OCP Ink

[ghwellsjr]

Yes, I did read Leo's post and was planning to respond to it before it got deleted. I think it got deleted because of some derogatory comment, as I remember being shocked by it, even after Rob gave a strict warning. Now to answer your concerns:

I had supplied refilled Canon OEM cartridges for about ten MP780 printers and a couple MP760s. This involved over two hundred cartridges. Over several years, I purchased Inktec pigment black ink in a pair of 1 liter bottles at least three different times for a total of six liters. Each liter refilled about 35 cartridges. Leo's suggestion that it was caused by leaky cartridges is just not tenable. He may have thought that because of the thick deposit of ink on the bottom of the print head thinking that if the purge unit was clogged, then how could the ink have gotten there but he may not have realized that during purging, the print head also fires the nozzles and this will cause a build up of ink on the purge pad if the purge pump is not sucking the ink away. Maybe you can explain how this build up could have been caused by a leaky cartridge. It doesn't make any sense to me.

I remember Leo also suggesting that used printers had an unknown history, but the MP760 that I took the pictures of was purchased new by my friend at the same time I purchased mine new. All the MP780s were purchased used.

The purge pump tubing was clogged and the waste pads were full of thick, gunky ink at the bottom. How would a leaky cartridge have caused those problems? On my printer, I deposited way more Windex than what a leaky cartridge would have deposited and the purge pump just sucked it all away. If there were a leaky cartridge, the purge pump could have sucked away the residual ink or it would have flowed off the purge pad into the surrounding area but it would not have built up on the purge pad and under the print head like it did on my friend's printer. The reason that only his printer had the build up is because he did not use Windex on his purge pads like I told all my other friends to do. Actually, I still have not taken apart all the other printers that I had to replace because of this problem, maybe I'll see some more incriminating evidence when, and if, I do.

Furthermore, the waste ink pads did not distribute the ink across the width of the printer like it did in other printers that didn't use Inktec ink that I have taken apart. In fact, one used one that I worked on, the bottom of the area where the ink is deposited was completely clean. After doing my tests, I can see why, that is the way OEM and OCP inks behave.

Here are some other facts to consider: Inktec took the BCI-3eBk ink off the market. They are still selling the PGI-5Bk but I believe it will be taken off the market too when they deplete their existing stock. The PGI-220Bk ink which became available after the BCI-3eBk was taken off the market is a world of difference from the earlier inks. I have quit putting more ink into the test bottles because after two weeks, that ink has still not dried out (nor soaked up into the pads). Inktec clearly has redesigned their pigment black ink. I'm going to assume that they have come up with a good design that solved their problem with the earlier pigment black inks. I just wish I could buy it in bulk or even in the small syringe/bottles at the same price as their other inks but it is only available in the complete kit which costs twice as much as their other inks (four times as much as other brands of inks).

As far as Hobbicolors goes, Leo mentioned that there had been different suppliers of the same pigment black ink with no knowledge of this fact for the consumer. That by itself is enough for me and others to steer clear of Hobbicolors. It may be good today, but what about tomorrow or yesterday? All I know is that the sample I recently bought behaved exactly like the two problematic Inktec inks and no other inks behaved like them. And I wasn't planning on mentioning the problem with Hobbicolors until I was quite sure that it did have a problem, but someone co-incidentally reported a purge pump clogging problem with Hobbicolors so I felt it was prudent to report my findings at that time.

Now, was my test a good test? Well it clearly showed me what I primarily wanted to know which was whether or not Inktec's PGI-5Bk had the same problem which it did, but Inktec's PGI-220Bk did not have the same problem. I also am convinced that Hobbicolors has delivered pigment black ink with the same problem. We'll probably never know if it was in fact Inktec ink because Hobbicolors is so secretive about where they get their ink. I'm surprised Leo was able to get that information out of them.

