Driver to drive?

On Saturday, 16 February 2019 15:43:21 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:35:09 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion but I'll stick with rechargeable cells. They
can be topped off. They can be tested for capacity. They can be
non-destructively characterized with a discharge tester. I can't do
any of these with a non-rechargeable cell such as LiFeS2.

Foolish. Rechargeables will never last 20 years.

My early 80s NiCds were mostly still find in 09. Whether current cells will last that well is a whole nother matter.


NT

 

tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote in
news:6363b123-669b-4064-8f26-7fa79b3daed2@googlegroups.com:

My early 80s NiCds were mostly still find in 09. Whether current
cells will last that well is a whole nother matter.

NiCds suck. Old(er) NiCds suck WAY worse.

Shame we can't do what we used to do to vac tubes to 'rejuvenate'
them.

Or like the little dessi-packs, just toss 'em in the oven and they'll
be right as rain (or lack thereof).

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 21:58:10 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:

Ebay is not a source. Yes, the batteries need tracability back to the
source. Perhaps you're used to working for a garage outfit but that
doesn't work in the real world.

Do you need ISO 9000/9001 traceability?

Can you approve multiple vendors and take your chances until the major
USA vendors get around to producing AAA 10440 LiFePO4 cells?

https://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm

That tells me nothing about the innards, nor does it guarantee that
the battery I buy today is the same one I buy five years from now.

Can you guarantee that the process and chemistry of ANY battery
vendors advanced products will never change? When LiIon was new, I
was watching small changes in the design every few months as the cells
matured. That's where LiFePO4 is now. You might find todays cells
unchanged 5 years from now, but I doubt it. For example, if in the
past, you had specified NiMH cells, only to have the superior LSD (low
self discharge) cells appear, you would be stuck with using the older
technology. If you really must have the battery design and
construction ossified for the life of your project, you might as well
specify something old and unlikely to change, such as NiMH LSD. Also,
consider writing the manuals in Latin, which is known not to have
changed much in 1,500 years.

26650s are easy. I can get them from a number of reliable sources.
AAAs, not so much.

Do you need to have your reliable sources supply ISO 9000/9001
certified products and paperwork?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 20:12:23 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 20:44:43 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:

There should be someone making LiFePO4 cells in AAA (10440) packages.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?414196-Looking-for-a-good-LiFePO4-AAA-battery-Any-suggestions
https://www.amazon.com/10450-260Mah-Lifepo4-Battery-Empty/dp/B071F9SF2Z
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=lifepo4+AAA+10440
https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/lifepo4-battery-aaa.html
More:
https://www.google.com/search?q=lifepo4+AAA+10440&oq=lifepo4+AAA+10440

I can't find any manufacturers who will admit to it.

I provide you 4 references to suppliers plus a Google search for
LiFePO4 AAA cells and you can't find a manufacturer? What are your
limitations? Do the batteries need to be made in USA? Local stocking
distributor? Pricing? Need built in protection?
I did some quick Googling and couldn't find LiFePO4 10440 AAA from
American vendors, so you're stuck with imports.

Ebay is not a source. Yes, the batteries need tracability back to the
source. Perhaps you're used to working for a garage outfit but that
doesn't work in the real world.

Who knows what they really are.

If you don't know what they really are, it is easy enough to measure
the terminal voltage. LiFePO4 has a lower terminal voltage than other
LiIon chemistries. Maximum charged is 3.6VDC. Don't go below 2.8VDC.
https://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm

That tells me nothing about the innards, nor does it guarantee that
the battery I buy today is the same one I buy five years from now.

Here's a little on how to identify variations on the LiFePO4
chemistries for 26650 cells from different manufactories:
https://www.powerstream.com/lithium-phosphate-charge-voltage.htm

Good luck and happy hunting.

26650s are easy. I can get them from a number of reliable sources.
AAAs, not so much.

