Driver to drive?

On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 01:15:48 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Total for purchase price, supplies, and labor:
$0.0056 + $0.02 + $0.0160 + $0.0019 + $0.0030 + $0.0120
= $0.0585/page

Ouch! We don't pay a tenth that. That kind of page cost buys some very nice printers.


NT

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:58:14 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 01:15:48 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Total for purchase price, supplies, and labor:
$0.0056 + $0.02 + $0.0160 + $0.0019 + $0.0030 + $0.0120
= $0.0585/page

Ouch! We don't pay a tenth that. That kind of page cost buys some very nice printers.
NT

I could make it look even cheaper by simply increasing the number of
pages printed per toner cartridge. The $0.02/page cost for the toner
was based on buying an extra black cartridge (because the office uses
it as a fax machine and all the junk faxes arrive in black print). I
also prefer using the standard 1400 page TN221 cartridges, instead of
the "high yield" 2200 page TN225 cartridge. While the TN225 would
theoretically be more economical, the toner vendors just can't seem to
resist the temptation to overfill the toner cartridge, which dumps
toner all over the mechanism when the cartridge is first installed. I
got tried of cleaning up the mess for customers and found the smaller
TN221 cartridges to be a good solution. Unfortunately, the typical
eBay vendor does not distinguish between the two cartridges and only
sells a TN221/TN225 cart, which can be half empty or overfilled.

I can also reduce the cost per page by:
1. Ignoring the initial cost of the printer.
2. Eliminating the service costs and labor and simply assume that the
printer will run forever with zero maintenance.
3. Using the predicted service life of the printer for the page
count.
4. Using the inflated 2200 pages per TN225 cartridge.
5. Using an "economy mode" which reduces toner use by about 20%.

If I did all that, I would get:

Set of 4 cartridges yielding 2200 pages each for:
$38 / 2200 = $0.0173/page
Yes, 4 carts cost more than 5 carts depending on the vendor:
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/323694067585>

Cost of paper is unchanged at:
Good 22 pound paper costs about $6/ream:
$6 / 500 = $0.0120

Total for toner and paper is now:
$0.0173 + $0.0120
= $0.0293/page
which saves $0.01/page from my previous calculation.

If you're able to operate a commodity printer for "a tenth that" or
between $0.003 to $0.006/page, you must be getting your toner VERY
cheap, printing almost blank pages, using mostly black toner, printing
on both sides of the page, using 20lb paper, getting your paper VERY
cheap, and not including any maintenance and parts. Or you could be
refilling your own cartridges with bulk toner, and/or own a paper
mill. Or, you could be using a Xerox (formerly Tektronix) "Solid Ink"
(thermal wax) printer, which drastically cuts the cost of toner and
doubles as a room heater.

So, which maker and model color laser or LED printer is cheaper than
my Brother example?







--
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

 

[Robert Baer]

tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

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

....again, see my earlier posting for tips to get reasonable to great
quality.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Robert Baer]

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 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

...see my earlier response, please.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Robert Baer]

Martin Brown wrote:

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.

...they were called the Purple Plague for a good reason.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Robert Baer]

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?


NT

"Did" is the proper term.
In the "automatic" mode,where the motor ran the machine for (guess as
it is so long ago) 60PPM, the quality tended to be low.
Or, while running in "automatic" mode, slide a "crud sheet" in
immediately after one print pops out and before next one;this gets rid
of obscuring offset and so increases quality without decreasing print rate.

However, turn the crank by hand and feed only one sheet, remove it to
another place to dry while doing the next.
Crank speed does affect quality some, but choice of paper can make a
BIG difference.
Use of high quality, slick paper was the cat's meow and required
one-at-a-time slow and uniform print speed during printing.

Those were the days..





---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 03:19:12 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:58:14 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 01:15:48 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Total for purchase price, supplies, and labor:
$0.0056 + $0.02 + $0.0160 + $0.0019 + $0.0030 + $0.0120
= $0.0585/page

Ouch! We don't pay a tenth that. That kind of page cost buys some very nice printers.
NT



I could make it look even cheaper by simply increasing the number of
pages printed per toner cartridge. The $0.02/page cost for the toner
was based on buying an extra black cartridge (because the office uses
it as a fax machine and all the junk faxes arrive in black print). I
also prefer using the standard 1400 page TN221 cartridges, instead of
the "high yield" 2200 page TN225 cartridge. While the TN225 would
theoretically be more economical, the toner vendors just can't seem to
resist the temptation to overfill the toner cartridge, which dumps
toner all over the mechanism when the cartridge is first installed. I
got tried of cleaning up the mess for customers and found the smaller
TN221 cartridges to be a good solution. Unfortunately, the typical
eBay vendor does not distinguish between the two cartridges and only
sells a TN221/TN225 cart, which can be half empty or overfilled.

I can also reduce the cost per page by:
1. Ignoring the initial cost of the printer.
2. Eliminating the service costs and labor and simply assume that the
printer will run forever with zero maintenance.

ignoring costs doesn't reduce them. The only cost not included is time taken getting machines fixed - for people that can't do their own that will of course raise total costs. I have enough waiting times & enough printers to do it then.

3. Using the predicted service life of the printer for the page
count.
4. Using the inflated 2200 pages per TN225 cartridge.
5. Using an "economy mode" which reduces toner use by about 20%.

If I did all that, I would get:

Set of 4 cartridges yielding 2200 pages each for:
$38 / 2200 = $0.0173/page
Yes, 4 carts cost more than 5 carts depending on the vendor:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/323694067585

Cost of paper is unchanged at:
Good 22 pound paper costs about $6/ream:
$6 / 500 = $0.0120

divide that by 3 for 80gsm A4 (21lb). Occasionally we use 70 (20lb). (A3 is more per area, card more & colour card much more but I'm using prices for A4 paper here.)

Total for toner and paper is now:
$0.0173 + $0.0120
= $0.0293/page
which saves $0.01/page from my previous calculation.

If you're able to operate a commodity printer for "a tenth that" or
between $0.003 to $0.006/page,

yup

you must be getting your toner VERY
cheap,

Last buy was a 10kg sack. The markup on little refill packs is huge.

> printing almost blank pages,

the pages are packed but text & graphics are kept lightweight

> using mostly black toner,

mostly only black

printing
on both sides of the page,

mostly yes

using 20lb paper, getting your paper VERY
cheap,

around $2 for a 500 sheet ream

> and not including any maintenance and parts.

Last part bought was from China to fit an HP, cost ÂŁ3.32. Quality seems to be as good.

Or you could be
refilling your own cartridges with bulk toner,

yes

and/or own a paper
mill.

no. Cut paper (A4, letter etc) is a lot more cost than bulk rolls but we're not doing enough volume for that.

Or, you could be using a Xerox (formerly Tektronix) "Solid Ink"
(thermal wax) printer, which drastically cuts the cost of toner and
doubles as a room heater.

They're crazy expensive to run. That's why they disappeared.

So, which maker and model color laser or LED printer is cheaper than
my Brother example?

Most are used HPs, B&W only. People like to get rid of their old reliable printers & get new junk. IME the older they are the more reliable. One to my right is still running on its internal 286 cpu. That one lacks duplex though, which is limiting. Some machines were free, some were bought at a fraction of new cost. We got a nice high volume Lexmark for ÂŁ18 in excellent condition, this sort of thing:
https://www.printerland.co.uk/product/lexmark-t652dtn-pro/115346


NT

 

On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 04:06:40 UTC, Robert Baer wrote:

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?


NT

"Did" is the proper term.
In the "automatic" mode,where the motor ran the machine for (guess as
it is so long ago) 60PPM, the quality tended to be low.
Or, while running in "automatic" mode, slide a "crud sheet" in
immediately after one print pops out and before next one;this gets rid
of obscuring offset and so increases quality without decreasing print rate.

However, turn the crank by hand and feed only one sheet, remove it to
another place to dry while doing the next.
Crank speed does affect quality some, but choice of paper can make a
BIG difference.
Use of high quality, slick paper was the cat's meow and required
one-at-a-time slow and uniform print speed during printing.

Those were the days..

Right. It sounds too labour intensive for us. Also producing the stencil would be a problem, a 24pin dot matrix doesn't give the resolution we need, and a typewriter wouldn't do the job.

I plan at some point to investigate the modern version, a machine that prints its master stencils & handles the whole duplicating process. The main upside is the use of cheap printing ink. But other priorities always beckon.


NT

 

[Martin Brown]

On 20/03/2019 01:43, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

You can see them with either if you have the right filter and 20-20
vision. Once you know what to look for they are visible without
magnification on the right background.

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

Nothing stops you putting water in the yellow tank though.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:43:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

Aha! So it's *not* all about tracing forgers of banknotes, then! Why am I
not the least surprised about that. It's principled whistleblowers
they're really after.
Bastards!




--
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.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 02:53:02 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 03:19:12 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Or, you could be using a Xerox (formerly Tektronix) "Solid Ink"
(thermal wax) printer, which drastically cuts the cost of toner and
doubles as a room heater.

They're crazy expensive to run. That's why they disappeared.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_ink>
Compared to other *COLOR* laser printers of their day, the cost of
operation was quite a bit less for Xerox/Tek solid ink (wax). The wax
was priced to be about the same as HP color toner at the retail level.
In order to sell their printers, Xerox would lease them to volume
users which included a free printer, free paper, and free wax. I
don't recall the cost per page or monthly minimum, but it was quite
reasonable. I still maintain 3 of these printers. In my never humble
opinion, the major problems were:
1. 30 minute warm up from cold start required before it would print.
2. Extreme difficult doing repairs thanks to the reservoir of hot oil
necessary for proper operation.
3. The wax print tended to melt/smear/run when hot, crack when the
paper is bent, and smear when rubbed with another wax print. The
colors were also not very stable in direct sunlight.
4. High electric power consumption, even in "standby".

So, which maker and model color laser or LED printer is cheaper than
my Brother example?

Most are used HPs, B&W only. People like to get rid of their old
reliable printers & get new junk. IME the older they are the more reliable.
One to my right is still running on its internal 286 cpu. That one lacks
duplex though, which is limiting. Some machines were free, some were
bought at a fraction of new cost. We got a nice high volume Lexmark for
Ł18 in excellent condition, this sort of thing:
https://www.printerland.co.uk/product/lexmark-t652dtn-pro/115346

Please note that the subject line is about a *COLOR* inkjet printer
and the current topic drift is about a comparison of operating costs
for *COLOR* laser or LED *COLOR* printers, versus *COLOR* inkjet
printers. Of course B&W lasers will be cheaper to buy and own than
color. Can we keep this discussion about comparing *COLOR* printers
and not muddy the waters by introducing B&W printers?

<https://epson.com/For-Work/Printers/Inkjet/Epson-WorkForce-WF-M1030-Monochrome-Inkjet-Printer/p/C11CC82201>
Replace your monochrome laser printer with the WorkForce WF-M1030
and get the lowest black printing cost in its class - up to
60 percent lower than monochrome laser printers.
About $270. No numbers to substantiate this claim, but I suspect they
use HP toner cartridge prices at retail prices.

At least for HP, the older B&W and color laser printers are certainly
better built, made to last, and more reliable than the current
offerings, which seem to be designed to fail. This is a one day
collection of printers at the local recycler:
<http://www.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/e-waste/slides/printer-eWaste.html>
HP also perpetuated some known failure mechanisms because their older
printers were too reliable and customers were keeping them running for
too long. For example, the sticky solenoid causing paper jam problem:
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/hp2200/hp2200.html>
<http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/hp4200/hp4200.html>



--
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

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:02:58 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/03/2019 01:43, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
You can see them with either if you have the right filter and 20-20
vision. Once you know what to look for they are visible without
magnification on the right background.

I've tried it and failed. I need to use astigmatism correcting
reading glasses. However, with a magnifier, the dots are visible.

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

Nothing stops you putting water in the yellow tank though.

Nope. Most ink cartridges now include a chip that counts the number
of pages printed. I call this a "refill prevention" or "profit
protection" feature. If I fill the color carts with water in order to
be allowed to print in black, the printer will eventually hit some
page count limit and declare the cartridge to be "empty". Extra
credit to HP for designing some of their printers to also check for
the cartridge expiration date and declare it to be "past its useful
life" even though it might be full of ink. However, in HP's
benevolence and generosity, they have changed this to an advisory
message than can be bypassed after decoding a cryptic hex error
message and repeatedly performing a button pushing bypass ritual:
<https://blog.fosketts.net/2010/12/22/hp-printer-ink-expiration/>


--
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

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:43:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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

I think John's already posted that link....



--
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.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 20/03/2019 16:55, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 12:02:58 +0000, Martin Brown
'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 20/03/2019 01:43, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
You can see them with either if you have the right filter and 20-20
vision. Once you know what to look for they are visible without
magnification on the right background.

I've tried it and failed. I need to use astigmatism correcting
reading glasses. However, with a magnifier, the dots are visible.

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

Nothing stops you putting water in the yellow tank though.

Nope. Most ink cartridges now include a chip that counts the number
of pages printed. I call this a "refill prevention" or "profit
protection" feature. If I fill the color carts with water in order to
be allowed to print in black, the printer will eventually hit some
page count limit and declare the cartridge to be "empty". Extra
credit to HP for designing some of their printers to also check for
the cartridge expiration date and declare it to be "past its useful
life" even though it might be full of ink. However, in HP's
benevolence and generosity, they have changed this to an advisory
message than can be bypassed after decoding a cryptic hex error
message and repeatedly performing a button pushing bypass ritual:
https://blog.fosketts.net/2010/12/22/hp-printer-ink-expiration/

At least in the UK for some inkjet cartridges you can buy fake chips or
zappers that make them lie about pages printed depending on the model.
We also led the world in chipped region free DVD players.
(there is a fair demand for playing US region coded disks)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> wrote in
news:q6tqjp$u80$4@dont-email.me:

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:43:10 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

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.

Aha! So it's *not* all about tracing forgers of banknotes, then!
Why am I not the least surprised about that. It's principled
whistleblowers they're really after.
Bastards!

It is because they are opaques, so black can also be obtained by
mixing all three colors. Definitely so for laser toner. Is inkjet
ink an additive or subtractive color mixing schema?

You think it is for some magical print job/printer id tag/ Nope.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:13:34 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

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.

In college (about 1970), I ran the student government print shop. For
equipment, we had some chronically malfunctioning printing machines.
The best of the bunch was a Gestetner mimeograph and stencil cutter.
Least reliable and lowest quality was a Ditto spirit duplicator.
Nobody really liked it, but it was tolerated because the stench was
also useful for clearing the office of visitors. The original
duplicators used an isopropanol and methanol mix. The newer machines
used trichlorofluoromethane, ethyl alcohol, methyl alcohol, and
probably some perfume to hide the stench and some color dye.

"HOW TO USE A 1960s DITTO MACHINE MIMEOGRAPH SPIRIT DUPLICATOR
PHOTOCOPIER 43624"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccYLLzpeVnU> (13:38)

Later, I bought a failing copy and print shop where I was instrumental
in accelerating its demise. It was mostly ancient A.B. Dick offset
presses. These were quite reliable, but needed constant attention and
cleaning.

So much for nostalgia.



--
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

 

[Mike Coon]

In article <a0i59eh9s8ehul45bqg3k73ipu0mv8mc9v@4ax.com>,
jeffl@cruzio.com says...

Least reliable and lowest quality was a Ditto spirit duplicator.
Nobody really liked it, but it was tolerated because the stench was
also useful for clearing the office of visitors.

I remember the smell (which I liked) of a spirit duplicator (maybe it
made ghost copies?) from junior school in the early 1950s. But I don't
remember any brands or recipes...

Mike.

 

On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 16:43:49 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 02:53:02 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 March 2019 03:19:12 UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Or, you could be using a Xerox (formerly Tektronix) "Solid Ink"
(thermal wax) printer, which drastically cuts the cost of toner and
doubles as a room heater.

They're crazy expensive to run. That's why they disappeared.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_ink
Compared to other *COLOR* laser printers of their day, the cost of
operation was quite a bit less for Xerox/Tek solid ink (wax). The wax
was priced to be about the same as HP color toner at the retail level.
In order to sell their printers, Xerox would lease them to volume
users which included a free printer, free paper, and free wax. I
don't recall the cost per page or monthly minimum, but it was quite
reasonable.

We had one, not on contract with Xerox. Ink cost was silly. Under contract Xerox supplied the ink but it wasn't cheap per page. It might have been competitive once, but certainly not 5 or so years ago when we had one. Making wax block inks & selling some wasn't expected to be worth the time so we didn't and it went. No-one wanted to collect it even for free.

I still maintain 3 of these printers. In my never humble
opinion, the major problems were:
1. 30 minute warm up from cold start required before it would print.

not a problem for us

2. Extreme difficult doing repairs thanks to the reservoir of hot oil
necessary for proper operation.
3. The wax print tended to melt/smear/run when hot, crack when the
paper is bent, and smear when rubbed with another wax print. The
colors were also not very stable in direct sunlight.

which greatly limited its usefulness. The only thing the prints were durable enough for was presentations.

4. High electric power consumption, even in "standby".

So, which maker and model color laser or LED printer is cheaper than
my Brother example?

Most are used HPs, B&W only. People like to get rid of their old
reliable printers & get new junk. IME the older they are the more reliable.
One to my right is still running on its internal 286 cpu. That one lacks
duplex though, which is limiting. Some machines were free, some were
bought at a fraction of new cost. We got a nice high volume Lexmark for
ÂŁ18 in excellent condition, this sort of thing:
https://www.printerland.co.uk/product/lexmark-t652dtn-pro/115346

Please note that the subject line is about a *COLOR* inkjet printer

no it's not

and the current topic drift is about a comparison of operating costs
for *COLOR* laser or LED *COLOR* printers, versus *COLOR* inkjet
printers. Of course B&W lasers will be cheaper to buy and own than
color. Can we keep this discussion about comparing *COLOR* printers
and not muddy the waters by introducing B&W printers?

Well I'm talking about B&W.

https://epson.com/For-Work/Printers/Inkjet/Epson-WorkForce-WF-M1030-Monochrome-Inkjet-Printer/p/C11CC82201
Replace your monochrome laser printer with the WorkForce WF-M1030
and get the lowest black printing cost in its class - up to
60 percent lower than monochrome laser printers.
About $270. No numbers to substantiate this claim, but I suspect they
use HP toner cartridge prices at retail prices.

It's an inkjet. With no numbers the claim means nothing. What litle numbers they provide aren't encouraging. Looks like a last gasp attempt to bs people into buying inkjets.

At least for HP, the older B&W and color laser printers are certainly
better built, made to last, and more reliable than the current
offerings, which seem to be designed to fail. This is a one day
collection of printers at the local recycler:
http://www.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/e-waste/slides/printer-eWaste.html
HP also perpetuated some known failure mechanisms because their older
printers were too reliable and customers were keeping them running for
too long. For example, the sticky solenoid causing paper jam problem:
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/hp2200/hp2200.html
http://www.learnbydestroying.com/jeffl/hp4200/hp4200.html

There's a 2200 here that makes gear grinding noises, probably from the back.. I've not opened it up yet.


NT

 

Please send electronic principles 8th edition solutions.

Thanks

 

Give me link whr u got that