Driver to drive?

On Saturday, 16 March 2019 13:22:55 UTC, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 06/03/2019 01:54, Robert Baer wrote:
  I am interested in obtaining a working Canon BJC printer, series 4000
preferred.
  Please contact me if you can help.

  Thanks.
R. Baer
I have a Cannon BJ-10ex here (South West Scotland).
Hasn't been used for very many years - not tested.

Free any time you're passing by.

MK

The chance of that ever working again is probably negative


NT
 
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 00:35:52 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics
 
On Monday, 18 March 2019 00:28:35 UTC, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
tabbypurr 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.

Just realised I mistyped - should be 1200 dpi :)


NT
 
On Thursday, March 7, 2019 at 7:19:55 AM UTC-5, Robert Baer wrote:
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/323685396629?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+printer&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.

Actually the eBay warranty is pretty good. As long as you do what you need to do within the time periods, getting your money back is pretty much assured. If that fails disputing via the credit card is still an option. The only time I've not gotten satisfaction is when I miss the time limits.

In particular, a laptop I bought which had an over heating problem and they initially offer a refund or something off the purchase price. I wanted to try opening the machine to see if I needed but never did. By the time I asked for the $60 refund they no longer replied and a few days later the eBay 60 days were up. So I contacted the credit card company and ended up getting ALL my money back.

That said, I would not buy a device described this way, not tested and not warrantied. Move on to another purchase. There's always another one out there on eBay even if you need to wait a few days.

Rick C.
 
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
"used printer" -- buy a new printer and the next day it is used ..
and therefore to be rejected maligned, replaced?

My Canon BJC-4100 has given maybe 10 years of service and obviously
is used.

It mechanically broke down and is too expensive to be fixed.
It uses ink cartridges that (new) are as expensive as those for the
modern inkjets.
However, the older technology cartridges are easily refillable, and
do not have reporting chips to interfere with simple replace-and-go.
Also, off-brand (and older technology) cartridges last many years.

I also have a Canon Pixma MP280 which cost an outrageous $10.00; a
"multi function" beast.
The only almost decent function is printing.
The "almost" is due to the BS fact of the "warning: Prevent printer
abrasion is set" message every time one wants to print.
The pain-in-the-neck function is the scan (copy part slightly better)
function.
It is a lot like Win7,in that it likes to hide where the images go -
but worse in that it seems impossible to move/copy them.
And the format is not standard or nominally recognizable; it was so
bad that i gave up and do not use the scan function at all.
Have a Mustek USB-1200 scanner that works with ZERO hassle in Win2K
thru WinXP and works faster.

"More features" does not necessarily mean "more useful"; the Pixma
proves that "more features" will likely mean "you cannot use the extra
stuff in an easy and hassle-free manner" and may mean "you have to go
thru more hassle to do standard desirable stuff".

It is bad enough to have a printer tied to the USB port - one cannot
do a COPY <file> LPT1:,it is worse with WiFi fighting neighbor stronger
signal interference, and cell phone interference too.

Dammit, i want my Model T, it can be fixed using the tools that came
with it; i do not need a PHD, a fancy lab and a raft of techs spanning
5-6 technologies to fix the new junk that falls apart when i lean on the
fender.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
Cursitor Doom wrote:
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.
That hidden code was/is there to uniquely identify the printer, and
could be used for tracing counterfeiters, etc.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
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
Well, if all one cares about is PRINTING, then make a stencil and use
the old, original Rex Rotary offset duplicator.
With extra inking rollers, one can switch colors in minutes to
produce a colorful fanzine.
And with a little care, one can easily get a few thousand copies per
stencil.
Organize stencils for titles, cartoons-in-middle of text as you see fit.
A little care, and one can produce a page with quality close to
professional printing.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
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
For some dot-matrix printers, there was an add-on that used an inked
wheel.
A bit tricky,keep wheel not-too-wet and not dry.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
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
Yea..even 5 years ago,when there was some sites that could be used
for cross-reference (cartridges VS printers), such cross-reference inf
was incomplete; worse now.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019 05:23:41 UTC, Spare Change wrote:
It's a TS-1000-124A, a "true sine", 120VAC 1000W output, 24VDC input:

https://www.meanwell.com/webapp/product/search.aspx?prod=TS-1000

I'm looking for a schematic of this or other Meanwell sine inverter.

