Refilling

[stratman]

There was no issue with the Durchstich method - the key reason for switching back is we refill without any syringes using the top fill method. We use the squezy bottle system offered by PC which is much faster when refilling approx. 200+ carts a day.

200+ cartridge refills a day? Are you hiring?

I also use squeeze bottles with blunt needles attached for the Durchstich method and agree it is faster than syringes overall, so, there must be something else in your decision to switch.

Top refilling is inherently messier. Time wise, I do not know how long it takes to refill via the top from start to finish (print head out to print head in) compared to the Durchstich method once one is proficient in it. The Durchstich method does have a wait period after the initial injection to allow ink to redistribute to the sponge side, but then so would the top fill, all else being equivalent.

I am not trying to convince you to change refilling methods, just trying to understand reasons why you prefer one method over another.

I started out with syringes and tried top filling. For me, the Durchstich method is less messy and fumbly (getting the plug out and back in) and may be less time consuming. Then there is the intangible of the procedure itself that I enjoy.

 

[Cymark]

We felt is was easier to train new employees who are doing the refilling. Our top refiller can do a set of 8 carts for the Pro 100 in under 3 minutes (yes, we have timed contests)

I'm going to re look into the Durchstich method as I like the idea of a cleaner work environment not to mention the savings in excess ink spillage.

 

[stratman]

Our top refiller can do a set of 8 carts for the Pro 100 in under 3 minutes (yes, we have timed contests)

That is fantastic! Does that include resetting the chip? I could not refill my 5 cartridges in under 3 minutes. Maybe you should not change refill methods.

Concerning the time of three minutes... If you refill while there is still all ink in the sponge side then, meaning you never let the sponge drop in volume of ink, then the Durchstich method would be faster because no plug to deal with. Mikling recommends never letting the sponge lose any volume of ink.

I refill only after one ink cartridge (CLI-8) is marked empty and then I refill all that are at or near empty on the spongeless side. This is not following Mikling's recommendation. The "extra" required in my situation is letting the cartridge rest for ink to redistribute into the sponge and then topping off the spongeless side to a level 2-4 mm from the top.

If I did not have to let the sponge soak up ink and then top off, meaning only filling the spongeless side, then a refill would take 15 seconds or less depending on the ink level of the spongeless side. Resetting the chip is another 10 seconds more or less. Taking the cartridges out of the print head, walking to and from where I do the refill (over a sink) and then putting the cartridges back in the print head is another 2 minutes or so.

I like the idea of a cleaner work environment not to mention the savings in excess ink spillage.

You will still need working conditions that will allow for any drips or spills with the Durchstich method. No method is infallible.

I have had drips from a possible stiff sponge or maybe because the sponge is already full. Ink may drip/dribble out from the ink exit port and possibly the Durchstich hole during injection of the ink. Drips can also occur if you overfill and ink goes above the sponge (I gather this won't happen with top filling) or gets into the air exchange passageway. Squeezing the cartridge or blowing into the OEM air hole on top will force ink out to equilibrate or clear.

I am now thinking that you should not change anything. Don't fix what isn't broken!

 

[Cymark]

The under three minute refill champ performs like he is competing in a hot-dog eating contest - no chip reset and every cart and ink bottle is perfectly aligned for speed.

In our everyday operation we follow Mikling and Jose's refill techniques. We never let ink go below the storage chamber - which makes refilling easier and quicker.

 

[mikling]

In a production environment, you will find that the topfill method will allow a higher number of prints per refill cycle. This will translate into signficantly lower cost. If you look at the cost of ink per mil, versus the extra downtime for a refill cycle, I think you may come to the same conclusion.
Here's why ( and I will point to Grandad35 who hardly comes around anymore hope he's ok). In a topfill, you can safely overfill over the OEM fill amount a bit. I have not measured how much but it is easily doable and in fact most people do it without knowing. That is a project that someone can do. Grandad once stated he purposely oversaturates the sponge a bit and that gives him more prints before the cart is empty and that was on his BCI-6. The identical thing happens on a CLI-8/42 because remember once the ink gets to a certain window of chip level, it will actually freeze and then look for the optical sensor to get a real reading on how much ink is really left. Now if you overfill it too much or keep topping up without reset, the chips will suspect something is wrong and trigger the low and then empty quickly for safety of the printhead. In normal cases, even with a slight overfill, the optical sensor will trigger the chip low warning normally.

Now contrast this with the German method. To overfill, you will need to inject into the sponge directly after withdrawal from the reservoir side. I'm not sure how foolproof this is going to be because the ink remaining in the sponge might be harder to predict depending on how empty the cart is. And more importantly how quickly can you oversaturate the sponge uniformly without having to wait for the sponge and the ink to migrate. In the topfill, the physics of the fill, takes care of this aspect for you naturally and the visual feedback is all is necessary. The migration of the ink back into the sponge occurs at the START of the refill, thus by the end , the sponge is saturated. In German refills, it is the opposite. The oversaturation of the sponge takes place at the end. If you do oversaturate at the start, then you risk bubbling and forcing ink back into the vent.

Let's do math this sh_t up. With the 16oz ink bottles, each ml of ink will cost $0.046USD per mil approx. Suppose you spill, 1/2 ml per cart during refill, you will lose .046x8x.5 = 0.184 A little over 18 cents worth of ink.