 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 03:30:12 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 16 February 2019 15:43:21 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:35:09 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion but I'll stick with rechargeable cells. They
can be topped off. They can be tested for capacity. They can be
non-destructively characterized with a discharge tester. I can't do
any of these with a non-rechargeable cell such as LiFeS2.

Foolish. Rechargeables will never last 20 years.

My early 80s NiCds were mostly still find in 09. Whether current cells will last that well is a whole nother matter.

Capacity? I somehow doubt it.

 

On Friday, 22 February 2019 02:59:31 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 03:30:12 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 16 February 2019 15:43:21 UTC, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 22:35:09 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com
wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion but I'll stick with rechargeable cells. They
can be topped off. They can be tested for capacity. They can be
non-destructively characterized with a discharge tester. I can't do
any of these with a non-rechargeable cell such as LiFeS2.

Foolish. Rechargeables will never last 20 years.

My early 80s NiCds were mostly still find in 09. Whether current cells will last that well is a whole nother matter.

Capacity? I somehow doubt it.

They worked about as well as I expected them to runtimewise, but didn't measure the capacity to check it was still 450mAh. They were an assortment of various brands, so it wasn't a 1-off thing.


NT

 

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 19:34:37 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 21:58:10 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:

Ebay is not a source. Yes, the batteries need tracability back to the
source. Perhaps you're used to working for a garage outfit but that
doesn't work in the real world.

Do you need ISO 9000/9001 traceability?

No, I need manufacturing traceability - manufacturer, process,
manufacturing date, lot number. All that rot.

Can you approve multiple vendors and take your chances until the major
USA vendors get around to producing AAA 10440 LiFePO4 cells?

No. Only one manufacturer allowed. Everything has to be traced back
to that manufacturer and approved process. Multiple vendors will make
that impossible.

https://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm

That tells me nothing about the innards, nor does it guarantee that
the battery I buy today is the same one I buy five years from now.

Can you guarantee that the process and chemistry of ANY battery
vendors advanced products will never change? When LiIon was new, I
was watching small changes in the design every few months as the cells
matured. That's where LiFePO4 is now. You might find todays cells
unchanged 5 years from now, but I doubt it. For example, if in the
past, you had specified NiMH cells, only to have the superior LSD (low
self discharge) cells appear, you would be stuck with using the older
technology. If you really must have the battery design and
construction ossified for the life of your project, you might as well
specify something old and unlikely to change, such as NiMH LSD. Also,
consider writing the manuals in Latin, which is known not to have
changed much in 1,500 years.

The manufacturer has to guarantee that it won't change for the life of
the program, without adequate notice and consent. It's part of the
deal.

26650s are easy. I can get them from a number of reliable sources.
AAAs, not so much.

Do you need to have your reliable sources supply ISO 9000/9001
certified products and paperwork?

Only suckers believe ISO9K does something useful. No, the paperwork
that's necessary will make that look like Chinese CE paperwork (that's
all it is).

 

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 11:27:54 -0600, John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote:

None of the alkaline cells I've bought have lasted that long and
usually leak in the box or in the instrument long before 10 years has
passed.

IME, they don't leak unless they're used. I've never seen one leak in
its packaging.


I have. More than once and after less than 3 years.

I bought an 8 pack of AA alkaline batteries and put them in my outdoor
shed. Far too often the power goes out in that shed from power tools. I
always keep a flashlight in there, on the wall. But half the time that
flashlight has dead batteries. So I put that 8 pack of batteries on the
wall right next to the flashlight. It was hanging there, in the store
package for about 3 years. Recently I noticed the whole package was full
of white powder. The batteries were junk.

Just last week I bought a brand new LED headlamp (flashlight for my
head). It came with 3 AAA batteries. I turned it on when i got home, and
it did not work. I opened the battery compartment and all three
batteries were corroded. (Those were the "heavy duty" (not alkaline)
type. Right from the store, the batteries were corroded.

 

[Neon John]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 23:56:45 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:

The manufacturer has to guarantee that it won't change for the life of
the program, without adequate notice and consent. It's part of the
deal.

