Epson Tech Suppt Says

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Jynje.1184$mK.949@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:T18je.1019$mK.895@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should turn
>>>>their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it turned on
>>>>and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>
>>>Perhaps Arthur Entlich can follow up on this response if I am not quite
>>>accurate in my critique of the above statement. My chemistry and physics
>>>classes were, unfortunately, over 50 years ago. Crystallization occurs
>>>when a solution of soluable salt(s) becomes supersaturated and forms
>>>crystals, a uniquely shaped solid physical form of the salt which had been
>>>in solution (usually aquious). This can occur with evaporation or a drop
>>>in temperature of the liquid that had been previously heated to create a
>>>highly saturated solution. Pigmented inks are essentially a suspension
>>>of minute colored particles. Clogging probably occurs when the carrier
>>>liquid undergoes a degree of evaporation and caused the pigment particles
>>>to drop out of the suspension, clump together, and thus clog the print
>>>head. Someone on the NG can correct me if I am wrong. If this simplified
>>>analysis is correct, either the Epson rep doesn't understand the chemical
>>>and/or physical qualities of his products' inks or his comments have been
>>>inaccurately reported. If it is my error I stand corrected.
>>>
>>>
>>Dear Reverend
>>
>>The Epson Technical Support Person looked up this information in their
>>database. It was not that one person misunderstood what she learned.
>>This was documented by the Epson Engineers. Maybe you need to take
>>another course and then reverse engineer their ink using a chemical
>>analysis.
>>
>>
>
>Thank you for the honorific salutation. Sure beats the hell out of the ones
>you've earned on this NG! You and your tech support person (and possibly
>the individual who put that information in their database) need to brush up
>on their Chem 1A-1B and Physics 6A-6B notes to differentiate between
>solutions and suspensions and their resultant changes with evaporation of
>their solvents or carrier liquids.
>

Yes I know you are a fart smeller.

Oh

I meant to say smart fellow.

>I guess your MBA from Stanford also
>qualifies you as an expert in physics and chemistry, or did I miss the part
>of your CV that included a masters in chemistry? When you start to believe
>everything a sales rep or tech support person tells you (some are very
>knowledgeable and some are unwitting masters of misinformation) I have a
>bridge to sell you (quoted from a previous Measekite post.) Frankly, (no
>reference to Frankie) I've learned more and been able to solve more computer
>and related problems by reading newsgroups and forums to see what users have
>learned through THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE, not what they relate second-hand from
>a sales rep or tech support person.
>
>
>
>

 

[shooter]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Don't you mean hootsmon.

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:L_rje.1283$mK.452@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> You need a hoot! ;-)
>
> Shooter wrote:
>
> >"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >newsinje.1178$mK.907@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >
> >>Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>measekite wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I just spoke to Epson Tech Support. This is their official
> >>>>recommendation on turning the printer off by its power button and it
> >>>>applies to all Epson printers.
> >>>>
> >>>>When you turn the printer on after having previously turned it off via
> >>>>the power button the printer goes through a short warm up cycle and
> >>>>uses a little ink.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>If you optionally leave it on all of the time the printer will go
> >>>>through a long warm up (if it sat idle for 1 to 2 hours) and it will
> >>>>use much more ink in it's warm up cycle.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Bollocks. I have an R800 and I've never seen that.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Another reason why they recommend to turn them off is it insures that
> >>>>no air or paper dust/fibers will get into the nozzles. Even though
> >>>>the head does park after printing the nozzles are still subject to the
> >>>>contamination.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>My R800 is on and the head is parked - how a printer can tell whether
> >>>
> >>>
> >it's
> >
> >
> >>>on or off is beyond me.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>They use a timer chip.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should
> >>>>turn their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it
> >>>>turned on and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Again, complete and utter garbage.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>You did not have to do what Epson recommends. You can enjoy your clog.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I was told that once and decided to test
> >>>the theory. I have two R800s and I happened to have a couple of spare
> >>>
> >>>
> >sets
> >
> >
> >>>of OEM tanks. I placed a fresh set in each machine and printed a couple
> >>>
> >>>
> >of
> >
> >
> >>>photos (A4) with each. I then went away for a couple of months and left
> >>>
> >>>
> >one
> >
> >
> >>>on and turned the other off. Both clogged identically.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Try it with a 1,000 machines. You should know that you must have a
> >>valid sampled universe to make a valid test.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Why it must be Dr Who. He used the same words last week.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>They also informed me, when I asked, that even though they made great
> >>>>strides in their pigment ink formulations and their pigment ink
> >>>>printers, their dye based printers do indeed produce a more vibrant
> >>>>and snappier result.
> >>>>
> >>>>They are going to send me printouts on their R320 and R800 on a couple
> >>>>of different papers so I can compare Epson vs Epson. Of course, I do
> >>>>expect the best professional results that Epson is capable of
> >>>>producing.
> >>>>Base on this, I feel that Canon Pixmas are more suitable to a 24/7
> >>>>network.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <I0sje.1284$mK.1169@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite@yahoo.com (measekite) wrote:

> Everyone knows...