Now, could there be a better test? Clearly yes. I begged Leo to offer suggestions but he would not. But I have an idea, maybe the pigment black inks would absorb more easily into the waste ink pads if it was mixed with some dye ink (which is actually the case inside a printer). I've wondered if mixing in some dye ink would allow the thick black ink that has already collected to soak up into the pads or if I started all over with a mixture from the start, would all the inks behave differently? I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to actually do this kind of testing.

Anyway, I appreciate your concern and questions and please don't hesitate to respond further.

BTW, where do you buy your Inktec ink and in what quantities?

 

[The Hat]

ghwellsjr
Thank you for an extremely informative thread and your reasons for conducting your tests.
I didnt like the outcome of your tests but had to respect the impartial way you conducted them, and until someone else can come up with a better test, then yours will have be the only bench mark.
I didnt like what you wrote or what I saw but thats because it didnt suit my opinion at that time as I was just being smug, selfish and naive.
Dont get me wrong I loved your tests even dough the results were not what I expected but I do have to agree with them 100%.
On your picture of the dirty print head that was covered with black ink.
I had see that before with someone who printed mostly text set to high quality mode on plain paper using OEM black.
That's one of the reasons way I only recommend using normal quality mode printing text..

 

[ghwellsjr]

Hat, what specific outcome did you not like?

This printer that you saw with the dirty print head, was the purge unit clogged?

 

[nche11]

Ghwellsjr, I have been a member of a chip design team. There is a concept that a design by a person is not debugged by the same person. Rather it is better debugged by another person who is not necessary a chip designer. Your thread is like a design by you and everyone else either enjoys your design or debug it on the other point of view.

Your lengthy posts reveals that you have been focusing on your ideas of your design. When Leo challenged it your responses were on the same focus again and again. Just now your, basically the same focus, lengthy reply is the same as before. I have seen people thinking "ADD" in mind but actually had "AND" when did the code. He could never found such bug in his code. But a 3rd party individual could spot it in one quick look. You have been focused on the same ideas about the ink. Leo saw something else. I also can see something that you probably have overlooked.

Let's see the picture you posted here:
http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/uploads/1315_clogged_print_head_mp760.jpg

I agree with Leo's observation on this picture, which is worth further analysis. A normal print head receiving ink from a functionally correct ink cartridge should be free of ink on the print head surface. Your picture showed a very serious problem of the ink supply. You mentioned that the printer used refilled cartridges from you. I think Leo interpreted it that the cartridge leaked badly or something like that. Thank about it. If the print head was clogged there should have no or little ink going through the print head. There should not have been so much ink on the print head surface. The fact there was so much ink there the cartridge must have leaked badly.

Before you begin to dispute with this observation I have been refilling Canon printers since HP was selling ThinkJet in the late 80's. I have had such leaked cartridge on many printers before and have seen many of such massive leaks. In your original thread you seemed to not investigate the cause of this massive amount of ink dried up on the print head surface. I believe you went on to focus on the purge unit being clogged by so much dried ink the leaked into it. It's quite nature that because the printer used the cartridges refilled by you so you never thought that the cartridges could go wrong. You then focused on the clogged purge unit. This is exactly like a designer not able to see the "AND" he coded because he thinks he is doing "ADD" in his code.

The dirty print head in your picture is showing that you have a massive leaking from the cartridge. You can remove your print head any time to check out the print head surface. If the printer is in good working order the surface is almost always dry and clean. Let's establish a common ground. Do you agree that the picture is showing leak from the cartridges? If you don't then the dispute will go on forever. You will repeat your lengthy post again when someone else challenged it.

I think you went on to investigate why the waste ink pad did not absorb the massive amount of ink shown in your pictures. It prompted you to do the test you designed to differentiate differences of many black pigment ink you collected from the market. You may have found some differences among the inks. The problem is you jumped on a conclusion that the ink that got absorbed slower will clog the purge unit. This may be true if you dump a large volume of ink into the pad in a short period of time. But in reality I believe the pad receives very small volume of waste ink and it always had plenty of time to absorb it. If the cartridge leaks that will be a different story of course.

