Inkjet printers (slightly OT)

On 26/10/2015 23:10, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-26 22:53:43 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:21:01 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:17:49 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 26/10/2015 14:29, Bob Minchin wrote:
Epsons have fixed print heads and usually are beyond economic repair
when they have problems.

I took mine apart and soaked it in meths. It was OK for a couple of
years. I need to do it again now though.

There is a lot of information out there about cleaning Epson print
heads. All kinds of stuff has been suggested: ammonia, isopropyly
alcohol, and particularly Windex window cleaner. I've never heard of
straight meths though.

What kind of printer is it?

My question would be "Which meth product?". Methylene chloride is a
pretty standard ingredient in cleaning solvents.

http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/house...queryx=75-09-2


I believe the reference was to methyl alcohol (methanol) which is
available in many countries as methylated spirits, better known in the
US as denatured alcohol. Due to consumption abuse the methanol content
has been reduced, and in some countries banned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol

I hadn't realised that we had non-UK readers who wouldn't understand the
reference.

Methylated Spirits is commonly available in the UK (and this is a UK
newsgroup!) where it's methanol mixed with purple dye and a little
pyridine to make it taste even worse.

fx looks up Oh. Two newsgroups. I hadn't noticed the cross-post.

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
On 26/10/2015 23:10, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-26 22:53:43 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:21:01 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:17:49 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 26/10/2015 14:29, Bob Minchin wrote:
Epsons have fixed print heads and usually are beyond economic repair
when they have problems.

I took mine apart and soaked it in meths. It was OK for a couple of
years. I need to do it again now though.

There is a lot of information out there about cleaning Epson print
heads. All kinds of stuff has been suggested: ammonia, isopropyly
alcohol, and particularly Windex window cleaner. I've never heard of
straight meths though.

What kind of printer is it?

My question would be "Which meth product?". Methylene chloride is a
pretty standard ingredient in cleaning solvents.

http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/house...queryx=75-09-2


I believe the reference was to methyl alcohol (methanol) which is
available in many countries as methylated spirits, better known in the
US as denatured alcohol. Due to consumption abuse the methanol content
has been reduced, and in some countries banned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol

I hadn't realised that we had non-UK readers who wouldn't understand the
reference.

Methylated Spirits is commonly available in the UK (and this is a UK
newsgroup!)

Only one of them is.

where it's methanol

Nope, its mostly ethanol.

mixed with purple dye and a little pyridine to make it taste even worse.

Methanol is indistinguishable taste
wise from ethanol, that's the problem.

fx looks up Oh. Two newsgroups. I hadn't noticed the cross-post.

On 27/10/2015 21:06, 78lp wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
I hadn't realised that we had non-UK readers who wouldn't understand
the reference.

Methylated Spirits is commonly available in the UK (and this is a UK
newsgroup!)

Only one of them is.

where it's methanol

Nope, its mostly ethanol.

mixed with purple dye and a little pyridine to make it taste even worse.

Methanol is indistinguishable taste
wise from ethanol, that's the problem.

fx looks up Oh. Two newsgroups. I hadn't noticed the cross-post.


I've just gone and looked it up. (this is of course UK specific)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330451/eis0613.pdf

AKA http://tinyurl.com/oqljymo

says that as of July 2013 "The new formulation will be for every 100
parts by volume of alcohol mix 3 parts by volume of isopropyl alcohol, 3
parts by volume of methylethylketone and one gramme of denatonium benzoate."

and also

"The traditional UK formula for CDA (formerly known as methylated
spirits or meths for short) contained a purple dye, provided by the
chemical methyl violet. After much deliberation, it was decided that the
European formula need not contain a dye. UK trade bodies were keen that
this was reflected in UK law. HMRC was persuaded that there is no longer
a pressing need to include a dye, so it will no longer be mandatory.
However as some users of CDA may still expect the purple dye to be
included, the same proportion of methyl violet that was present in the
old formula will be permitted if required."

So it needn't be purple and doesn't contain methanol nor pyridine. I
couldn't have been much more wrong!

Though what they mean by 1gramme of denatonium benzoate per part of
alcohol I don't know.

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/10/2015 21:06, 78lp wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
I hadn't realised that we had non-UK readers who wouldn't understand
the reference.

Methylated Spirits is commonly available in the UK (and this is a UK
newsgroup!)

Only one of them is.

where it's methanol

Nope, its mostly ethanol.

mixed with purple dye and a little pyridine to make it taste even worse.

Methanol is indistinguishable taste
wise from ethanol, that's the problem.

fx looks up Oh. Two newsgroups. I hadn't noticed the cross-post.


