If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Dye ink
Barry Watzman wrote: Well, Epson and some HP printers have permanent printheads. They can only be replaced at a service depot (and shipping round-trip costs as much as the entire printer). And there are fairly long tubes connecting stationary ink tanks (the only thing the user replaces) to the moving printhead. Epson has been this way mostly forever (in some printers, the tank is mounted on the printhead and moves with it, but the printhead is still permanent). The fact is, a non-OEM ink legitimately can destroy a printhead, it happens, and the manufacturer has every right to void the warranty. Absolutely and without a doubt Not because the ink was non-OEM per se, but because it's formulation, different from the OEMs in significant ways, truly did destroy the printhead. There are no laws that prevent a manufacturer from voiding a warranty if you use a consumable that is both out of spec AND not supplied by the OEM. Correct!!! > Why should their other customers pay to fix a printer owned by some jerk who did not follow the recommendation. Just try putting Crisco cooking oil in your car and getting GM to replace the engine under warranty when it burns up. :-D It's the exact same thing. The issue isn't just that you used after-market inks, per se, it's that you used inks that were grossly out-of-spec for the printer and that truly did, as a consequence, destroy it. You seem to be under the impression that all HP printers ... even low-end ones ... have the printhead on the ink cartridge. That is no longer true for all of their printers, and in fact I don't think it's even any longer predominantly true. The primary ink system right now in current production HP consumer printers is the "02" cartridge set, and those are stationary tanks with tubes leading to the permanent printheads. Burt wrote: "Barry Watzman" wrote in message ... That is simply not true. Some inkjet printers have the printhead in the consumable, others have permanent printheads, the consumable is just an "ink tank" and there are tubes from the tank to the permanent printhead. A manufacturer has every right to rightfully void the warranty of a printer with permanent printheads that are genuinely destroyed by a 3rd party ink, and they do it. On the other hand, the only permanent damage that a consumable with a built-in printhead can do is to leak inside the printer and create a mess, and this doesn't happen often. Barry - Except for a new model with the printhead in the cartridge (is this what you reference as the consumable?), Canon printheads are user removable and replaceable (although sometimes at about the cost of a replacement printer). The "ink tanks" sit directly on the printhead and feed into it. No tubes. I have read that in the US there are laws that prevent a printer company from voiding a warranty because you used aftermarket inks. Has to do with a company not forcing you to use their consumables as a condition of honoring a warranty. Using the wrong inks could conceivably ruin a permanant printhead. Duh, I have been saying that for a long time. I would expect that using pigment-based inks in an Epson (printhead not replaceable by the consumer) that is designed for dye-based inks might permanantly clog the nozzles and render the printer not economically repairable. Refilling carts for a Canon dye-based printer with pigment-based inks would probably cost you an easily replaced printhead. HP printers with the printhead on the ink cartridge would not be harmed by the use of inks which could damage the printhead. You would just replace the ink cartridge which comes with a new printhead. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Dye ink
Now this must be the new Post Office so I an post my opinions. So now
they are going to filter the Post Office. ha ha ha and not he he he. So I wonder what the printer expert dinks. Jim Ford wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: Has Measekite changed his address again? Jeez, my email filter keeps on growing on this list filter I've not filtered him yet - I find his bizarre posturing mildly entertaining! Frank calls him a liar, but lying requires a level of intelligence - an attribute in which measekite is sadly lacking. We have various sayings this side of the pond that fit him - 'A sandwich short of a picnic.', 'A brick short of a load.', 'The lights are on, but nobody's in.' - the list goes on. He's a clown, a fool in motley - I picture him galloping around on a hobby horse, wooden sword in hand, paper hat on head, with his eyes wildly staring and his chin flecked with spittle, shouting 'OEM, OEM!' Jim Ford |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Dye ink
measekite wrote:
*The fact is, a non-OEM ink legitimately can destroy a printhead, it happens, and the manufacturer has every right to void the warranty.* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ How do you know? According to your own post you've never ever used non-oem\after market ink, isn't that correct? You're not pathological liar are you? Do you have any documented case(s) where an independent lab has documented and confirmed that after market\non-oem ink has destroyed a printhead? Any print head? Well...do you? If you do, then you must provide proof and a URL link or otherwise we will all just think you're some kind of wacko nut case and you must now and forever STFU about this subject matter, ok? Thanks. Frank |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Dye ink
measekite wrote:
Now this must be the new Post Office so I an post my opinions. So now they are going to filter the Post Office. ha ha ha and not he he he. So I wonder what the printer expert dinks. Jim Ford wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: Has Measekite changed his address again? Jeez, my email filter keeps on growing on this list filter I've not filtered him yet - I find his bizarre posturing mildly entertaining! Frank calls him a liar, but lying requires a level of intelligence - an attribute in which measekite is sadly lacking. We have various sayings this side of the pond that fit him - 'A sandwich short of a picnic.', 'A brick short of a load.', 'The lights are on, but nobody's in.' - the list goes on. He's a clown, a fool in motley - I picture him galloping around on a hobby horse, wooden sword in hand, paper hat on head, with his eyes wildly staring and his chin flecked with spittle, shouting 'OEM, OEM!' Jim Ford I'm beginning to think measher****hesd is nothing more than a drunken, slobbering fool. He seems to prove it with every post. Frank |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Dye ink
Meta-what??
RS |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Dye ink
Some reading for you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color) Art Richard Steinfeld wrote: Meta-what?? RS |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Dye ink
Arthur Entlich wrote:
Some reading for you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color) Art Richard Steinfeld wrote: Meta-what?? Thanks. A good explanation of perception/psychology. So, the fact that my car's paint and matching plastic unpainted door handles represent quite an achievement. They seem to always look identical regardless of the light, but now I'm going to look more closely. Who woulda thunk? And, yes: I've known about those awful spectral "curves" that fluorescent bulbs put out for many years since I saw them represented in a professional Kodak technical manual. I can't see how they can be fixed, since the real charts look something like an earthquake graph. I've recently removed the compact fluorescents I was using for eBay photos and replaced them with regular incandescent bulbs because I simply could not correct my photos adequately. The newer bulbs are better than the old-type fluorescents, but they're still pretty poor. We obviously color-balance for compact fluorescents quite a bit in our minds. The camera does not lie. So, I wonder how the inks come through this test -- will good aftermarket inks produce results as good as the car manufacturers? Very illuminating. Richard |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Dye ink
I have some black socks that in some lighting (like at the Laundromat
which has fluorescent lighting) look identical in color, and they sometimes get "paired" together incorrectly because they otherwise look the same. Then I go out in daylight, and one of the pair is still what I'd call a neutral black, but the other one goes a deep reddish purple. Pretty much anyone with full human color vision would probably see the difference. It's quite strange, actually. Epson had a real problem with metameric failure with their yellow pigment inks. They first tried changing the drivers to distribute the dot placement differently, which helped, but at the end of the day they had to formulate a new yellow ink using different pigments and a different particle size. The problem is more obvious with pigment inks, probably due to the way they sit on the paper surface, which causes certain interference light patterns to occur between the ink dots. We tend to forget that what we perceive as color is actually the reflection and/or absorption of light wavelengths, and that those reflected light waves can get quite influenced by one another. Art Richard Steinfeld wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: Some reading for you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamerism_(color) Art Richard Steinfeld wrote: Meta-what?? Thanks. A good explanation of perception/psychology. So, the fact that my car's paint and matching plastic unpainted door handles represent quite an achievement. They seem to always look identical regardless of the light, but now I'm going to look more closely. Who woulda thunk? And, yes: I've known about those awful spectral "curves" that fluorescent bulbs put out for many years since I saw them represented in a professional Kodak technical manual. I can't see how they can be fixed, since the real charts look something like an earthquake graph. I've recently removed the compact fluorescents I was using for eBay photos and replaced them with regular incandescent bulbs because I simply could not correct my photos adequately. The newer bulbs are better than the old-type fluorescents, but they're still pretty poor. We obviously color-balance for compact fluorescents quite a bit in our minds. The camera does not lie. So, I wonder how the inks come through this test -- will good aftermarket inks produce results as good as the car manufacturers? Very illuminating. Richard |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Dye ink
Arthur Entlich wrote:
I have some black socks that in some lighting (like at the Laundromat which has fluorescent lighting) look identical in color, and they sometimes get "paired" together incorrectly because they otherwise look the same. Then I go out in daylight, and one of the pair is still what I'd call a neutral black, but the other one goes a deep reddish purple. Pretty much anyone with full human color vision would probably see the difference. It's quite strange, actually. So the big question on everyone's lips now - Do you get embarrassed when you wear odd socks? r |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Dye ink
No, it helps distract people from noticing I have two left feet. ;-)
Art Rob wrote: Arthur Entlich wrote: I have some black socks that in some lighting (like at the Laundromat which has fluorescent lighting) look identical in color, and they sometimes get "paired" together incorrectly because they otherwise look the same. Then I go out in daylight, and one of the pair is still what I'd call a neutral black, but the other one goes a deep reddish purple. Pretty much anyone with full human color vision would probably see the difference. It's quite strange, actually. So the big question on everyone's lips now - Do you get embarrassed when you wear odd socks? r |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|