Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 74 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson 7900 from the inside - out  (Read 261013 times)
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #860 on: October 30, 2012, 07:14:03 AM »
ReplyReply

ABOUT MSDS  of Epson inks
For the 7800 there is no problem picking up rough make up of k3 ultrachrome from Epson itself...what i found of interest is that the more pigment in the ink the more Epson uses more glycol /less glycerol in their cleaning solutions for the x800 printers...i can get their own cleaner solutions no problem..whats wrong for the 7900 ? also Epson told me that vivid majenta used in a 7800 instead of majenta would burn the head out in 6 months.....and there both Epson inks....so using ammonium/ isopropyl....simply green....windex....whatever ...i wonder is there a risk of damage....and why the heck does Epson not think of making some money for itself by setting up a new cleaning  solution division within its empire...beats me !
Thanks for listening
The balance of ethylene glycol to glycerol is to address the carrying property of the aqueous solution so that the pigments are properly suspended and deposited.  It's also possible that it optimizes the solution to minimize (note that I don't say eliminate) clogging.  I'm very skeptical of the statement that the vivid magenta ink would 'burn out a 7800 head in six months.'  With respect to head cleaning by users, this is somewhat analogous to Nikon's statement (at least in the US) that camera sensors should not be cleaned by users.  Despite this many users do clean their camera sensors without difficulty or find a local expert to do so at a reasonable price.  A high end Epson printer is in the same price range of a high end Nikon but it's difficult to get any information on how to do self maintenance on the printer.  I personally think that this is unacceptable.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #861 on: October 30, 2012, 08:09:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, I'd have absolutely no hesitation cleaning a camera sensor, because the procedure and precautions are totally straight forward and the only moving part is removing the lens. Maintaining a printhead, especially given how the whole assembly is structured I think introduces more variables and therefore more risk. During the warranty, a company is perfectly within its rights to assess how much user intervention they are prepared to risk in terms of traffic on the warranty. In the case of Apple Computer for example it is ZERO. Undo a screw and your warranty is dead-meat. Maybe I exaggerate a little but not much. Where I do agree with you, however, is that printer manufacturers should publish at least enough guidance explaining to users how to physically clean and degunk the exterior of the printhead, the wiper assembly and related parts in that area which could affect clean performance - and provide cleaning solutions, so that those who wish to do so at their own risk at least have the necessary guidance and materials. I can see this being especially useful in situations where the service network is not very well represented in numerous areas, making the cost of service calls very high.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #862 on: October 30, 2012, 10:36:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark, I'm on the same wavelength as you.  There should be some simple user maintenance that the user can perform to keep their equipment working to specifications.  Simple cleaning procedures should be made available.  I'm sure that Epson have designed equipment so that this type of work can be performed pretty easily.  It's interesting with respect to Nikon cameras is that in Japan, sensor cleaning kits are marketed to consumers.  This is in contrast to the US where Nikon US does not recommend users do this. 
Logged

xsydx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #863 on: October 30, 2012, 11:24:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Sid,

You can go one step further and remove the two screws on the bottom of the head to separate the nipple plate from the printhead.  Then use a syringe and a tube (like the air tubing you would find on a fish tank), and lightly inject water through the nipples of the plate to clean them out.  FYI, the water (and ink) will spray out of that plate with different angles....

Whatever you do, please do not inject water into the printhead.  Make sure you remove the nipple plate first, and clean it separately.

Thank You, I will try that and then put the printer back together.

Logged
xsydx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #864 on: October 30, 2012, 11:37:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Here are shots of the head separated from the nipple plate.

Do you suggest putting the tubing on the nipple and injecting the water from the opening on the other side?

Anything I can do to clear that ink from the back of the head?



Logged
Chris233
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #865 on: October 31, 2012, 09:00:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Sid,

Do you suggest putting the tubing on the nipple and injecting the water from the opening on the other side?