Until last July when bad health caused me to sell off the company and
retire, I was the CEO and majority stockholder of Tnduction, Inc, a
company which manufactured small and medium sized induction heaters.

In that capacity I can tell you that your demand doesn't have the
chance of a fart in a whirlwind of happening without some very major
money swapping hands.

Every time I developed a more reliable or more efficient design, after
suitable testing, that design went into production immediately.
Usually with no notification and no model change. If the output
terminals behavior changed much, perhaps add an "A" or "B" to the
model year.

Much of our production was OEMed to other manufacturers. If I had one
make that kind of demand, especially if he wasn't buying 10k units a
year, he would pay for:

duplicating the production line
Renting or buying space for said duplication.
Have a guaranteed minimum purchase with perhaps a 50% deposit.
Pay for the procurement of components likely to be EOL'd in sufficient
quantity to make your minimum quantity commitment.

I'd discuss it with the executive committee and the board but I think
we'd require the entire purchase be paid-in-whole up front and
delivery taken of the entire batch just as fast as we could make them.

The alternative would be for us to charge you an IP maintenance fee to
maintain a reservoir of knowledge of the old technology.

That is, if we would accept your order at all. You are the second
worst customer, the first being one that does not pay. We sold
everything we made so fooling with someone whose design is so fragile
that it can't withstand minor changes in battery technology just isn't
worth it.

You really do need to have a competent design engineer review and
improve your design.

John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 18:42:11 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 23:56:45 -0500, krw@notreal.com wrote:


The manufacturer has to guarantee that it won't change for the life of
the program, without adequate notice and consent. It's part of the
deal.

Until last July when bad health caused me to sell off the company and
retire, I was the CEO and majority stockholder of Tnduction, Inc, a
company which manufactured small and medium sized induction heaters.

In that capacity I can tell you that your demand doesn't have the
chance of a fart in a whirlwind of happening without some very major
money swapping hands.

There is a *lot* of money changing hands. They don't live up to their
contract and forget more business.

Every time I developed a more reliable or more efficient design, after
suitable testing, that design went into production immediately.
Usually with no notification and no model change. If the output
terminals behavior changed much, perhaps add an "A" or "B" to the
model year.

So you were out of control. That may be OK in your market but it
doesn't fly in others.

Much of our production was OEMed to other manufacturers. If I had one
make that kind of demand, especially if he wasn't buying 10k units a
year, he would pay for:

duplicating the production line
Renting or buying space for said duplication.
Have a guaranteed minimum purchase with perhaps a 50% deposit.
Pay for the procurement of components likely to be EOL'd in sufficient
quantity to make your minimum quantity commitment.

I'd discuss it with the executive committee and the board but I think
we'd require the entire purchase be paid-in-whole up front and
delivery taken of the entire batch just as fast as we could make them.

The alternative would be for us to charge you an IP maintenance fee to
maintain a reservoir of knowledge of the old technology.

That is, if we would accept your order at all. You are the second
worst customer, the first being one that does not pay. We sold
everything we made so fooling with someone whose design is so fragile
that it can't withstand minor changes in battery technology just isn't
worth it.

IOW, you haven't a clue.

You really do need to have a competent design engineer review and
improve your design.

Yes, and you have to follow the contract you sign with your customers
and that requires a similar contract with your suppliers. It's not
unusual at all.

John
John DeArmond
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.tnduction.com
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
See website for email address

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:02:55 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, 7 March 2019 22:39:38 UTC, VanguardLH wrote:

I'm curious. Why do you want and old, used, and worn but working
printer when you could get a new one and probebly with more features?
What does buying an unsupported and used printer get you that you cannot
get with a new printer?

lack of watermarking


NT

Good for counterfeiting or printing threatening letters. Be careful
about postmarks and fingerprints and DNA and your mother seeing what
you're doing.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Thursday, 7 March 2019 22:39:38 UTC, VanguardLH wrote:

I'm curious. Why do you want and old, used, and worn but working
printer when you could get a new one and probebly with more features?
What does buying an unsupported and used printer get you that you cannot
get with a new printer?

lack of watermarking


NT

 

On Sunday, 10 March 2019 10:51:32 UTC, Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 13:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

snip

You guys all claim to be so smart. The entire jet printer/ink
cartridge 'industry' is a fucking wallet suck scam.

