OK
sit down and the fans of the German method, don' t take offense.
First Grandad35 mention of surface energy is spot on. The forces in liquid are actually a lot larger than we normally acknowledge. That is key. We need to think at the micro level and this will admittedly be difficult to those not trained in sciences. So it is easy for misinterpretations to occur.
The final picture in the set shows something that at the beginning of this thread but no one chose to comment or even repsond. That indicated that like politics, if there is a difficult question that defies answering..ignore it. What it showed is a a lockup condition of a cartridge that could occur.
In the CLi-8 Canon chose to introduce a groove that leads from the reservoir to the bottom of the sponge. Over the years some incluing me mentioned that this was a difference. Indeed some aftermarket cartridges also had it as well. German method refillers love this groove as it helps guide that needle into the reservoir.
The purpose of the groove is to ensure that there is a continuous body of liquid ink from the tank to the sponge. This allows the "surface energy" or surface tension to be reliably set up. So as the ink is removed from the bottom sponge, ink is PULLED out of the tank to replenish it. The network of close proximity fibers in the lower sponge sets up a very strong surface energy network, Strong enough to pull ink out of the tank. Try to understand that. It behaves like it is elastic. So it is not the head pressure, that allows ink to flow out but the surface tension aspects. There is negative pressure within the tank BUT the overriding force or effect is surface tension. That outlet hole is also sized to have this effect. You can imagine if I cut the hole exiting the reservoir, the liquid will leak out and it will. The hole is actually designed to be withing a certain size.
Now why did Canon add this groove over the years. The first answer I postulate is that it would improve the functionality of the cartridge. Yes, that is reasonable or else theywould not have done and continue to. This is where we need to keep calm. Canon likely experienced the situation I showed in my final picture where the sponge was not drawing ink out of the tank. The i"nk bridge" I will call it that, was broken. Once the ink bridge is broken, ink receded back into the tank and the ink within the sponge would get consumed and the tank would still show itself to be full of ink. That ink bridge will answer many questions as to why some cartridges do not feed properly.
Now let's take a look at the ink bridge. The bridge would be stronger or the liquid link to the tank would be stronger if the surface contact to the tank is larger. That is why Canon opened up the groove. By doing so, the allowed for a column on ink that joins the tank to the bottom of the sponge. Now it appears that some third party mfrs also caught onto this. Well some copied the bridge but I don't know if they knew why. However some did not make the bridge but rather created a sponge with a tail that entered into the reservoir. This ensured continuity of the elastic ink from the bottom of the tank to the sponge.
Npw I will address the German refill method. I think many of you would now figure out why sometimes it fails under certain conditions. You can fill the reservoir like I showed in the pic BUT if the ink bridge is not reestablished or the column of ink is not put back in, there is the potential for a lockup.
Why? because after the needle is withdrawn, there is less volume in the tank, the ink body recedes a bit and when the body of the cartridge is turned back right side up, the ink within the tank will not come out and the ink bridge is not established. Now this happens under certain conditions and I believe ghswellsjr might have run into this and others. I am not surprised. Why because he is likely so exacting and neat in his process he did not overfill the tank thus causing the condition. Now if you overfill the reservoir a bit, you are less likely to encounter this. That is the reason why you need to continue to inject ink as you withdraw. It reforms the bidge. However, if the lower sponge is really empty then this may still fail at times. If you refill at the first warning, then it is not likely to be an issue as there is sufficient ink in the sponge to prevent the sponge from grabbing the liquid ink bridge. If you look under the cartridge, just make sure that the ink continues across to the sponge. Alternatively, you can withdraw the needle to the point where it is just at the separation wall, turn the cartridge back right side up, inject about 0.1-0.2cc and this will reestablish the bridge.
Now with the top fill method, the bridge is at the bottom and liquid flows down. The bridge is never broken during refill. So top filling removes this issue completely.