What better assurance could one have of the unimpeachable nature of your
evidence than that? Everyone knows. Well, it _must_ be true then!

Jon.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Andy Petro" <andy.petro@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:tBvje.11988$dS3.1209235@news20.bellglobal.com...
>I have a Cannon IP 4000 ,the best printer i ever had . I print 500 pages a
>week and fill my own cartridges with never a problem. And the printer is
>always on.
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I own an Epson R200 - the best printer I ever had. The printer is always off
when not in use. I buy 3rd party inks because its cheaper and easier than
refiling.

Your point was .. errr.. what exactly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[BURT]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"Ivor Floppy" <Ivor@somewhere.uk> wrote in message
news:Mewje.10491$V%.3012@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Andy Petro" <andy.petro@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:tBvje.11988$dS3.1209235@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>I have a Cannon IP 4000 ,the best printer i ever had . I print 500 pages a
>>week and fill my own cartridges with never a problem. And the printer is
>>always on.
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I own an Epson R200 - the best printer I ever had. The printer is always
> off when not in use. I buy 3rd party inks because its cheaper and easier
> than refiling.
>
> Your point was .. errr.. what exactly?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Sounds to me like different people like different printers, and not
incidentally, third party inks have worked well in them. Must mean that
there are some decent third party inks out there. Does this mean that Andy
is now a member of our exclusive aftermarket club? Don't tell him about the
inititation ritual - being ridiculed by our foremost critic.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

My mouth is agape. So much of this information is either downright
incorrect or badly stated that I don't even know where to begin. I am
however, sending Epson a copy of this posting for further comment.

Either they have some major retraining to do with their Tech Support
people, or you've been speaking to, at best, first line phone pre-sales
people who are wading into depths they don't have proper knowledge in.

Oh, and it is amazing that they use the same words you do to describe
their dye inks "vibrant and snappier". hmmmmm....

Art

measekite wrote:

> I just spoke to Epson Tech Support. This is their official
> recommendation on turning the printer off by its power button and it
> applies to all Epson printers.
>
> When you turn the printer on after having previously turned it off via
> the power button the printer goes through a short warm up cycle and uses
> a little ink.
>
> If you optionally leave it on all of the time the printer will go
> through a long warm up (if it sat idle for 1 to 2 hours) and it will use
> much more ink in it's warm up cycle.
>
> Another reason why they recommend to turn them off is it insures that no
> air or paper dust/fibers will get into the nozzles. Even though the
> head does park after printing the nozzles are still subject to the
> contamination.
>
> They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should
> turn their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it
> turned on and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head.
>
> They also informed me, when I asked, that even though they made great
> strides in their pigment ink formulations and their pigment ink
> printers, their dye based printers do indeed produce a more vibrant and
> snappier result.
>
> They are going to send me printouts on their R320 and R800 on a couple
> of different papers so I can compare Epson vs Epson. Of course, I do
> expect the best professional results that Epson is capable of producing.
>
> Base on this, I feel that Canon Pixmas are more suitable to a 24/7 network.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt, your explanation of crystallization seems correct as I recall it
as well. The only thing I can add to that is that even supersaturated
liquids may not crystallize without either a seed crystal or an
irregular surface to begin the growth process.

The inks are, as you stated a type of suspension. I can not state
categorically if there are any components within the ink that could (in
theory) crystallize. I'd think more likely some type of emulsion might
develop, but since Epson owns the rights to these inks and their
formulas are unique, I'm only guessing.

There are a number of things the posting you reference leaves wanting,
from my understanding. I would, for now at least, take it with a large
crystal of NaCl.