Yet, even after they have become cheap, you are still using jet
printers instead of laser?

You guys ain't all that bright.

That is incorrect, inkjets are way cheaper. Recently german magazine
c't tested black-white multifunction (which can copy too) printers
for
the office. 7 less expensive laserprinters (185 to 410 euro) were
compared with one of the large tank inkjet printers, the Epson
ET-M2140 . See
https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Schwarzweissdruck-fuers-Buero-
Toner-oder-Tinte-4296937.html for a short announcement (in German,
use DeepL to translate).

The result:
Toner/ink coste per ISO page: Epson 0.28 eurocent, the cheapest laser
(Xerox Workplace 3335W/DW) 1.84 cent. all others 2.8 to 4.1 cents.

Anyone paying 1.84 cents a page isn't even trying.
Don't forget with inkjets especially the machine cost per page too.

Power consumption while printing: Epson 16W, all laser > 400W.
Power consumption in standby: Most around 5-6W, the Xerox 43W , a
Ricoh 34 W.
Power consumption in sleep mode: 1-2 W, exept the Xerox: 8 W.

lasers use a lot more power, but the cost of it is trivial per page.
And those sleep powers are out of date.

Emissions: none for the Epson, all for the lasers.

Photo print: no contest, the Epson is street lengths ahead.

inkjets have an advantage there. If you want the best photo quality, wax printers are pricey.

Text print: the Canon, Hp and Xerox were very good, other lasers less
so, the Epson was comparable, one laser was worse than the Epson.

What text quality problems did you/they have?

Copy quality: most lasers were better than the Epson for text, except
the Xerox. For photos and graphic the Epson was far ahead.

Speed in pages/minute. normal quality: prettey much the same for all.
Time to first page: Epson fastest, Xerox slowest.

no way, lasers way outpace inkjet. If the report claims the same for all, what does that say about the rest of the report?

Recommended monthly print volume (the maximum is much higher): Epson
800, lasers 2 to 5 times that.

You can get any quantity you want with lasers, up until it becomes cheaper to use etched drum printing. Machine cost varies hugely with throughput.

There are more things to consider, e.g. a laser printout is much more
resistant than most inkjets except Epson, might be an issue for legal
documents, but as far as costs is concerned, there is no competition:
high-volume inkjets are way ahead.

that's not reality at all.

If color is desired, Canon's G4511
is also a high-volume inkjet with very low ink cost/page, but slow
(although it copies black/white text pages faster than the Epson).
But it will do a decent color photo.

Mat Nieuwenhoven

Something's not right with that report. It's comparing low end lasers with a relatively high end inkjet. Hmm. Lasers can do under 0.28c per page with good 3rd party supplies.


NT

 

On Friday, 8 March 2019 22:31:16 UTC, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2019-03-08, Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote:
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in
news:G%7gE.11799$8K6.6595@fx28.iad:

VanguardLH wrote:
Robert Baer wrote:

I am interested in obtaining a working Canon BJC printer, series
4000 preferred. Please contact me if you can help.

Found one listed at eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Cannon-BJC-4000-bubble-jet-
printer/323685
396629?hash=item4b5d273095:g:j~UAAOSw8a9cMtYJ

Found one listed at Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-BJC-4300-Printer-capacity-
Parallel/dp
/B0000C7938/ref=sr_1_1?crid=UPYJ3YORYHYN&keywords=canon+bjc-4300
+p
rinter&qid=1551845714&s=gateway&sprefix=canon+bjc+4%2Caps%2C166
&sr
=8-1

First contact the sellers to make sure they are selling a working
*printer* and not a non-working printer for parts.

Thanks.