At the start of this thread irvweiner said the opened the plug and that allowed the ink to flow again. In doing so, he reestablished the bridge as in a top fill refill.
So there, it is not as some may have interpreted that I am against German refills, and cause some hate to run within their veins but rather I can see some issues that could take a lot of explaining to show. These issues are never present with the top fill. Some of the issues against top fill that are promulgated by the advocates of german refill methods have shown to be incorrect and false.
You can refill ANY way you want, it's a free world in some parts but just be aware of what you are doing and take the steps to make sure it is correct.
My last comment on the German refilling. ...When I grew up I always admired german autos and their engineering and their great suspension systems ( not electronics) and I held german engineering in very high regard ( I was trained as an engineer). I am not so sure that this convenient refill method deserves the german title really as it introduces a potential problem that had been overlooked or not explained prior to this. Trigger37 should chip in on this thread as he would be thrilled.
Now again it is not that I don't advocate the German method, Heck I sell a lot of syringes and 2"needles solely for this method, and I would not do that unless it worked. But just do it properly.
Now that you understand what role surface energy plays, surface tension, then the wqrds like capillary, meniscus and Epson's Active Meniscus Control. All have some meaning now. BTW, I am still in awe of Epson's Active meniscus control. Imagine a cup of water, that you drop something into. There will be ripples. What if you now flex the sides of the cup so that the ripples are counteracted and the waves settle out quickly. That is the concept of Active Meniscus Control in the wide format nozzles.
This thread should now pose some other questions as to why the sponges are not filled all the way etc. But knowing what you now, the questiion about the size of the newer cartridges should come up as well. Just how much smaller is the "real" capacity of these newer cartridges. I know there had been a strong reaction but was it really warranted?
You see Epson, using their mini ciss systems on their printers was making their printers flatter. Canon had to make theirs flat as well. So.....chop off some height.
And Canon does fill via the top fill for obvious reasons. This is the Japanese refill method. But there still exists the Canon method which I will keep for a while.
I might have all of this on my new website.
sit down and the fans of the German method, don' t take offense.
First Grandad35 mention of surface energy is spot on. The forces in liquid are actually a lot larger than we normally acknowledge. That is key. We need to think at the micro level and this will admittedly be difficult to those not trained in sciences. So it is easy for misinterpretations to occur.
The final picture in the set shows something that at the beginning of this thread but no one chose to comment or even repsond. That indicated that like politics, if there is a difficult question that defies answering..ignore it. What it showed is a a lockup condition of a cartridge that could occur.
In the CLi-8 Canon chose to introduce a groove that leads from the reservoir to the bottom of the sponge. Over the years some incluing me mentioned that this was a difference. Indeed some aftermarket cartridges also had it as well. German method refillers love this groove as it helps guide that needle into the reservoir.
The purpose of the groove is to ensure that there is a continuous body of liquid ink from the tank to the sponge. This allows the "surface energy" or surface tension to be reliably set up. So as the ink is removed from the bottom sponge, ink is PULLED out of the tank to replenish it. The network of close proximity fibers in the lower sponge sets up a very strong surface energy network, Strong enough to pull ink out of the tank. Try to understand that. It behaves like it is elastic. So it is not the head pressure, that allows ink to flow out but the surface tension aspects. There is negative pressure within the tank BUT the overriding force or effect is surface tension. That outlet hole is also sized to have this effect. You can imagine if I cut the hole exiting the reservoir, the liquid will leak out and it will. The hole is actually designed to be withing a certain size.
Now why did Canon add this groove over the years. The first answer I postulate is that it would improve the functionality of the cartridge. Yes, that is reasonable or else theywould not have done and continue to. This is where we need to keep calm. Canon likely experienced the situation I showed in my final picture where the sponge was not drawing ink out of the tank. The i"nk bridge" I will call it that, was broken. Once the ink bridge is broken, ink receded back into the tank and the ink within the sponge would get consumed and the tank would still show itself to be full of ink. That ink bridge will answer many questions as to why some cartridges do not feed properly.