George, (it is your name correct?), i certainly believe if the printer used refilled cartridges from me (or anyone else) you would probably have quickly focused on why there is so much ink on the print head surface. You would have concluded a problem on the ink cartridge.

 

[nche11]

George, I also would like to point out that you seemed to imply your test result with a slight twist. You said: "I have been testing several pigment black inks from different manufacturers to see which ones have the same clogging issues". I would be very careful if I were you to be more accurate in such a statement.

What is the clogging issue? Are you trying to say print head clogging issues or purge unit clogging issues? In your mind maybe it's the latter. But readers of this forum will probably think of the former. But your test was a subject on purge pad clogging. That is not the same of a print head clogging.

Honestly I am having a problem with a statement such as this. Especially I am one of the people who have used the InkTec's ink that you are having the problem to begin with. I don't think you used Hobbicolors ink. I do. I used a lot of both. I would really like to say I don't agree with your test result and whatever you tried to conclude or imply. I particularly like the Hobbicolors PMT-BK which I am using a lot of it this year. It is darker than Canon OEM. I never need to flush my PGI-5BK. I have refilled my PGI-5BK with it maybe 50 times this year already and I don't need to flush it before refilling. I have had no clogging of the print head. I don't think I am the only one with good experience with PMT-BK. My doubt about your test result is natural, based on my experience using the product.

You said you have been testing several pigment black inks from different manufacturers... Well, your test wasn't actual use of the inks, was it? Your words could be easily perceived incorrectly by others who read this statement. If you add: "not the actual use of the inks but ..." it would be more appropriate, agree? In my actual use of Hobbicolors PMT-BK it is actually a fabulous ink. Make no mistakes about it.

 

[The Hat]

ghwellsjr

Hat, what specific outcome did you not like?
This printer that you saw with the dirty print head, was the purge unit clogged?

I use the two KMP blacks that you had in you test and taught it would have scored higher than it did.
I was surprised at its poor showing thats all, maybe I expected too much from the ink because I found it to be pretty close to the Canon black.
I have printed some 3000 sheets with this ink and have had no real complaints about it.
I dont have to do nozzle checks, head cleaning of any sort, it just works.

Now the printer with the dirty print head had a very messy (purge pad area) black ink all over the place.
When the pads were given a bit of a clean and the owner of the printer then printed his text in normal mode the problem never occurred again (18 months ago).

 

[nche11]

As far as Hobbicolors goes, Leo mentioned that there had been different suppliers of the same pigment black ink with no knowledge of this fact for the consumer. That by itself is enough for me and others to steer clear of Hobbicolors.

If you are not aware of the changes of the inks you have not used them. I have used some of them, if not all. I can tell you that the latest PMT-BK is by far the better one. If the change is for the reason of better quality, and it is in my experience in using them, and if it is black pigment ink, I don't understand why it is a reason to bash them. If you have not used them you have very little reason to assume it's bad to change. Canon has changes too, from BCI-3eBK to PGI-5, then PGI-220 and probably more to come. It is reasonable that Hobbicolors changed their black pigment ink in corresponding to the Canon changes. I am not sure if they ever specifically informed customers about the change. They did name the PMT-BK differently before. They did say the PMT-BK is PGI-5 compatible. They also said it is backward compatible with BCI-3eBK. I do think you are not really familiar with Hobbicolors products. You assumed a lot of things incorrectly.

It would be odd that those ink manufacturers stick to only one black pigment ink forever. I doubt your reasoning for the ink change at InkTec. There is good reason that they stop supplying their old BCI-3eBK ink, if the newer PGI-5 ink remains compatible with the old BCI-3eBK. The newer PGI-220 ink from Inktec better be a different ink from their PGI-5 ink or there is no reason to roll out the newer one. There is no doubt their PGI-5 ink will be discontinued if the demand for it vanishes when the majority of printers use it die out over time. When it is gone it is not for the reason you think. Hobbicolors had BCI-6 compatible inks called WC-6 ink. When Canon rolled out CLI-8 inks Hobbicolors rolled out UW8 inks. This was a good change. They continued to sell both for over a longer period of time. Eventually they discontinued the WC6 ink. This wasn't a bad thing to bash about. I am not the only person who likes a lot the Hobbicolors ink. You are among very few who bash their products based on no or little use of the products. Correct me if I am wrong about this. That's the impression I got from reading your posts.