The Amazon listing clearly states "for parts". At the price
requested, that is a no-go.
Ebay listing said it was functional when taken offline, but not
(recently) tested. Seller gives NO warrantee and refuses return.
Furthermore shipping is $50, and the e-Bay "moneyback guarantee"
is less useful that mammary appendages on a boar hog of male
persuasion.

From personal experiences, e-bay is less trustworthy than Miz
Clinton.


You guys all claim to be so smart. The entire jet printer/ink
cartridge 'industry' is a fucking wallet suck scam.

Yet, even after they have become cheap, you are still using jet
printers instead of laser?

You guys ain't all that bright.

Really? When refill ink is cheap and the cartridges last years.
Those powder boxes are nowhere as inexpensive.
So, who is un-bright, eh?

Both can be refilled, even the ink ribbons for impact printers can be
re-inked but refilling is almost-always messy. the stuff that leaves a
mark leaves a mess. Such is the nature of physical graphics.

Drill a hole in the top of the ribbon cart, 5-6mm or so I think it was. Countersink the hole edges. Glue a very small funnel over it made from plastic from the kitchen bin. Now all you do is add ink while it's printing, but.... how did we get it to ink evenly? I think there was a pad put inside the cart, but I don't remember how it was set up. Probably the funnel inked the pad, and the ribbon was arranged with a plastic spring to rub the pad as it passed.

I remember using a clearance batch of printer's ink plus paraffin. There was no mess. Alcohol based ink was more popular, but it dried too fast for my liking. Paraffin was jsut right.


NT

 

On Friday, 8 March 2019 15:18:49 UTC, VanguardLH wrote:

Robert Baer wrote:

I have a number of ink cartridges for the BC 4100; cartridges for the
newer printers are as expensive or more and AFAIK cannot be refilled.
Furthermore,one cannot do a DOS print (you know, COPY TextFile.TXT
LPT1.
Oh,yes..a number of those fancy printers do not work if the color
cartridge is missing or empty.

If you don't want to pay for shipping, you're stuck looking for a local
seller -- and it highly unlikely anyone in Usenet will be within 30
miles of your location and with a working Canon BJC 4xxx printer and who
will guarantee its functionality.

If online local sales/auction sites don't pan out, you might have
salvage or refurbish or recycling centers for electronics or computers
that might have the old printer. I've found swap meets are mostly for
foraging for old junk that you might utilize but not if you are looking
for something specific. Even if you don't find what you want on the
online auction sites, some let you advertise as "wanted", like
Craigslist; i.e., you post as a buyer trying to find a seller. I've
never posted "wanted" ads at Craigslist, so I have no clue as to how
successful those are.

I doubt the Canon cartridges are usable in only 1 or 2 models of their
printers. Have you done the reverse by looking up the cartridges to see
in which models they fit? After finding the model number of the
cartridges for the BCJ-4100, look up the cartridge models to see in what
printers they fit. For example, in a Google search on "canon bjc-4100
cartridge", I found:

https://www.4inkjets.com/Canon-BJC-4100-printer-ink-cartridges-toner
(never bought from there, just the 1st hit in the search)

That listed the Canon BCI121Bk black cartridge. I then clicked on the
link to the cartridge which took me to:

https://www.4inkjets.com/BCI21B-Canon-Ink-Cartridge-Black-Compatible

In their web page for that product, they have a slew (30) of compatible
printers listed. I never keep a large inventory of spare inkjet
cartridges because they go bad over time, and I replace them at about
1-year intervals because I do so little printing. I only keep 1 set
(black + color) on hand for immediate swapping when the current set gets
empty. I don't know how many is "a number"; however, looks like you can
use them in more than just the BJC-4100 printer.

Back when we had Canon inkjets they made cartridges under other numbers for other models that would also fit the printers we had. But they didn't list them as fitting them


NT

 

On Friday, 8 March 2019 12:14:48 UTC, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> wrote in news:I6pgE.52473
$1d.41824@fx11.iad:

Really?

Yes.