Now let's take a look at the ink bridge. The bridge would be stronger or the liquid link to the tank would be stronger if the surface contact to the tank is larger. That is why Canon opened up the groove. By doing so, the allowed for a column on ink that joins the tank to the bottom of the sponge. Now it appears that some third party mfrs also caught onto this. Well some copied the bridge but I don't know if they knew why. However some did not make the bridge but rather created a sponge with a tail that entered into the reservoir. This ensured continuity of the elastic ink from the bottom of the tank to the sponge.
Npw I will address the German refill method. I think many of you would now figure out why sometimes it fails under certain conditions. You can fill the reservoir like I showed in the pic BUT if the ink bridge is not reestablished or the column of ink is not put back in, there is the potential for a lockup.
Why? because after the needle is withdrawn, there is less volume in the tank, the ink body recedes a bit and when the body of the cartridge is turned back right side up, the ink within the tank will not come out and the ink bridge is not established. Now this happens under certain conditions and I believe ghswellsjr might have run into this and others. I am not surprised. Why because he is likely so exacting and neat in his process he did not overfill the tank thus causing the condition. Now if you overfill the reservoir a bit, you are less likely to encounter this. That is the reason why you need to continue to inject ink as you withdraw. It reforms the bidge. However, if the lower sponge is really empty then this may still fail at times. If you refill at the first warning, then it is not likely to be an issue as there is sufficient ink in the sponge to prevent the sponge from grabbing the liquid ink bridge. If you look under the cartridge, just make sure that the ink continues across to the sponge. Alternatively, you can withdraw the needle to the point where it is just at the separation wall, turn the cartridge back right side up, inject about 0.1-0.2cc and this will reestablish the bridge.
Now with the top fill method, the bridge is at the bottom and liquid flows down. The bridge is never broken during refill. So top filling removes this issue completely.
At the start of this thread irvweiner said the opened the plug and that allowed the ink to flow again. In doing so, he reestablished the bridge as in a top fill refill.
So there, it is not as some may have interpreted that I am against German refills, and cause some hate to run within their veins but rather I can see some issues that could take a lot of explaining to show. These issues are never present with the top fill. Some of the issues against top fill that are promulgated by the advocates of german refill methods have shown to be incorrect and false.
You can refill ANY way you want, it's a free world in some parts but just be aware of what you are doing and take the steps to make sure it is correct.
My last comment on the German refilling. ...When I grew up I always admired german autos and their engineering and their great suspension systems ( not electronics) and I held german engineering in very high regard ( I was trained as an engineer). I am not so sure that this convenient refill method deserves the german title really as it introduces a potential problem that had been overlooked or not explained prior to this. Trigger37 should chip in on this thread as he would be thrilled.
Now again it is not that I don't advocate the German method, Heck I sell a lot of syringes and 2"needles solely for this method, and I would not do that unless it worked. But just do it properly.
Now that you understand what role surface energy plays, surface tension, then the wqrds like capillary, meniscus and Epson's Active Meniscus Control. All have some meaning now. BTW, I am still in awe of Epson's Active meniscus control. Imagine a cup of water, that you drop something into. There will be ripples. What if you now flex the sides of the cup so that the ripples are counteracted and the waves settle out quickly. That is the concept of Active Meniscus Control in the wide format nozzles.
This thread should now pose some other questions as to why the sponges are not filled all the way etc. But knowing what you now, the questiion about the size of the newer cartridges should come up as well. Just how much smaller is the "real" capacity of these newer cartridges. I know there had been a strong reaction but was it really warranted?
You see Epson, using their mini ciss systems on their printers was making their printers flatter. Canon had to make theirs flat as well. So.....chop off some height.
And Canon does fill via the top fill for obvious reasons. This is the Japanese refill method. But there still exists the Canon method which I will keep for a while.
I might have all of this on my new website.
