Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:42 +0100, John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <1113356937.436548.293170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>WeInk_TechSupport <inksupport@weink.com> writes
>
>>For Mr. Beardmore:
>>The type of prints you make have a lot to do with waste build-up in the
>>LaserJet 4/5 model cartridges. There is no spreader auger in the waste
>>to distribute waste evenly so if waste is formed unevenly by the
>>prints, build up can occur towards one end or the other of the waste
>>bin and eventually cause failure, Additionally the toner is being
>>constatly heated by the fuser assembly (next which it is located when
>>the cartridge is installed) and the heat will cause blocking of the
>>toner (formation of large chunks) molding it into position in the waste
>>bin.
>>
>>Your model has a larger waste bin than most cartridges, and of all the
>>HP models could probably survive the longest in a drill and fill
>>situation. The 4L, 4P, and 5L on the other hand will fail almost
>>immediately on the second refill as the first two uses (the original
>>and first refills) will literally pack the waste hoppers with toner.
>>
>>Models like the 3si, 4si, 5si, II, IID, IIID have spreader augers which
>>were powered by the OPC drum rotation so re-using the cartridge without
>>cleaning the waste bin was known to cause the cartridge to lock-up,
>>stripping gears in the cartridge and the printer, This was why drill
>>and fill was frowned upon early on, design changes in newer cartridges
>>(removing the auger from the waste bin reduced manufacturing costs)
>>make "drill and fill" less damaging, but does not eliminate all the
>>draw backs to "drill & fill".
>>
>>Frankly the 4/5 cartridge is easy to separate into two halves (two
>>screws removed releases the holding pins) and the bin is easy to open
>>and clean, I can however understand why you would want to melt a hole
>>in the toner hopper, since the original fill hole is not accessible
>>without splitting the toner hopper and the only other way to fill it is
>>by removing the developer roller and pouring the toner into that
>>opening.
>>
>>However, another advantage to disassembling the LaserJet 4/5 cartridge
>>is that you can clean the doctor blade, removing small paper particles
>>that collect on the surface (picked up from paper dust in the printer)
>>and create fine lines where toner is missing on the developer roller.
>>This is not a large issue with text only printing, but cleaning the
>>blade prevents early degradation of line art, large fonts, and graphics
>>which require a higher density of toner for optimum fill, detail and/or
>>contrast.
>
>OK, thanks. I'll try splitting one.
>
>
>>"Drill & Fill" is not a good method for all cartridges, and in my
>>opinion should not be used at all, and any company that encourages such
>>for everything is doing a disservice.
>
>Hmmm... Any company that reduces my printing costs by a factor of three
>isn't doing so badly.
>
>D&F may not be ideal, but nothing short of design to optimise running
>cost ever will be.
>
>Granted the situation we have now is technical nonsense, but it largely
>seems to stem from commercial objectives to make excessive profits from
>consumables.
That certainly is my view of inkjets ("give them the rajor\\\\\printer, cell
them the blades\\\\\cartridges") but IMHO refillinmg lasers can get rather
variable results, and with that will invariably follow reputation.
If I were a laser printer manufacturer I wouldn't make carts which facilitated
user refilling, but I suspect I'd also not be aiming quite as high with the
profit factor either. There is a significant - and growing - sector of the
market that looks at total cost of owning/operating a piece of equipment, and
over a say five year SOHO life the cart cost starts to dominate even at modest
usage.