When refill ink is cheap

Come back when refill ink is cheap, because right now it is not.

and the cartridges last years.

You must be trolling. The cartridges do not last for years, and
the jet nozzles even get clogged.

Those powder boxes are nowhere as inexpensive.

Yer an idiot. I can get thousands of print jobs from one laser
cartridge. I am certain that you do not get such a print job count
from an ink cartridge. The only jet printers doing that are the
large format jobs that cost thousands of dollars.


So, who is un-bright, eh?

un-bright? Ummm... You, child. You failed to think it through.

Oh and then there is that fade issue too. Jet printers lose their
color corretness 10 seconds after the print job finishes and from
there forward it is an ever changing color gamut on the paper from
one day to the next. Zero color fixation quality.

Consumables cost varies hugely depending on what you buy. I used to get bags of inkjet refills for 20p - 33p a box, and each box did at least 2 refills, so about 6-10 refills for a buck. They were refills for obsolete models, of course the ink worked fine on lots of other machines too. Last time we bought laser toner it was a sackful, if you use enough of it it's far cheaper than any inkjet.

Back when I ran dot matrices & daisy wheel I got a suitcase of ribbons for obsolete models for nowt - many fitted what I was using once rewound. Also fitted reinkers & used paraffin & oil based ink, but learnt not to push that one too far, eventually the ribbon wears to the point that it trashes the print head. 24pin are much less robust than 9 pin.

Even for low volume users, the big downside of inkjet is reliability, the lack thereof. Yes they run for a while, but by the time I got rid of the last one I'd really had enough. Never again.

Oh, you can also make your own inkjet ink. IIRC water, alcohol & 100% dye powder for most machines. You won't get anywhere near colour matching that way, but it's fine for many non-photo jobs. Violet ink is cheapest but fades severely due to light. The general rule of thumb when making black or brown is to mix differing dye colours to get best density for a fraction of the cost of just black or brown dye.


NT

 

tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote in news:30af874f-1d57-4624-b948-
f817beefe28d@googlegroups.com:

12,000 ppi is more than enough for any sane purpose.

who has made that claim?

That is higher count than image arrays in cameras.

I don't think so. The paper surface quality and absorption alone
(even on the best stock) would not allow that level.

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 16:14:20 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

Good for counterfeiting or printing threatening letters. Be careful
about postmarks and fingerprints and DNA and your mother seeing what
you're doing.

ISTR there was some printer manufacturer that uniquely marked every sheet
with a few single yellow pixels dotted around. You wouldn't notice them
unless you were specifically looking. Not quite sure what the idea behind
it was except in very general terms.



--
This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via
the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other
protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of
GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet
protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

 

On Sunday, 10 March 2019 20:50:01 UTC, Mat Nieuwenhoven wrote:

On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:51:17 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
"Mat Nieuwenhoven" <mnieuw@zap.a2000.nl> wrote in
news:zavrhjmncnay.po5thp1.pminews@news.aioe.org:
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 13:30:24 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

snip

You guys all claim to be so smart. The entire jet printer/ink
cartridge 'industry' is a fucking wallet suck scam.

Yet, even after they have become cheap, you are still using jet
printers instead of laser?

You guys ain't all that bright.

That is incorrect, inkjets are way cheaper.

This simply is not true. The printers are a mere couple hundred,
but the refills will get you and their longevity is the killer.

The test compared office printers, with copy/scan possibility. The
Epson is about 10 times cheaper on ink then the lasers on toner, per
ISO page test. I've given the number below, the refills are exactly
what the inkjets make much cheaper. Epson's ink refill is for 6000
pages, plus maintenances kit 30.000 pages. Costs 0,28 ct/page. Xerox
toner refill XXL cartridge is 15.000 pages, drum 30.000 pages. Costs
1,84 ct/page (with one of the smaller cartridges it gets more
expensive). The HP laser in the test (MFP-M148fdw) biggest cartridge
lasts 2800 pages, photodrum 23.000, costs total 3,55 ct/page. If you
claim otherwise, show me the (tested) numbers.