Now suppose you can put in an extra 1 ml of ink into the cart. I suspect this will add approx a 10% reduction in the amount of refills. Thus the minimum savings you will have will be at the legislated say $11.40 per hour and say it takes 4 mins per set = 0.76 Or a little over 75 cents. So you save 75 cents by overfilling versus the ink savings of 18 cents. So you save more than $0.50 by wasting a little ink but saving time. What we have NOT added as yet is the extra productive time the printer is making you money by saving time i.e less downtime. AND then there is the fewer purge cycles due to overfilling.

It's not even a contest. Topfilling works for production environments.

Now the information presented is excellent by Cymark because he has run these machines to the end consistently and we see 25,000 prints as a life using the top off all and reset method. To a normal user just how many years use does this represent? Interesting.

Well, suppose we printed 50 prints per week. 25,000 prints equates to 500 weeks. There are 52 weeks per year. That is like approximately ten years of doing this every day and every year. I am sure after ten years you'd WANT a new printer. Sheesh, I will probably pass away before the waste ink pad tops off in my current Pro-100 at my current useage.....and I have another one and a ton of other printers. This should bring perspective back to the home user. With Canon printers like the Pro-100, if you top off and reset all, you can forget about the issue of waste ink pad. In a production environment...this is an issue but after 25,000 prints.......the ROI is not just fantastic, it's hilarious. You should be loading up on these machines in a storage facility.

OK, what's the catch in the above example.....25,000 continually printing. Switching on and off consumes ink and this goes to the pad. So the result might be down say 50%. So you'd really have to print,10 print per day, for 5 days per week, each and every week for 5 years continually. Can you see yourself doing that? Not me. Waste ink pad, what? me worry?

 

[mikling]

Now let me add something to the above and WHY you REALLY should get a Pro-100 today over something that might come out in the future.
The EXTERNAL resetter and the transparent cart.

In the above example, if Cymark used say ARC chips or refill and reset and replace one cart at a time, the lifetime could come down to as low as 3,000 to 4,000 prints not his proven number of 25,000 prints. This is a HUGE difference and this should not be lost on those considering, especially in the USA, another photo printer such as Canon's own MG series or Epson printers that HAVE to use ARC chips. So despite the smaller carts, the aspect of being able to reset the printer to a full fresh set of carts at each pitstop without additional costs is a huge benefit.

The other thing that Cymark has shown is that the Pro-100 in reality can go the mile plus and can be a workhorse provided it is fed and taken care of properly...and did we mention is very easy on the pocket to run.

Over the years, of owning printers including other Canon models, this model is certainly a standout that will be remembered for a long time because they will be around for many many years, dare I say, longer than most of us reading this?

 

[stratman]

remember once the ink gets to a certain window of chip level, it will actually freeze and then look for the optical sensor to get a real reading on how much ink is really left.

I recall discussing this but do not recall the proof of how the optical sensor and the chip counter work. Early tests of chipped Canons, where the optical sensor masked masked off with tape did not result in any significant change in the general end point of an cartridge marked as empty.

I also do not recall tests whereby the function of the chip was bypassed successfully.

What is your proof?

 

[stratman]

Let's do math this sh_t up.

The cost of refill ink may be inexpensive but the cost of labor is not. Refilling when a cartridge goes to empty halves the number of times the printer's cartridges are refilled if originally done as per your advice - which may be he best practice. Also, Cymark would not be spilling as much ink as as in your scenario and filling his waste pads sooner - neither a big deal as you say in the grand scheme of things. But, Cymark is paying double for a job that could be done one-half as frequently AND that manpower could be used to take care of other duties that would need to be done as well.

None of this may matter much on a small scale but Cymark has 200+ cartridge refills a day! I do not know how much he pays the person dedicated to refilling each day, but it adds up to more than the savings you mention, and the worker can do other duties in a more timely fashion.

Also, none of this matters if waiting for a cartridge to be marked empty ultimately results in poor ink outflow from dried ink in the sponge and the cartridge needs flushing or the print head malfunction. The remedies for these issues have significant labor and or parts costs.

I wonder what the cartridge and print head failure rate is for Cymark?

 

[Roy Sletcher]

The cost of refill ink may be inexpensive but the cost of labor is not. Refilling when a cartridge goes to empty halves the number of times the printer's cartridges are refilled if originally done as per your advice - which may be he best practice. Also, Cymark would not be spilling as much ink as as in your scenario and filling his waste pads sooner - neither a big deal as you say in the grand scheme of things. But, Cymark is paying double for a job that could be done one-half as frequently AND that manpower could be used to take care of other duties that would need to be done as well.

None of this may matter much on a small scale but Cymark has 200+ cartridge refills a day! I do not know how much he pays the person dedicated to refilling each day, but it adds up to more than the savings you mention, and the worker can do other duties in a more timely fashion.

Also, none of this matters if waiting for a cartridge to be marked empty ultimately results in poor ink outflow from dried ink in the sponge and the cartridge needs flushing or the print head malfunction. The remedies for these issues have significant labor and or parts costs.

I wonder what the cartridge and print head failure rate is for Cymark?

Anybody refilling in a business or production environment MUST out of necessity refill with duplicate cartridge sets prepared off-line and available for cartridge swapping.

When the first cart of a set indicates empty, total time to swap out eight used for 8 prepared refills should be about 30 seconds and the line is running again.

Refill best practices and cart maintenence would be a separate conversation.

rs

 

[mikling]

I recall discussing this but do not recall the proof of how the optical sensor and the chip counter work. Early tests of chipped Canons, where the optical sensor masked masked off with tape did not result in any significant change in the general end point of an cartridge marked as empty.

I also do not recall tests whereby the function of the chip was bypassed successfully.

What is your proof?

I have done this many times. Don't get me started.