Art


Burt wrote:

> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:T18je.1019$mK.895@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> (snip)
>
>
>>They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should turn
>>their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it turned on
>>and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head.
>
>
> (snip)
>
> Perhaps Arthur Entlich can follow up on this response if I am not quite
> accurate in my critique of the above statement. My chemistry and physics
> classes were, unfortunately, over 50 years ago. Crystallization occurs when
> a solution of soluable salt(s) becomes supersaturated and forms crystals, a
> uniquely shaped solid physical form of the salt which had been in solution
> (usually aquious). This can occur with evaporation or a drop in
> temperature of the liquid that had been previously heated to create a highly
> saturated solution. Pigmented inks are essentially a suspension of minute
> colored particles. Clogging probably occurs when the carrier liquid
> undergoes a degree of evaporation and caused the pigment particles to drop
> out of the suspension, clump together, and thus clog the print head.
> Someone on the NG can correct me if I am wrong. If this simplified analysis
> is correct, either the Epson rep doesn't understand the chemical and/or
> physical qualities of his products' inks or his comments have been
> inaccurately reported. If it is my error I stand corrected.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

I'm collecting all these statements you are making for Epson to collaborate.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:T18je.1019$mK.895@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
>>> They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should
>>> turn their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it
>>> turned on and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head.
>>>
>>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> Perhaps Arthur Entlich can follow up on this response if I am not
>> quite accurate in my critique of the above statement. My chemistry
>> and physics classes were, unfortunately, over 50 years ago.
>> Crystallization occurs when a solution of soluable salt(s) becomes
>> supersaturated and forms crystals, a uniquely shaped solid physical
>> form of the salt which had been in solution (usually aquious). This
>> can occur with evaporation or a drop in temperature of the liquid
>> that had been previously heated to create a highly saturated
>> solution. Pigmented inks are essentially a suspension of minute
>> colored particles. Clogging probably occurs when the carrier liquid
>> undergoes a degree of evaporation and caused the pigment particles to
>> drop out of the suspension, clump together, and thus clog the print
>> head. Someone on the NG can correct me if I am wrong. If this
>> simplified analysis is correct, either the Epson rep doesn't
>> understand the chemical and/or physical qualities of his products'
>> inks or his comments have been inaccurately reported. If it is my
>> error I stand corrected.
>>
>
> Dear Reverend
>
> The Epson Technical Support Person looked up this information in their
> database. It was not that one person misunderstood what she learned.
> This was documented by the Epson Engineers. Maybe you need to take
> another course and then reverse engineer their ink using a chemical
> analysis.
>
>>
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> My mouth is agape.


Sorry you are surprised (agape) but the information stated is accurate
as far as what I regurgitated from Epson. The Tech Support Person read
this to me after she looked it up in their database. If the engineer
who entered the information is incorrect then Epson needs to be notified
to correct this information. Since I do not use Epson I really do not
give a hoot. Since you are an Epson enthusiast maybe you would like to
take the initiative.

> So much of this information is either downright incorrect or badly
> stated that I don't even know where to begin. I am however, sending
> Epson a copy of this posting for further comment.
>
> Either they have some major retraining to do with their Tech Support
> people, or you've been speaking to, at best, first line phone
> pre-sales people who are wading into depths they don't have proper
> knowledge in.


I do believe they were first line phone pre-sales people but since they
looked up this information I think the issue goes deeper.

>
> Oh, and it is amazing that they use the same words you do to describe
> their dye inks "vibrant and snappier". hmmmmm...


I posed those words in a question and she then agreed and continued to
use those words in her description. These word are also used my many
reviewers when desscribing what they saw.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck maybe it is a duck.

> .
>
> Art
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>> I just spoke to Epson Tech Support. This is their official
>> recommendation on turning the printer off by its power button and it
>> applies to all Epson printers.
>>
>> When you turn the printer on after having previously turned it off
>> via the power button the printer goes through a short warm up cycle
>> and uses a little ink.
>>
>> If you optionally leave it on all of the time the printer will go
>> through a long warm up (if it sat idle for 1 to 2 hours) and it will
>> use much more ink in it's warm up cycle.
>>
>> Another reason why they recommend to turn them off is it insures that
>> no air or paper dust/fibers will get into the nozzles. Even though
>> the head does park after printing the nozzles are still subject to
>> the contamination.
>>
>> They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should
>> turn their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it
>> turned on and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head.
>>
>> They also informed me, when I asked, that even though they made great
>> strides in their pigment ink formulations and their pigment ink
>> printers, their dye based printers do indeed produce a more vibrant
>> and snappier result.
>>
>> They are going to send me printouts on their R320 and R800 on a
>> couple of different papers so I can compare Epson vs Epson. Of
>> course, I do expect the best professional results that Epson is
>> capable of producing.
>>
>> Base on this, I feel that Canon Pixmas are more suitable to a 24/7
>> network.
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> Burt, your explanation of crystallization seems correct as I recall it
> as well. The only thing I can add to that is that even supersaturated
> liquids may not crystallize without either a seed crystal or an
> irregular surface to begin the growth process.
>
> The inks are, as you stated a type of suspension. I can not state
> categorically if there are any components within the ink that could
> (in theory) crystallize. I'd think more likely some type of emulsion
> might develop, but since Epson owns the rights to these inks and their
> formulas are unique, I'm only guessing.