Anyone familiar with how similar these Meanwell sine inverter input voltage
stages are (rectification & input to the "chopper")? Would a 24VDC unit work
on 12VDC? Or might these boards be made for several DC voltages and populate
(or not) certain components?

I don't have the unit but am contemplating that it may somehow be useful on
12v, maybe derated.
The data sheet states that the under-voltage shutdown for the 24V
model is at 21V +/- 4%. The de-rating graph indicates that the maximum
load is reduced by 20% at 21V.
So it is very unlikely that it will be useful at 12V, even if modified
to bypass the under-voltage shutdown.

John
 
On Monday, 18 March 2019 18:42:01 UTC, Robert Baer wrote:
tabbypurr 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

"used printer" -- buy a new printer and the next day it is used ..
and therefore to be rejected maligned, replaced?

My Canon BJC-4100 has given maybe 10 years of service and obviously
is used.

It mechanically broke down and is too expensive to be fixed.
It uses ink cartridges that (new) are as expensive as those for the
modern inkjets.
However, the older technology cartridges are easily refillable, and
do not have reporting chips to interfere with simple replace-and-go.
Also, off-brand (and older technology) cartridges last many years.

I also have a Canon Pixma MP280 which cost an outrageous $10.00; a
"multi function" beast.
The only almost decent function is printing.
The "almost" is due to the BS fact of the "warning: Prevent printer
abrasion is set" message every time one wants to print.
The pain-in-the-neck function is the scan (copy part slightly better)
function.
It is a lot like Win7,in that it likes to hide where the images go -
but worse in that it seems impossible to move/copy them.
And the format is not standard or nominally recognizable; it was so
bad that i gave up and do not use the scan function at all.
Have a Mustek USB-1200 scanner that works with ZERO hassle in Win2K
thru WinXP and works faster.

"More features" does not necessarily mean "more useful"; the Pixma
proves that "more features" will likely mean "you cannot use the extra
stuff in an easy and hassle-free manner" and may mean "you have to go
thru more hassle to do standard desirable stuff".

It is bad enough to have a printer tied to the USB port - one cannot
do a COPY <file> LPT1:,it is worse with WiFi fighting neighbor stronger
signal interference, and cell phone interference too.

Dammit, i want my Model T, it can be fixed using the tools that came
with it; i do not need a PHD, a fancy lab and a raft of techs spanning
5-6 technologies to fix the new junk that falls apart when i lean on the
fender.

Feature-overloaded junk will keep being made & sold as long as there are people that are drawn to buy it. That's their concern, but when it takes over the whole market it becomes my concern.


NT
 
On Monday, 18 March 2019 19:06:26 UTC, Robert Baer wrote:

Well, if all one cares about is PRINTING, then make a stencil and use
the old, original Rex Rotary offset duplicator.
With extra inking rollers, one can switch colors in minutes to
produce a colorful fanzine.
And with a little care, one can easily get a few thousand copies per
stencil.
Organize stencils for titles, cartoons-in-middle of text as you see fit.
A little care, and one can produce a page with quality close to
professional printing.

I never investigated those due to their usually abysmal quality. How do you get them to print decently?


NT
 
On 19/03/2019 13:08, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, 18 March 2019 19:06:26 UTC, Robert Baer wrote:

Well, if all one cares about is PRINTING, then make a stencil and
use the old, original Rex Rotary offset duplicator. With extra
inking rollers, one can switch colors in minutes to produce a
colorful fanzine. And with a little care, one can easily get a few
thousand copies per stencil. Organize stencils for titles,
cartoons-in-middle of text as you see fit. A little care, and one
can produce a page with quality close to professional printing.

I never investigated those due to their usually abysmal quality. How
do you get them to print decently?

With extreme difficulty and a lot of annual maintenance. It also helps
to have a tame touch typist who never makes any mistakes for cutting
stencils. We used to do our annual astronomy magazine that way.

As for the dreaded aniline purple Roneo spirit duplicator they were the
invention of the devil. The prints are not light stable either.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On 18/03/2019 01:14, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 16 March 2019 13:22:55 UTC, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 06/03/2019 01:54, Robert Baer wrote:
  I am interested in obtaining a working Canon BJC printer, series 4000
preferred.
  Please contact me if you can help.

  Thanks.
R. Baer
I have a Cannon BJ-10ex here (South West Scotland).
Hasn't been used for very many years - not tested.

Free any time you're passing by.

MK

The chance of that ever working again is probably negative


NT

Now there's a problem for you.

A zero(%) chance means never - but what is a -50% chance ?

A 0.1% chance is not often, but what about -0.1% ?

And if it's only probably negative ........

MK

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
 
On 19/03/2019 14:05, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019 13:13:38 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/03/2019 13:08, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 18 March 2019 19:06:26 UTC, Robert Baer wrote:

Well, if all one cares about is PRINTING, then make a stencil and
use the old, original Rex Rotary offset duplicator. With extra
inking rollers, one can switch colors in minutes to produce a
colorful fanzine. And with a little care, one can easily get a few
thousand copies per stencil. Organize stencils for titles,
cartoons-in-middle of text as you see fit. A little care, and one
can produce a page with quality close to professional printing.

I never investigated those due to their usually abysmal quality. How
do you get them to print decently?

With extreme difficulty and a lot of annual maintenance.

I guess you're not going to tell me.

It is 1970's technology. No-one would use it today.
It also helps
to have a tame touch typist who never makes any mistakes for cutting
stencils. We used to do our annual astronomy magazine that way.

As for the dreaded aniline purple Roneo spirit duplicator they were the
invention of the devil. The prints are not light stable either.

Violet isn't light stable, other colours are relatively good.

It was by far the most commonly used.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019 13:13:38 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/03/2019 13:08, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 18 March 2019 19:06:26 UTC, Robert Baer wrote:

Well, if all one cares about is PRINTING, then make a stencil and
use the old, original Rex Rotary offset duplicator. With extra
inking rollers, one can switch colors in minutes to produce a
colorful fanzine. And with a little care, one can easily get a few
thousand copies per stencil. Organize stencils for titles,
cartoons-in-middle of text as you see fit. A little care, and one
can produce a page with quality close to professional printing.

I never investigated those due to their usually abysmal quality. How
do you get them to print decently?

With extreme difficulty and a lot of annual maintenance.

I guess you're not going to tell me.

It also helps
to have a tame touch typist who never makes any mistakes for cutting
stencils. We used to do our annual astronomy magazine that way.

As for the dreaded aniline purple Roneo spirit duplicator they were the
invention of the devil. The prints are not light stable either.

Violet isn't light stable, other colours are relatively good.


NT
 
tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote in
news:4a2658d3-40f1-4191-ab73-8435f8926a8b@googlegroups.com:

Feature-overloaded junk will keep being made & sold as long as
there are people that are drawn to buy it. That's their concern,
but when it takes over the whole market it becomes my concern.

Pro office lasers are not feature ridled or feature driven. They are
output driven. So we see large paper drawers and collation assemblies,
etc. as "features".
 
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019 14:13:55 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/03/2019 14:05, tabbypurr wrote:
On Tuesday, 19 March 2019 13:13:38 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/03/2019 13:08, tabbypurr wrote:
On Monday, 18 March 2019 19:06:26 UTC, Robert Baer wrote:

Well, if all one cares about is PRINTING, then make a stencil and
use the old, original Rex Rotary offset duplicator. With extra
inking rollers, one can switch colors in minutes to produce a
colorful fanzine. And with a little care, one can easily get a few
thousand copies per stencil. Organize stencils for titles,
cartoons-in-middle of text as you see fit. A little care, and one
can produce a page with quality close to professional printing.

I never investigated those due to their usually abysmal quality. How
do you get them to print decently?

With extreme difficulty and a lot of annual maintenance.

I guess you're not going to tell me.

It is 1970's technology. No-one would use it today.

Loads of people still use such stuff. We might even try it if it could give fair print quality.


NT
 
In article <q6qptt$v12$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

As for the dreaded aniline purple Roneo spirit duplicator they were the
invention of the devil. The prints are not light stable either.

I'm not sure I agree. The devil has a reputation for being both
subtle and sneaky. Spirit duplicators are neither - you can smell
them in use from six blocks away, upwind.
 
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 00:35:52 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
<curd@notformail.com> wrote:

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.

Incidentally, that's why most inkjet printers will refuse to print
anything with only the black ink cartridge installed. The yellow ink
cartridge has to be installed in order to print the MIC dots.

I haven't bothered doing this, but it might be interesting to put some
dark colored ink in a yellow ink cartridge to make the dots more
visible. Or, use a blue LED reading light:
<http://seeingyellow.com>
At 0.1mm diameter and 1mm spacing, the dots are really difficult to
see without magnification and color filtering.

Light reading:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_Identification_Code>

--
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
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top