Looking at image IMG_9421.jpg, you'll flip it over and inject water in the same direction of ink flow. Might want to put it in a cup or bucket otherwise the ink will spray in all different directions.


Anything I can do to clear that ink from the back of the head?

Unfortunately, not much you can do with the printhead out.  You can soak the nozzle plate.  But if you were to inject water into each of those chambers, the variable pressure (and high pressure) of physically injecting directly into the head would damage the chambers inside, as well as end up with a printhead paperweight.

Maybe some third party cleaners, etc could help.  But I haven't had any luck with them.

The best way to flush out the ink from those chambers is running initial fill, paired power cleaning, manual ink pull through the maintenance tank tubes, etc.  The reason is the machine distributes pressure evenly throughout the head at a stable force, as well as allows the natural internal movements of the printhead to occur.  Doing this with the printhead removed would likely result in 1A39 errors. Apologies if that's not the answer you're looking for.
Logged
Chris233
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #866 on: October 31, 2012, 09:34:48 AM »
ReplyReply

While you have it opened, you can pull the dampers and flush them out as well.  Only needs a little pressure though; you don't want to pop the thin film on the damper.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725


« Reply #867 on: October 31, 2012, 11:38:07 AM »
ReplyReply


Unfortunately, not much you can do with the printhead out.  You can soak the nozzle plate.  But if you were to inject water into each of those chambers, the variable pressure (and high pressure) of physically injecting directly into the head would damage the chambers inside, as well as end up with a printhead paperweight.


Would a vacuum applied at  the nozzle side and inkhead cleaner supplied at the nipple side harm the components?  That was my usual approach with an Epson head. A small tablet of perspex with the vacuum tube running to a bottle that is again connected to a vacuum pump. Soft rubber sealing on the perspex leaving the nozzle area free for the vacuum. The pumps at the capping station usual do not create a similar vacuum.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piëzografie,giclée
www.pigment-print.com
Logged
Chris233
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #868 on: October 31, 2012, 02:57:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Would a vacuum applied at  the nozzle side and inkhead cleaner supplied at the nipple side harm the components?  That was my usual approach with an Epson head. A small tablet of perspex with the vacuum tube running to a bottle that is again connected to a vacuum pump. Soft rubber sealing on the perspex leaving the nozzle area free for the vacuum. The pumps at the capping station usual do not create a similar vacuum.

Hi Ernst,

Was this done on the piezo heads?  I believe something like that would work as long as the psi is consistent with or less than what the machine already produces, and draws out the ink/cleaner gradually.  My concern would be damage to the ink supply ports in the printhead if the pressure was building up into one of the ports. If the pressure was too high or variable, could also damage the vibrating plate covering the ink cavity (which is only 1um thick). Probably would need a blowoff valve to remain consistent. What was your success rate with the piezo head?

I would welcome running your setup on a couple 11880 printheads if you have the specs to mail me.  It would be nice project.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 03:07:37 PM by tank172 » Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725


« Reply #869 on: October 31, 2012, 04:41:10 PM »
ReplyReply

I used that method on an Epson 10000 head but it was not removed from the printer. There can not be more than 1 bar pressure difference when a vacuum is applied. In the end that head was lost too but I could solve some clog issues over the time I worked with it. My idea is that a really clogged nozzle set does not give way for any cleaning fluid that could resolve the ink again, you are just touching the surface of the blockade and not more than that. Ultrasound could shake up things up but today's head electronics will suffer too then.


--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

Dinkla Grafische Techniek
Quad,piëzografie,giclée
www.pigment-print.com
Logged
Chris233
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #870 on: October 31, 2012, 06:25:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Exactly right!  If you were to take a 12" PVC pipe and fill 11" with resin. Allow the resin to harden. Then fill the remaining 1" with a dissolving solution.... how would you dissolve the solution in the middle or at the bottom?  The ink supply ports and chambers to each nozzle on the printhead are much the same design concept.  A cleaner that breaks down the ink may be able to reach the upper third of that "pipe" and, if you're lucky, running supersonic clean may dislodge the remaining clog, and then initial fill may push it out.  Or run a series of those steps a few times and work the clog out.  But supersonic cleaning carries it's own set of stresses on the printhead, and may introduce errors by itself.  The "cleaning solution" may present it's own problems depending on its chemistry. 