*but since Epson owns the rights to these inks and their formulas are
unique, I'm only guessing.

then wouldn't Epson know?
*

>
> There are a number of things the posting you reference leaves wanting,
> from my understanding. I would, for now at least, take it with a
> large crystal of NaCl.
>
> Art
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:T18je.1019$mK.895@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>> They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently should
>>> turn their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead. Leaving it
>>> turned on and unused will crystallize the pigments inside the head.
>>
>>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> Perhaps Arthur Entlich can follow up on this response if I am not
>> quite accurate in my critique of the above statement. My chemistry
>> and physics classes were, unfortunately, over 50 years ago.
>> Crystallization occurs when a solution of soluable salt(s) becomes
>> supersaturated and forms crystals, a uniquely shaped solid physical
>> form of the salt which had been in solution (usually aquious). This
>> can occur with evaporation or a drop in temperature of the liquid
>> that had been previously heated to create a highly saturated
>> solution. Pigmented inks are essentially a suspension of minute
>> colored particles. Clogging probably occurs when the carrier liquid
>> undergoes a degree of evaporation and caused the pigment particles to
>> drop out of the suspension, clump together, and thus clog the print
>> head. Someone on the NG can correct me if I am wrong. If this
>> simplified analysis is correct, either the Epson rep doesn't
>> understand the chemical and/or physical qualities of his products'
>> inks or his comments have been inaccurately reported. If it is my
>> error I stand corrected.
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:W_Kje.1503$mK.362@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Since I do not use Epson I really do not give a hoot.

So - why did you take the time and effort (assuming you really did) to ring
Epson in the first place and talk to them?

Or is it, as most people are probably now realising - your just trolling
again?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I'm collecting all these statements you are making for Epson to
> collaborate.
>
> Art


Good! Who in Epson?

>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Burt wrote:
>>
>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:T18je.1019$mK.895@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently
>>>> should turn their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead.
>>>> Leaving it turned on and unused will crystallize the pigments
>>>> inside the head.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (snip)
>>>
>>> Perhaps Arthur Entlich can follow up on this response if I am not
>>> quite accurate in my critique of the above statement. My chemistry
>>> and physics classes were, unfortunately, over 50 years ago.
>>> Crystallization occurs when a solution of soluable salt(s) becomes
>>> supersaturated and forms crystals, a uniquely shaped solid physical
>>> form of the salt which had been in solution (usually aquious). This
>>> can occur with evaporation or a drop in temperature of the liquid
>>> that had been previously heated to create a highly saturated
>>> solution. Pigmented inks are essentially a suspension of minute
>>> colored particles. Clogging probably occurs when the carrier liquid
>>> undergoes a degree of evaporation and caused the pigment particles
>>> to drop out of the suspension, clump together, and thus clog the
>>> print head. Someone on the NG can correct me if I am wrong. If this
>>> simplified analysis is correct, either the Epson rep doesn't
>>> understand the chemical and/or physical qualities of his products'
>>> inks or his comments have been inaccurately reported. If it is my
>>> error I stand corrected.
>>
>>
>> Dear Reverend
>>
>> The Epson Technical Support Person looked up this information in
>> their database. It was not that one person misunderstood what she
>> learned. This was documented by the Epson Engineers. Maybe you need
>> to take another course and then reverse engineer their ink using a
>> chemical analysis.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Longevity isn't subjective bro.....if a manufacturer's print has been
shown to be far more prone to fading, then that is an objective point.
Subjective is print quality as people have different tastes.

 

[frederick]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:


>
> Since you compared the R1800 output with the i9950 what differences did
> you see? Did you see many prints on different papers?
>
Unfortunately, doing that objectively is not realistic. Yes, I saw
examples of prints of different images on different papers of the same
types. That's about as close as normal folks are ever going to get to
an ojective assessment of their own. Retailers just don't have the
printers set up and ready to go for you to play with. Even if they did,
you're still not going to be able to tell much without some more serious
work than evaluating the first images that you print on default
settings. So, you have to read reviews and forums - with your
commercial bias, FUD, and idiot filters switched on.
To be honest, I *think* what I saw confirmed to me that there was very
little difference. Far less than using two different types of 35mm film
gives. Both looked exceptionally good. I'm sure that both would more
than meet the expectations of any "home user", who should be delighted
that this technology is at a level that allows them to make massive
improvements in finished photo quality - compared with what has been
available to mere mortals at the local photo lab.
If you have a DSLR in the 6mp range, can do a little basic post
processing, and have either printer, then you won't be ever returning to
getting wet process done, except perhaps to save a few $ on multiple
snapshots.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Frederick wrote:

