Bongo

You are comparing asparagus with asparagus. It is the same vegetable
but from different sources. It is like getting Canon ink from either
Costco or Staples. It is a known product and comparable. But crap ink
is even worse than comparing apples and oranges. They cannot be
compared but are known commodities. You do not even know what the crap
ink is.

GMAN wrote:
In article , Richard Steinfeld wrote:
GMAN wrote:
Bull****, I have refilled my HP 96 carts 6 times each. That has saved me at
least $20'ish each time!!!
Gman, please read enough on this NG and learn about the unique
differences between HP and other brands of printers as regards their ink
feed, formulation, and print head requirements before submitting a post
like this.

Who are you to assume i dont know this? Arrogant arent we?

It's really simple and was obvious from what you wrote.
The original poster asked about Epson. You replied about HP.
You proved that you don't know **** from Shinola; emphatically said that
the famous Epson problem was "bull****," and then accused _me_ of arrogance.

Well, Du-uu-hhh!
Plonk time for you, dude.

Richard