Sometimes changing to new inks may not be a good thing for consumers. It almost always comes with a higher price. I have two bottles of black pigment ink from a US ink manufacturer. According to the manufacturer one ink is for PGI-5 only. It is an older ink. The other is for PGI-5 and for PGI-220. It is the newer one. The price is twice for the newer one. When I asked the seller why the newer one is so much more expensive I was told because it was newly released. I could hear further explanation why newer release makes it so much more expensive. I just did not buy it and hope their price may go down over time. So far it hasn't.

If you have used Image Specialists inks long enough you would have known that they too had many changes to their black pigment inks. Unfortunately I can not prove this. I do not keep all their part numbers in the past. They had different part numbers and the prices were very distinctly different. Their ink has part numbers like bj-xxx (used to be like that in the past). They had many different numbers over time. I don't remember they ever specifically inform customers the changes. I think if your order from them BCI-6 inks today you will get a set of ink that isn't the same that they were selling 6 years ago. They have consolidated many different part numbers to a smaller set of numbers. You will never know if the inks were the same or not.

Any way, I think it is worth further brain storming the changes happening among ink sellers and manufacturers. I don't agree that change is bad. I may try out the new Inktec's PGI-220 ink if they keep their price at a same level of their PGI-5 ink or lower. But the changes at Canon (HP as well as Epson) nay not be a good thing actually. Canon's CLI-220 inks are not as good as their CLI-8 inks to my taste. I don't like muted colors.

 

[The Hat]

Why is it that when someone does something different and posts their results on here that others want to shoot the messenger instead of reading the message..:|

 

[nche11]

What do you mean? Please explain. If you are talking about my post I read the message so I questioned the messenger about the message. Did you read my message before shooting me?

 

[ghwellsjr]

Let's see the picture you posted here:
http://www.nifty-stuff.com/forum/uploads/1315_clogged_print_head_mp760.jpg

I agree with Leo's observation on this picture, which is worth further analysis. A normal print head receiving ink from a functionally correct ink cartridge should be free of ink on the print head surface. Your picture showed a very serious problem of the ink supply. You mentioned that the printer used refilled cartridges from you. I think Leo interpreted it that the cartridge leaked badly or something like that. Thank about it. If the print head was clogged there should have no or little ink going through the print head. There should not have been so much ink on the print head surface. The fact there was so much ink there the cartridge must have leaked badly.

You are the second person today that thought the clogging that I have been talking about was in the print head. Where did you get that idea?

You have to understand that the printer that this picture was from was maybe the sixth or seventh printer that had the purge system clogging problem. It was several months after the others had developed the problem and none of them had a clogged print head. Several of them were still working and printing correctly but their purge systems were not working correctly. In fact, while I was trying to diagnose the problem, I would prime a print head in one printer and move it to a printer that previously would not print at all (because the purge system was not working) and it would work correctly there for awhile. There was no problem with clogged print heads.

You should also be aware that I vacuum refilled only Canon OEM cartridges. Canon OEM cartridges have a reputation for not leaking. If I had top filled them and had a leaky plug, then there is a possibility that they could have leaked. But vacuum refilling does not compromise the cartridge in any way. Also, when a cartridge leaks, the entire contents of the cartridge leaks out and this was not the case with any of the printers that had the problem. In my early days of printing, I started with G&G cartridges and when a brand new one of those leaked, I had cyan ink all over the inside of my printer. A leaky cartridge is quite obvious.

But I want to understand your leaky cartridge theory and I have asked you to explain why this would lead to a clogged purge pad, clogged purge pump tubing and clogged waste ink pads and you have not done so. I would like to understand what you think happened. Please explain in detail.