So one of the biggest inkjets around compared to the tiniest lowest duty laser printer they could find. I smell something from a male cow there.

what do you think HP spends more time on? Their laser printer
line or their jet printer line?

Real businesses buy and use laser because it is more reliable more
color accurate and usually quicker on the job too. The colors
remain longer and the cartridges print more pages before requiring
replacement.

Color lasers are much more expensive. More reliable? Where do you get
that from? Details please. And lasers are a poor substitute for
printing color photos compares to inkjet. Laser simply cannot mix the
various colors so good as inkjets, quite apart from the much higher
photo resolution of inkjets.

12,000 ppi is more than enough for any sane purpose.

They are somewhat quicker, in test a 100 page PDF took 5:15 on the
Xerox, and 5:42 on the Epson. The quickest laser was the Kyocera
Ecosys M2135dn in 3:00 minutes, but its photo print quality is
atrocious.

So they're comparing photo quality with a laser document printer that doesn't even do colour. You've gotta laugh.

Recently german
magazine c't tested black-white multifunction (which can copy too)
printers for
the office.

(there are multi-function laser printers too)
Of course, these were the ones tested. They were all multifunction
devices.

7 less expensive laserprinters (185 to 410 euro) were
compared with one of the large tank inkjet printers, the Epson
ET-M2140 .

Oh boy! "Large tank" Wow! I am impressed! Does the box also
say "New and Improved!"?
Large tank = 6000 pages, more than 6 of the 7 lasers. Only the
Xerox's expensive XXL cartridge did more. Two other large tank
printers (in another c't test) also did 6000 pages/refill. You should
be impressed, they beat most lasers.


See
https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Schwarzweissdruck-fuers-
Bue
ro- Toner-oder-Tinte-4296937.html for a short announcement (in
German, use DeepL to translate).

The result:
Toner/ink coste per ISO page: Epson 0.28 eurocent, the cheapest
laser (Xerox Workplace 3335W/DW) 1.84 cent. all others 2.8 to 4.1
cents.

That is not the cheapest laser here. And sorry, but they fail to
weigh in time. If I have to publish a report to 200 hundred work
associates, the laser will floor the jet printer on getting the job
done, and yes, time is money, so without factoring that in, the
german magazine's experiment yields false cost numbers.

They tested multifunction devices, which allow copying too. I'm sure
there are cheaper lasers for just printing.
Printing is not much slower in the Epson, it slows a little more
compared to lasers when printing duplex. That the Epson does at 10
(duplex) pages/min, the HP (fastest in this test) at 16. The other
tested printers from 13.5 to 15.8 . The difference is there, but not
big.

Power consumption while printing: Epson 16W, all laser > 400W.
Power consumption in standby: Most around 5-6W, the Xerox 43W , a
Ricoh 34 W.
Power consumption in sleep mode: 1-2 W, exept the Xerox: 8 W.

Emissions: none for the Epson, all for the lasers.

Emissions? Big deal.
Come again? They are a big deal, if an office cares for its
personnel. Laser and laser/based copiers should be in rooms, well
ventilated, separate from where people work.

nonsense

Idle current? I can leave my laser OFF
untill I need it, and the idle current on HPs are not the same as
their Xerox candidate. Points toward a jet biased article.

The idle current on the tested HP was 3.9 W, slightly less than the
Epson's 4.3 W.
In sleep mode the Epson wins from all 7 lasers.
Yes, you can leave you Xerox off, but then it takes 61 seconds to the
first page. The Epson 14. In the 47 seconds difference the Epson will
have printed 17 pages before the first pages comes out of the Xerox.
And because the Xerox is 4.3 pages/minute faster, it will take very
close to 4 minutes before it catches up. So for >102 pages the Xerox
is quicker. And needs 550 W for this, the Epson 16 W.

Yes. So what. If you're in that much of a hurry and can't afford the standby power, your business practices are in a vanishingly small minority.