Ultimately, the piezo printheads are designed in a way that really demands to be running.  Almost every day a job should run - or run power cleaning to keep fluid flowing in those chambers of the printhead and to flush out any ink that may be beginning to harden inside those supply ports.
Logged
enduser
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 258


« Reply #871 on: November 02, 2012, 12:24:39 AM »
ReplyReply

This came to us today: is it how our photo printers should be sold?

http://www.visa.org.au/CampaignProcess.aspx?A=View&VID=6286233&KID=219475

Logged
gwhitf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 811


« Reply #872 on: November 02, 2012, 11:24:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Ultimately, the piezo printheads are designed in a way that really demands to be running.  Almost every day a job should run - or run power cleaning to keep fluid flowing in those chambers of the printhead and to flush out any ink that may be beginning to harden inside those supply ports.

I have not used my 7900 in months, after giving up on the LLK channel. I turned it on today and cleaned it and got this. It's getting much worse; something in that LLK that must be hardening.

Logged
Blue moon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #873 on: November 02, 2012, 06:37:38 PM »
ReplyReply

The balance of ethylene glycol to glycerol is to address the carrying property of the aqueous solution so that the pigments are properly suspended and deposited.  It's also possible that it optimizes the solution to minimize (note that I don't say eliminate clogs)
I wasnt referring to the suspension of pigment by means of the mix of ethylene glycerol and diethylene glycol . You may have misunderstood what i said.
I was specifically referring to epsons own solvents for both aqueous and pigment inks clog problems..what i said was that Epson increase the amount of ethylene glycol ( at the expense of glycerol ) as they switch from attempting to unclog aqueous inks to trying to unblock pigments ink clogs.
My understanding of what glycerol does in an ink is to act as an emulsifier (and mild surfactant ) so that resin and pigment  stay nicely mixed together when air tight in a sealed cartridge.correct me if i am wrong.
My understanding of what glycol does in a solvent is to attempt to undo the harm caused when mixed surplus to requirement resin  and pigment is mismanaged when finally heated and aerated  out of the piezo nozzles and not properly disposed of by the printer system itself.
Logged
Blue moon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #874 on: November 02, 2012, 06:57:50 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm very skeptical of the statement that the vivid magenta ink would 'burn out a 7800 head in six months "

I would be delighted to be sceptical too ( i have a few vivids that id like to use in the 7800 ! )
Will get in touch with Epson next week and ask them whats the big deal about not using vivid majenta in a 7800.

Promise to let you know what they say .
BTW..i meant to refer to diethylene glycol in my last post
Thanks
Logged
Blue moon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #875 on: November 05, 2012, 07:39:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I would be delighted to be sceptical too ( i have a few vivids that id like to use in the 7800 ! )
Will get in touch with Epson next week and ask them whats the big deal about not using vivid majenta in a 7800

Hi Alan
Promised i would let you know why one must not use vivid majenta in older printers which are not specially coated in the heads for the use of newer inks..said i would contact Epson....but located my thread on Joseph Holmes website instead..appears Epson wanted to sell the newer vivid inks to x800 people but decided that would not be wise...i can only assume Joseph got his info directly from Epson...i personally would simply not go against his advice anyway....will dump the vivid carts for safety reasons...
Back then to people using non-Epson inks....all kinds of cleaning solutions not endorsed by Epson..im baffled as to why they are any safer than say myself trying vivid inksets in a 7800 piezo head....confused...
Quote from Joseph Holmes enclosed