> measekite wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Since you compared the R1800 output with the i9950 what differences
>> did you see? Did you see many prints on different papers?
>>
> Unfortunately, doing that objectively is not realistic. Yes, I saw
> examples of prints of different images on different papers of the same
> types. That's about as close as normal folks are ever going to get to
> an ojective assessment of their own. Retailers just don't have the
> printers set up and ready to go for you to play with. Even if they
> did, you're still not going to be able to tell much without some more
> serious work than evaluating the first images that you print on
> default settings. So, you have to read reviews and forums - with your
> commercial bias, FUD, and idiot filters switched on.


> To be honest, I *think* what I saw confirmed to me that there was very
> little difference. Far less than using two different types of 35mm
> film gives. Both looked exceptionally good.


If that was the case then the difference is pigment longevity which is
subjective to how it is stored versus speed which is objective and
measireable.

> I'm sure that both would more than meet the expectations of any "home
> user", who should be delighted that this technology is at a level that
> allows them to make massive improvements in finished photo quality -
> compared with what has been available to mere mortals at the local
> photo lab.
> If you have a DSLR in the 6mp range, can do a little basic post
> processing, and have either printer, then you won't be ever returning
> to getting wet process done, except perhaps to save a few $ on
> multiple snapshots.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <8N9ke.271$rY6.142@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite@yahoo.com (measekite) wrote:

> If that was the case then the difference is pigment longevity which is
> subjective to how it is stored...

I think you might mean '...which depends on how it is stored...'. Please
either learn some English or get an adult to check your posts before
subjecting us to them.

Jon.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Different people take care of their prints differently in widely
different environments. That makes it difficult to be objective.

tyranix95@hotmail.com wrote:

>Longevity isn't subjective bro.....if a manufacturer's print has been
>shown to be far more prone to fading, then that is an objective point.
>Subjective is print quality as people have different tastes.
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> My mouth is agape.
>
>
>
> Sorry you are surprised (agape) but the information stated is accurate
> as far as what I regurgitated from Epson. The Tech Support Person read
> this to me after she looked it up in their database. If the engineer
> who entered the information is incorrect then Epson needs to be notified
> to correct this information. Since I do not use Epson I really do not
> give a hoot. Since you are an Epson enthusiast maybe you would like to
> take the initiative.
>

I plan to bring it up with them.

>> So much of this information is either downright incorrect or badly
>> stated that I don't even know where to begin. I am however, sending
>> Epson a copy of this posting for further comment.
>>
>> Either they have some major retraining to do with their Tech Support
>> people, or you've been speaking to, at best, first line phone
>> pre-sales people who are wading into depths they don't have proper
>> knowledge in.
>
>
>
> I do believe they were first line phone pre-sales people but since they
> looked up this information I think the issue goes deeper.
>

Well, that's not quite Tech Support is it?

>>
>> Oh, and it is amazing that they use the same words you do to describe
>> their dye inks "vibrant and snappier". hmmmmm...
>
>
> I posed those words in a question and she then agreed and continued to
> use those words in her description. These word are also used my many
> reviewers when desscribing what they saw.
>

Read Canon's recent description of their pigment inks for their wide
carriage printers.


> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck maybe it is a duck.
>

Yeah, but each time I hone in on the details, it turns out the story you
originally report becomes altered and "corrected". That leads me to
think that if the information came from you, it's likely to be a rubber
duck.

And here's just one example:

>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>> I just spoke to Epson Tech Support.

You did not speak to Epson Tech Support, and the reason I KNEW you
didn't is because Epson Tech Support is a toll number and charges a fee
if you don't own one of their products or if it is out of warranty. I
KNEW you spoke to first line pre-sales, because that's a free service,
and those are the people who send out free samples prints, not Tech
Support. You bend the truth as it suits you and when you think it gives
your postings more credibility. It doesn't help, because your stories
just don't add up for people who know better.

I've spoken to first line pre-sales numerous times, and they tend to be
very pleasant, and they will pretty much say anything that appeases the
potential customer. If you say something is a certain way, they'll
usually agree unless they know its an outright untruth. But, the truth
is, they aren't trained to know much about the technical nature of the
printers, They are there to answer basic questions on the specs and to
send out free samples. They are also provided with some basic databases
which provide simplistic explanations for potential buyers who ask
questions. They are like most other first line pre-sales people. They
tend to be replaced regularly, and minimally trained.

They are hardly authorities on the products, and before I'd start
repeating what they "told" you, I'd look for some higher level
verification if I were you. I'd expect that first line pre-sales at
Canon will tell you their inks don't fade and that their heads last for
"as long as the printer does".


Art

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Burt, your explanation of crystallization seems correct as I recall it
>> as well. The only thing I can add to that is that even supersaturated
>> liquids may not crystallize without either a seed crystal or an
>> irregular surface to begin the growth process.
>>
>> The inks are, as you stated a type of suspension. I can not state
>> categorically if there are any components within the ink that could
>> (in theory) crystallize. I'd think more likely some type of emulsion
>> might develop, but since Epson owns the rights to these inks and their
>> formulas are unique, I'm only guessing.
>
>
>
> *but since Epson owns the rights to these inks and their formulas are
> unique, I'm only guessing.
>
> then wouldn't Epson know?
> *
>

Yes, Epson TECH SUPPORT might even know. However, not only do I doubt
they'd tell you if they did, but I am quite sure first line pre-sales
wouldn't have a clue.

Why do I know this? Some years back, I had a severe allergic response
to something I was working with. One of the things I had been working
with was Epson inks. Back then, I exclusively used OEM Epson inks. I
was trying to isolate what caused the reaction, and I know I have an
allergy to a specific group of chemicals, so I called Epson's product
safety people to ask them if their inks contained this specific chemical
group. Even though this allergy I have is life threatening, and I
informed them of this, they refused to tell me if their inks contained
this chemical group because they are SO secretive about their ink formulas.

As it turned out, my reaction was not caused by the inks, but by an
adhesive I had been using. The manufacturer of the adhesive informed me
that they saw nothing in their formula, but that some of the components
were made in France, and they would have to contact their plant there,
which they did. I received a phone call 6 AM the next morning to inform
me that indeed one component of the adhesive was an organic (latex) and
to prevent bacterial growth it was preserved with the chemical I am
allergic to.

I called Epson back to inform them that the problem was tracked down,
but that their response was totally unacceptable, as it could have
potentially been a life or death situation. We had a long discussion,
and they told me the problem was Epson Japan did not allow any
discussion of anything related to the ink formulations. I told them they
were headed for a major lawsuit if anyone ever died as a result of their
unwillingness to discuss the ink formulas.

They promised one change, which they did come through on. They informed
me that they would talk to Japan about labeling the potentially toxic
material(s) in their ink on the boxes. I have noted they now list
"propylene glycol" on the boxes. But Epson is, to my knowledge, still
very close to the chest when it comes to their inks, and I actually
doubt they would tell anyone that their inks "crystallized", firstly,
because I doubt they do, and secondly because doing so would give away
information about the formulation.

So, I'm sorry, but I have to take your postings will some very large
chunks of NaCl.


Art

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Certainly not first line pre-sales, I'll tell you that much.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> I'm collecting all these statements you are making for Epson to
>> collaborate.
>>
>> Art
>
>
>
> Good! Who in Epson?
>
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Burt wrote:
>>>
>>>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:T18je.1019$mK.895@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> They also told me that R800/1800 users who print infrequently
>>>>> should turn their printers off to avoid clogging the printhead.
>>>>> Leaving it turned on and unused will crystallize the pigments
>>>>> inside the head.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps Arthur Entlich can follow up on this response if I am not
>>>> quite accurate in my critique of the above statement. My chemistry
>>>> and physics classes were, unfortunately, over 50 years ago.
>>>> Crystallization occurs when a solution of soluable salt(s) becomes
>>>> supersaturated and forms crystals, a uniquely shaped solid physical
>>>> form of the salt which had been in solution (usually aquious). This
>>>> can occur with evaporation or a drop in temperature of the liquid
>>>> that had been previously heated to create a highly saturated
>>>> solution. Pigmented inks are essentially a suspension of minute
>>>> colored particles. Clogging probably occurs when the carrier liquid
>>>> undergoes a degree of evaporation and caused the pigment particles
>>>> to drop out of the suspension, clump together, and thus clog the
>>>> print head. Someone on the NG can correct me if I am wrong. If this
>>>> simplified analysis is correct, either the Epson rep doesn't
>>>> understand the chemical and/or physical qualities of his products'
>>>> inks or his comments have been inaccurately reported. If it is my
>>>> error I stand corrected.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Reverend
>>>
>>> The Epson Technical Support Person looked up this information in
>>> their database. It was not that one person misunderstood what she
>>> learned. This was documented by the Epson Engineers. Maybe you need
>>> to take another course and then reverse engineer their ink using a
>>> chemical analysis.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Arthur Entlich wrote:

>
>
> measekite wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>> Burt, your explanation of crystallization seems correct as I recall
>>> it as well. The only thing I can add to that is that even
>>> supersaturated liquids may not crystallize without either a seed
>>> crystal or an irregular surface to begin the growth process.
>>>
>>> The inks are, as you stated a type of suspension. I can not state
>>> categorically if there are any components within the ink that could
>>> (in theory) crystallize. I'd think more likely some type of
>>> emulsion might develop, but since Epson owns the rights to these
>>> inks and their formulas are unique, I'm only guessing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *but since Epson owns the rights to these inks and their formulas are
>> unique, I'm only guessing.
>>
>> then wouldn't Epson know?
>> *
>>
>
> Yes, Epson TECH SUPPORT might even know. However, not only do I doubt
> they'd tell you if they did, but I am quite sure first line pre-sales
> wouldn't have a clue.
>
> Why do I know this? Some years back, I had a severe allergic response
> to something I was working with. One of the things I had been working
> with was Epson inks. Back then, I exclusively used OEM Epson inks. I
> was trying to isolate what caused the reaction, and I know I have an
> allergy to a specific group of chemicals, so I called Epson's product
> safety people to ask them if their inks contained this specific
> chemical group. Even though this allergy I have is life threatening,
> and I informed them of this, they refused to tell me if their inks
> contained this chemical group because they are SO secretive about
> their ink formulas.


That is quite a different set of circumstance. They spoke in general
terms. I did not ask them to give me the crown jewels.

>
> As it turned out, my reaction was not caused by the inks, but by an
> adhesive I had been using. The manufacturer of the adhesive informed
> me that they saw nothing in their formula, but that some of the
> components were made in France, and they would have to contact their
> plant there, which they did. I received a phone call 6 AM the next
> morning to inform me that indeed one component of the adhesive was an
> organic (latex) and to prevent bacterial growth it was preserved with
> the chemical I am allergic to.
>
> I called Epson back to inform them that the problem was tracked down,
> but that their response was totally unacceptable, as it could have
> potentially been a life or death situation. We had a long discussion,
> and they told me the problem was Epson Japan did not allow any
> discussion of anything related to the ink formulations. I told them
> they were headed for a major lawsuit if anyone ever died as a result
> of their unwillingness to discuss the ink formulas.
>
> They promised one change, which they did come through on. They
> informed me that they would talk to Japan about labeling the
> potentially toxic material(s) in their ink on the boxes. I have noted
> they now list "propylene glycol" on the boxes. But Epson is, to my
> knowledge, still very close to the chest when it comes to their inks,
> and I actually doubt they would tell anyone that their inks
> "crystallized", firstly, because I doubt they do, and secondly because
> doing so would give away information about the formulation.
>
> So, I'm sorry, but I have to take your postings will some very large
> chunks of NaCl.
>
>
> Art

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

As far as I can determine, all inkjet printers are ink dispensers.

Pretty amazingly sophisticated ones, at that.

Art

measekite wrote:

>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>> Let us not forget that the C62 printer
>
>
> I thought this device was an ink dispenser.
>
>> sold in Canada for about $70 CAN. or about $50 something US. This is
>> not exactly a top of the line product. And, in general, most people
>> received reasonable service from them anyway. Davy had a less than
>> typical situation with his. Although I have no idea how many were
>> sold, I'd guess it was in at least the hundreds of thousands.
>>
>> Canon may well, at some point, surpass Epson in terms of reliability
>> and even longevity of the inks. The future is an unknown. They has
>> some issue to deal with to get there however.
>>
>> Art
>>
>> measekite wrote:
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

This is getting very weird! That's now the third or forth email we both
responded to similarly. Must be the full moon or something....

Art

Burt wrote:

> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rLnke.655$rY6.501@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
>>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Let us not forget that the C62 printer
>>
>>I thought this device was an ink dispenser.
>
>
> All inkjet printers are "ink dispensers" as are ball point pens, fountain
> pens, rollerball pens, offset presses, letter presses, wood and linoleum
> blocks for block printing, etc. Was this stupid, sarcastic one liner
> supposed to mean that it uses excessive amounts of ink? Was a part of your
> NYU/Stanford MBA education supposed to teach you to write succinct,
> understandable text? Please post scanned copies of your diplomas as your
> claimed educational background is not believable.
>
>
>>>and sold in Canada for about $70 CAN. or about $50 something US. This is
>>>not exactly a top of the line product. And, in general, most people
>>>received reasonable service from them anyway. Davy had a less than
>>>typical situation with his. Although I have no idea how many were sold,
>>>I'd guess it was in at least the hundreds of thousands.
>>>
>>>Canon may well, at some point, surpass Epson in terms of reliability and
>>>even longevity of the inks. The future is an unknown. They has some
>>>issue to deal with to get there however.
>>>
>>>Art
>>>
>

 

[BURT]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Art - Anyone with a high school education and half a brain knows that
Measekite's posts are nearly all nonsense. Both of us find his distasteful,
libelous, misinformation-laden posts a pall on this NG. Neither of us
appreciates his spewing of poor or outright wrong information to people who
sincerely wish to have help solving their printing problems. In addition,
it is disheartening to see him attack people who attempt to provide this
help. The choices are not great. Stop responding and let him misinform
newbies. or follow him around like a dog owner with a poop scooper in hand
cleaning up after his posts and get immediate and unrelenting abuse. We
respond similarly because we respond from our own studied experience and our
interest in sharing it.

"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:%CFke.1466045$Xk.382200@pd7tw3no...
> This is getting very weird! That's now the third or forth email we both
> responded to similarly. Must be the full moon or something....
>
> Art
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>> "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:rLnke.655$rY6.501@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>
>>>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Let us not forget that the C62 printer
>>>
>>>I thought this device was an ink dispenser.
>>
>>
>> All inkjet printers are "ink dispensers" as are ball point pens,
>> fountain pens, rollerball pens, offset presses, letter presses, wood and
>> linoleum blocks for block printing, etc. Was this stupid, sarcastic one
>> liner supposed to mean that it uses excessive amounts of ink? Was a part
>> of your NYU/Stanford MBA education supposed to teach you to write
>> succinct, understandable text? Please post scanned copies of your
>> diplomas as your claimed educational background is not believable.
>>
>>
>>>>and sold in Canada for about $70 CAN. or about $50 something US. This
>>>>is not exactly a top of the line product. And, in general, most people
>>>>received reasonable service from them anyway. Davy had a less than
>>>>typical situation with his. Although I have no idea how many were sold,
>>>>I'd guess it was in at least the hundreds of thousands.
>>>>
>>>>Canon may well, at some point, surpass Epson in terms of reliability and
>>>>even longevity of the inks. The future is an unknown. They has some
>>>>issue to deal with to get there however.
>>>>
>>>>Art
>>>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Burt wrote:

>Art - Anyone with a high school education and half a brain knows that
>Measekite's posts are nearly all nonsense. Both of us find his distasteful,
>libelous, misinformation-laden posts a pall on this NG. Neither of us
>appreciates his spewing of poor or outright wrong information to people who
>sincerely wish to have help solving their printing problems. In addition,
>it is disheartening to see him attack people who attempt to provide this
>help.
>

Like Tony Da Tiger
Like Frankie Crankie
Like WeStink

All in the business of making money from these poor things.

And then there is the Holier than thou Evangelist
Reverend Burt

>The choices are not great. Stop responding and let him
>
TELL THE TRUTH

>
>"Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
>news:%CFke.1466045$Xk.382200@pd7tw3no...
>
>
>>This is getting very weird! That's now the third or forth email we both
>>responded to similarly. Must be the full moon or something....
>>
>>Art
>>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:rLnke.655$rY6.501@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arthur Entlich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Let us not forget that the C62 printer
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I thought this device was an ink dispenser.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>All inkjet printers are "ink dispensers" as are ball point pens,
>>>fountain pens, rollerball pens, offset presses, letter presses, wood and
>>>linoleum blocks for block printing, etc. Was this stupid, sarcastic one
>>>liner supposed to mean that it uses excessive amounts of ink? Was a part
>>>of your NYU/Stanford MBA education supposed to teach you to write
>>>succinct, understandable text? Please post scanned copies of your
>>>diplomas as your claimed educational background is not believable.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>and sold in Canada for about $70 CAN. or about $50 something US. This
>>>>>is not exactly a top of the line product. And, in general, most people
>>>>>received reasonable service from them anyway. Davy had a less than
>>>>>typical situation with his. Although I have no idea how many were sold,
>>>>>I'd guess it was in at least the hundreds of thousands.
>>>>>
>>>>>Canon may well, at some point, surpass Epson in terms of reliability and
>>>>>even longevity of the inks. The future is an unknown. They has some
>>>>>issue to deal with to get there however.
>>>>>
>>>>>Art
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>
>
>
>