Photo print: no contest, the Epson is street lengths ahead.

Sure... five minutes later... different color.

A A4 photo copy on a laser takes 9-21 seconds, on the Epson 44.
Slower yes, but very much better quality.

Inkjets look nice enough until they deteriorate. Ditto lasers.

Epson? Bwuahahahah! It uses half an ink cartridge clearing its
fixed on the printer jet nozzles. I'd go with HP's new jets with
each cartridge model.

Text print: the Canon, Hp and Xerox were very good, other lasers
less so, the Epson was comparable, one laser was worse than the
Epson.

Copy quality: most lasers were better than the Epson for text,
except the Xerox. For photos and graphic the Epson was far ahead.
\
Likely a setting on scan resolution that was overlooked. Many of
them use the same print engine still?

Nothing to do with scan settings. It is a limitation of the print
engine. The laser print engines cannot match resolution and ink drop
mixing of a inkjet.

I don't buy it. Some inkjets can do reduced intensity dots, good for photos, but resolution-wise lasers do more than any sane user needs.

Speed in pages/minute. normal quality: prettey much the same for
all. Time to first page: Epson fastest, Xerox slowest.

Nice job of using Xerox for the test when HP lasers win.
HP was also tested, when in standby mode the Epson was 1 seond faster
than the HP to the first page. Where do you see that the HP was
faster?

Recommended monthly print volume (the maximum is much higher):
Epson 800, lasers 2 to 5 times that.

Read "That should tell you something about the (false)print speed
claim."

What has print speed to do with recommended print volume?

Try a bulk print on a dot matrix, then you'll know.

800
recommended per month is to protect the print engine. If the Epson
printed full speed all month, it would do over 900.000 pages/month.

the whole printer mechanism is only rated to do so much a month.

There are more things to consider, e.g. a laser printout is much
more resistant than most inkjets except Epson, might be an issue
for legal documents, but as far as costs is concerned, there is no
competition: high-volume inkjets are way ahead.

Yeah, those "big tank", large format drafting printers.

Home printers for the consumer market? Hardly.

These were not home printers, but for office use, as I stated in the
beginning of my first reply. Did you actually read that? Large tank
inkjet printers for A4. If you looked up some of the models numbers
I've given, you'd know it.

If color is
desired, Canon's G4511 is also a high-volume inkjet with very low
ink cost/page, but slow (although it copies black/white text pages
faster than the Epson). But it will do a decent color photo.

Sure... for the five minutes it will last... then it becomes a
lesson in slow fade.

You are way behind the times. Epson uses pigment (paint) based inks,
which last very long, even under UV testing. Canon on its consumer
printers uses pigment based ink only for single sided text, the rest
is dye ink.But even that does not fade much on proper paper, but more
than the Epson.

Dyes fade, there's no way around that. Some worse than others - violet severely.

I do not know what the black ink on Canon's large
tank A4 multifunction is. 3rd party ink is almost always much worse
in this fading aspect. I have many pages printed with inkjets more
than a decade ago, that are as new, and don't glue together or to the
binder which laser printed pages do.

probably because they've not seen light. A decade is no sweat for lasers even in full sunlight.

I'm not saying inkjets are soon replacing lasers, but as far as
cost/page is concerned, there is no competition: inkjets are _much_
cheaper. And I've supported my arguments with verifiable data, which
you have not done, so far.

Mat Nieuwenhoven

Your report is questionable & some of the figures are off.


NT

 

tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote in
news:82c6f2ee-55f3-4894-99f0-525d384e59b7@googlegroups.com:

The result:
Toner/ink coste per ISO page: Epson 0.28 eurocent, the cheapest
laser (Xerox Workplace 3335W/DW) 1.84 cent. all others 2.8 to 4.1
cents.

Anyone paying 1.84 cents a page isn't even trying.
Don't forget with inkjets especially the machine cost per page
too.

A quarter of a penny or two cents. Wow... big whoop. I'll take the
better quality and higher longevity any day.

I pay for better coffee too.