"A) New "ink repelling coating technology" on the surface to reduce head clogging and cleaning hassles, especially with linty or dusty papers (fine art papers of some kinds) and to make the new, more demanding inkset work. The heads are much the same as those in the Stylus® Pro 3800, but with this ink repelling coating added, in order to prevent the new inks from causing serious trouble. The new inks cannot safely be used in the earlier printer models. The Vivid Magenta is said to be especially problematic for heads without the ink repelling coating, and to completely ruin such a head within about six months of use. I'm assured that Epson would prefer to be able to offer this inkset as an upgrade to their customers who own the SP3800, 4800, 7800, and 9800 if they could. I am told that the net effect of the new head, together with the new inkset, is to substantially reduce clogging, compared with the SP4800, 7800 and 9800."
End of quote....
Thanks
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1573


WWW
« Reply #876 on: November 05, 2012, 12:03:14 PM »
ReplyReply

@Blue Moon - I'm still skeptical of the 'warning' not to use Vivid Magenta on x800 printers.  I don't think it's a matter of the chemistry of the new ink versus the old ink and somehow this burns out print heads but rather a more simple explanation in that Epson would have to come up with all new drivers for the x800 printers using Vivid Magenta instead of the older version since one would presume that there would be color shifts if the older driver would be used.  This would cause problems for Epson in that they now have to support two different drivers for the same printer and might cause headaches in terms of user support.  In addition, when the user makes the shift to Vivid Magenta, the ink line must be completely purged of the older ink in order to get the correct results another headache for Epson support.

I don't put much faith in second hand quotes.
Logged

Blue moon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #877 on: November 05, 2012, 05:21:24 PM »
ReplyReply

@Blue Moon - I'm still skeptical of the 'warning' not to use Vivid Magenta on x800 printers.  I don't think it's a matter of the chemistry of the new ink versus the old ink and somehow this burns out print heads but rather a more simple explanation in that Epson would have to come up with all new drivers for the x800 printers using Vivid Magenta instead of the older version since one would presume that there would be color shifts if the older driver would be used.  This would cause problems for Epson in that they now have to support two different drivers for the same printer and might cause headaches in terms of user support.  In addition, when the user makes the shift to Vivid Magenta, the ink line must be completely purged of the older ink in order to get the correct results another headache for Epson support.


You have just given me a second good reason not to try using newer inksets in an older printer...Epson,please be more upfront in future and just tell us as it is !


[quote ]
I don't put much faith in second hand quotes.
[/quote]

Good for you.I do if they come from Joseph Holme's website in particular or Joseph Holmes himself in person ..but i must admit i would be pretty selective in trusting almost  anyone elses quotes though (either first or second hand..)We cant be too careful .



Logged
Eric Gulbransen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 298


never surrender


WWW
« Reply #878 on: November 07, 2012, 11:02:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Word of advice - do not fly home to spend weeks with your family (when a hurricane named Sandy looms on the horizon).  No electricity, fuel, refrigerator, heat, internet, work, school or tv, can get stressful..  Smiley

I left for NY worried about our 7900 dying while I was away.  I should have worried about people dying instead.  Came home to find CY completely checked out and PK on it's way, but they both came back with no permanent damage.  We need a Holiday Mode.

...

OK people I have a perfectly good (clogged) 9900 head here, still in a machine with only 300 prints on it.  Been clogged for many months apparently.  Before I replace the head on it I'd like to experiment a bit by cleaning it like my genius buddy and I did to our 7900, only this time with something a little more potent than simply water.  With all this chemistry talk here lately I'd like to ask the noodles that be, what do we think is the best solution available for this experiment?  Epson 9900 head, Epson Ultrachrome HDR Ink. 

I do have two bottles of Epson cleaning solution (red and clear) which I got from HAL, but I have no idea what the solutions really are.  Bottles are unmarked.  So before I blindly use this solution, I ask the noodles that be..

Obviously I will share our results here in smashing fashion.

batter up!
Logged

Denniswcr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #879 on: November 07, 2012, 02:18:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Glad to see you home safe and sound Eric.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 42 43 [44] 45 46 ... 74 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad