OT: Non-hp Toner Cartridges

I've had mine for seven years. I wouldn't even consider fixing a $200 printer. I'll probably replace it with a Brother (HP software sucks).

I buy toner cartridges from InkjetSuperstore.com. I think my last cartridge was $35.

Even cheap paper is about $.01 per page.

I don't bother refilling. I just recycle the empty cartridge (there are places here who will issue cash for them; donate them to a group that has the time and energy to claim that cash!)

I watched a buddy refilling color toner cartridges one evening. He was pink (magenta) from damn near head to toe! :>

I use the LJ5p and 6p most often. Low power consumption (when idle AND printing -- low temp toner) so I have one attached to each network, here. The 4M+ sees use primarily when I want to crank out a large document... there, the higher marking engine speed, coupled with the duplexor, makes the task fast and "paper efficient".

I print photos on a small Sony "picture printer" (expensive cartridges but I always seem to find some available for rescue when I "get low").

The Photo R1800 is primarily used for large format color printing (I rarely print large photos -- even when SWMBO wants to use a photo as a reference for a painting, she prefers monochrome reproductions). I previously had another Epson that would do 22" wide prints but discarded it as it took up a boatload of desktop space. And, the last of the plotters (pen and inkjet) was discarded a few months ago.

I keep a solid ink Phaser with duplexor for color "publications" (though the "burnt crayons" smell that pervades the house when I use it is annoying!). And, a color laser for less demanding publications (e.g., when they don't need to be "photorealistic" color reproduction... like color diagrams, highlights and callouts).

The idea of tossing all of them (color) is very appealing as there is a service bureau located a few blocks from the house. Why bother maintaining kit when you can "rent" someone else's maintenance/headaches? (getting too old for all these silly distractions!)

You just need a steady hand and experience working with chemicals. But it is only worth doing when the toner is cheaper than the cartridges!

My Samsung is duplex but monochrome. It has the ugly looks of a thug but gets the job done. The Dell 1320c was chosen because it is almost photoreal. Using HP 120gsm paper the toner and paper surface are almost indistinguishable so that leaflets printed on it are near perfect.

Mostly when I print small stuff it is in bulk and infrequently that I got to one of the print shops and get their 150+ rate.

I have the odd print in that technology from during its development and also in dye diffusion. I look excessively pink in some of them as the colour balance was in the process of being tweaked for Westerners.

Keeping one for draft stuff is worth having around.

He must have been rather careless.

the

The ink cost of the phaser/colorqubes is insanely high, and the prints frag ile. You've got to really want their upside to be worth having one. There's also a big cost difference between the wax inks for different models, so a t least one of the printer models really isnt worth buying at all.

OTOH if you're doing modest B&W output only, you can get uneconomic printer s in good nick for next to nothing. Sometimes that makes sense. Eg a chippe d Lexmark with multi-hundred pound OEM carts, and get 3rd party carts that can get the cost down to reasonable. Print cost then comes out at about 1.5 x what it should be, but you pay next to nothing for the printer.

NT

In his case, the bulk toner had been donated. So, the only way to make use of it was to refill existing cartridges.

As to his proficiency handling "chemicals"... -- I didn't ask him how he got so "pink"!

Ah, I rarely print photo quality (where I am actually concerned with how true the colors actually are!).

OTOH, there are times when SWMBO needs a "color photograph" of something she has made to enter a "show/competition". Far easier to print a digital photo than to load one of the film cameras...

I have tools to "calibrate" scanner/printer/monitor so I can get pretty close to "correct" color when needed. But, usually the color renderings are "good enough" without the extra effort involved.

I.e., no one will really care if those "red" callouts are Pantone 199C or 041C. OTOH, a photo of a *product* had best be "pretty damn close" to the actual color scheme used in the product!

The big incentive for holding onto them is obviously convenience. Even though the service bureau is just a few (5 or 6?) blocks down the road, if it's not open when I want to make a print (e.g., NOW!), it's not very convenient...

When the printer and ink are free, there's really no practical downside! :>

Yes, I have to be careful to only accept ink that is the correct "shape" for the model I have. Apparently, the "keying" is not SOLELY to prevent you from using ink sold for ONE model with ANOTHER -- I guess melting temperatures are different, etc.

That's how I got the Lexmark that I subsequently discarded. Use up all of the toner/ink that you have available WITH it, then discard it before incurring the cost of the replacement cartridge (or, any other "supplies").

If you aren't printing much anyway, such a printer can satisfy your needs for a VERY long time! (e.g., the Lexmark's cartridge was good for more than

Most of the older (laser) printers are pretty robust. As long as someone didn't do something stupid in routine maintenance...

Clever idea. However, I had a different way. I refilled my toner carts outdoors and used an air compressor to clean the insides. Note the past tense as I don't refill carts much these days. Too much work for a $15 to $30 cartridge. Add a $5 replacement "refill protection" chip, and it's not economical. I just ordered a mess of Brother TN450 clone carts at $12/ea. Anyway, my universal cleaning tool for everything is the air compressor. Before anything is dragged into my palatial office, I put it on the planter box or table outside, partially disassemble the device, blast it with about 40 psi, and then drag it inside. The result is that the office stays quite clean and only needs a dusting maybe once per year.

That's also what happened to me. I was refiling Canon 104 carts for a friend during tax season. After 2 refills, they all started dumping toner all over the insides of the printer. I couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong, so I just Googled for refill instructions. That's when I discovered the waste bin problem. I did a post mortem on one of my refilled carts, and discovered that the waste bin was totally packed full of toner.

Of course, everything is a conspiracy. The very common Canon 104 cartridge has a rather odd design for the scrubber blade, which is what pushes the excess toner into the waste bin. Offhand, I would say that it was designed to waste as much toner as possible. Having it print 100-200 fewer pages is not a big deal on a 2000 page cartridge. However, by having the waste bin fill up as rapidly as possible, Canon limits the number of cartridge refills if the refiller doesn't know about the waste bin problem.

No. It's more complexicated than that. Some toner carts have a built in selenium drum. These are limited by scratches and gouges to the drum and wear on the scrubber blade. Most low end refillers do NOT bother with the scrubber. Hardened toner in the cartridge will eventually scratch the drum, ending its useful life.

Other designs use seperate toner carts and imaging selenium drums. The Brother TN450 slips into the DR-420 drum. The drum easily lasts the rated 12,000 pages life. The TN450 has a 2600 page yield, so the drum should be good for 4 to 5 cartridge replacement. Instead, I'm finding that it's good for about 40,000 pages or about 15 cartridges. So, what's the difference? The waste bin is NOT in intimate contact with the drum, so any debris or hardened toner inside the waste bin doesn't gouge the drum.

Gotta run... I'm late...

I doubt it, I'd bet trimming a block would work.

NT

I remember having a problem with a Tektronix solid wax printer where someone managed to push in the wrong wax bar. I recall we managed to fix it without major heroics like print head disassembly.