I've just gone and looked it up. (this is of course UK specific)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330451/eis0613.pdf

AKA http://tinyurl.com/oqljymo

says that as of July 2013 "The new formulation will be for every 100 parts
by volume of alcohol

That is mostly ethanol, not methanol.

mix 3 parts by volume of isopropyl alcohol, 3
parts by volume of methylethylketone and one gramme of denatonium
benzoate."

and also

"The traditional UK formula for CDA (formerly known as methylated spirits
or meths for short) contained a purple dye, provided by the chemical
methyl violet. After much deliberation, it was decided that the European
formula need not contain a dye. UK trade bodies were keen that this was
reflected in UK law. HMRC was persuaded that there is no longer a pressing
need to include a dye, so it will no longer be mandatory. However as some
users of CDA may still expect the purple dye to be included, the same
proportion of methyl violet that was present in the old formula will be
permitted if required."

So it needn't be purple and doesn't contain methanol nor pyridine. I
couldn't have been much more wrong!

Though what they mean by 1gramme of denatonium benzoate per part of
alcohol I don't know.

Yeah, its pretty poorly worded, particularly with the use of the word
alcohol.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:28:35 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 27/10/2015 21:06, 78lp wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
I hadn't realised that we had non-UK readers who wouldn't understand
the reference.

Methylated Spirits is commonly available in the UK (and this is a UK
newsgroup!)

Only one of them is.

where it's methanol

Nope, its mostly ethanol.

mixed with purple dye and a little pyridine to make it taste even worse.

Methanol is indistinguishable taste
wise from ethanol, that's the problem.

fx looks up Oh. Two newsgroups. I hadn't noticed the cross-post.


I've just gone and looked it up. (this is of course UK specific)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330451/eis0613.pdf

AKA http://tinyurl.com/oqljymo

says that as of July 2013 "The new formulation will be for every 100
parts by volume of alcohol mix 3 parts by volume of isopropyl alcohol, 3
parts by volume of methylethylketone and one gramme of denatonium benzoate."

and also

"The traditional UK formula for CDA (formerly known as methylated
spirits or meths for short) contained a purple dye, provided by the
chemical methyl violet. After much deliberation, it was decided that the
European formula need not contain a dye. UK trade bodies were keen that
this was reflected in UK law. HMRC was persuaded that there is no longer
a pressing need to include a dye, so it will no longer be mandatory.
However as some users of CDA may still expect the purple dye to be
included, the same proportion of methyl violet that was present in the
old formula will be permitted if required."

So it needn't be purple and doesn't contain methanol nor pyridine. I
couldn't have been much more wrong!

Occasionally meths drinkers have made the mistake in reverse with
fatal results. It was possible (but extremely unhealthy and unplesant
tasting) to drink methylated spirits prepared with the old formula.
Methanol is metabolised by the body to formaldehyde which is what does
the damage but with meths the ethanol is metabolised to acetaldehyde
in preference.

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Don't need duplex. (A3 scanning might very occasionally be handy).

TIA

In the end I went for the Brother MFC-J6920DW (£170). It was a close
thing between that and the cheaper Epson WF-7610DWF, but the Brother had
a slightly better Amazon review score, also it has two paper trays.

A bit fiddly to set up network printing, but all working now. Text is
slightly less crisp and dark than the laserjet, but fine for printing
engineering drawings. One test photo came out nicely, scanner works
well. Paper trays feel a bit flimsy but it's not going to get heavy use.
It is a fraction of the weight of the Laserjet 8000 that it is
replacing. Using A3, the tray sticks out 15 cm at the front and the
paper is transverse to the scanner, so the footprint is more or less
square. Overall, quite impressed.

On 2015-10-29 23:11:51 +0000, newshound said:

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Don't need duplex. (A3 scanning might very occasionally be handy).

TIA

In the end I went for the Brother MFC-J6920DW (£170). It was a close
thing between that and the cheaper Epson WF-7610DWF, but the Brother
had a slightly better Amazon review score, also it has two paper trays.

A bit fiddly to set up network printing, but all working now. Text is
slightly less crisp and dark than the laserjet, but fine for printing
engineering drawings. One test photo came out nicely, scanner works
well. Paper trays feel a bit flimsy but it's not going to get heavy
use. It is a fraction of the weight of the Laserjet 8000 that it is
replacing. Using A3, the tray sticks out 15 cm at the front and the
paper is transverse to the scanner, so the footprint is more or less
square. Overall, quite impressed.

There should be an option for rotating the scan output 90º in the
driver, so as to retain the orientation of the scanned document. The
relationship of the paper in the tray to the scanner should be
irrelevant and easily rotated using the driver.

It is time to RTFM.
Check page 43 of the manual for paper orientation using "User Defined"
as the Paper size in the printer driver.
http://download.brother.com/welcome/doc003148/mfc6920dw_use_busr_lel566001_a.pdf




--


Regards,

Savageduck

On 29/10/2015 23:40, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-29 23:11:51 +0000, newshound said:

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Don't need duplex. (A3 scanning might very occasionally be handy).

TIA

In the end I went for the Brother MFC-J6920DW (£170). It was a close
thing between that and the cheaper Epson WF-7610DWF, but the Brother
had a slightly better Amazon review score, also it has two paper trays.

A bit fiddly to set up network printing, but all working now. Text is
slightly less crisp and dark than the laserjet, but fine for printing
engineering drawings. One test photo came out nicely, scanner works
well. Paper trays feel a bit flimsy but it's not going to get heavy
use. It is a fraction of the weight of the Laserjet 8000 that it is
replacing. Using A3, the tray sticks out 15 cm at the front and the
paper is transverse to the scanner, so the footprint is more or less
square. Overall, quite impressed.

There should be an option for rotating the scan output 90º in the
driver, so as to retain the orientation of the scanned document. The
relationship of the paper in the tray to the scanner should be
irrelevant and easily rotated using the driver.

It is time to RTFM.
Check page 43 of the manual for paper orientation using "User Defined"
as the Paper size in the printer driver.
http://download.brother.com/welcome/doc003148/mfc6920dw_use_busr_lel566001_a.pdf





Sorry but you have missed my point. There's no problem fitting images to
the paper, etc, it is that the basic body of the machine is about 55 cm
"wide" and 40 cm "deep", but with the A3 tray deployed it becomes 55 cm
deep. So it takes up a bit more room than you think it is going to,
going by the apparent dimensions. The old laserjet 8000 sat very nicely
on my window-sill (my walls are more than 2 feet thick), but the tray of
the Brother overhangs slightly. (It's not as high as the LJ though, and
is *very* much lighter).

:-)

On 2015-10-30 18:00:35 +0000, newshound said:

On 29/10/2015 23:40, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-29 23:11:51 +0000, newshound said:

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Don't need duplex. (A3 scanning might very occasionally be handy).

TIA

In the end I went for the Brother MFC-J6920DW (£170). It was a close
thing between that and the cheaper Epson WF-7610DWF, but the Brother
had a slightly better Amazon review score, also it has two paper trays.

A bit fiddly to set up network printing, but all working now. Text is
slightly less crisp and dark than the laserjet, but fine for printing
engineering drawings. One test photo came out nicely, scanner works
well. Paper trays feel a bit flimsy but it's not going to get heavy
use. It is a fraction of the weight of the Laserjet 8000 that it is
replacing. Using A3, the tray sticks out 15 cm at the front and the
paper is transverse to the scanner, so the footprint is more or less
square. Overall, quite impressed.

There should be an option for rotating the scan output 90º in the
driver, so as to retain the orientation of the scanned document. The
relationship of the paper in the tray to the scanner should be
irrelevant and easily rotated using the driver.

It is time to RTFM.
Check page 43 of the manual for paper orientation using "User Defined"
as the Paper size in the printer driver.
http://download.brother.com/welcome/doc003148/mfc6920dw_use_busr_lel566001_a.pdf

Sorry

but you have missed my point. There's no problem fitting images to the
paper, etc, it is that the basic body of the machine is about 55 cm
"wide" and 40 cm "deep", but with the A3 tray deployed it becomes 55 cm
deep. So it takes up a bit more room than you think it is going to,
going by the apparent dimensions. The old laserjet 8000 sat very nicely
on my window-sill (my walls are more than 2 feet thick), but the tray
of the Brother overhangs slightly. (It's not as high as the LJ though,
and is *very* much lighter).

:-)

In that case, a sledge hammer should be able to modify the wall to make
everything fit.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 30/10/2015 18:07, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-30 18:00:35 +0000, newshound said:



Sorry

but you have missed my point. There's no problem fitting images to the
paper, etc, it is that the basic body of the machine is about 55 cm
"wide" and 40 cm "deep", but with the A3 tray deployed it becomes 55
cm deep. So it takes up a bit more room than you think it is going to,
going by the apparent dimensions. The old laserjet 8000 sat very
nicely on my window-sill (my walls are more than 2 feet thick), but
the tray of the Brother overhangs slightly. (It's not as high as the
LJ though, and is *very* much lighter).

:-)

In that case, a sledge hammer should be able to modify the wall to make
everything fit.


All I was trying to point out to anyone interested that, if you read the
dimensions quoted on Amazon, but want to use an A3 tray, you will find
that it is actually more than 6 inches / 15 cm larger in one dimension.
When I get around to it, I will make that point in an Amazon review.