I’m not sure where to post this, so feel free to move it. I couldn’t see a GO section of the forum.
When I perform a nozzle check on my R1900, there’s a checker-board pattern that I understand is the check for GO. But if I have GO in a K3 printer, is there a way to do a nozzle check on that channel, since K3 printers don’t have this part of the nozzle check?
Background: I have a problematic R2400 that I was on the verge of taking to the e-waste, but I hit upon the idea of using it as a GO only printer. The issue for me with GO is that it gets used up fairly quickly. When I refill there’s a head clean, which uses up the other inks. So a printer with GO in one working channel and flush or clogs in the other channels is well suited to GO printing.
I know that GO very rarely clogs. But given the history of this particular printer, I want to be sure that the LLK channel where GO is installed is flowing correctly. Unsurprisingly, the LLK channel hasn’t been one of the problematic ones, and I had a good LLK nozzle pattern before the switch. But even so, it would be nice to be able to check, other than doing an overcoat and trying to see if there’s any unevenness in the coating. Is there a way?
You need to print GO on a gloss compatible type of paper then hold at an angle to be able to see the GO. It isn’t easy to see but this is the only technique that works. To take it a step further you could print a black patch on the edge of the paper, then do the NC with GO and that would make it show up that much more. I wouldn’t do this every time, but initially when you are trying to determine if the channel is acceptable for GO printing it would work well.
That’s pretty much what I did, since it was the only thing i could think of too. I covered an A4 page of el cheapo paper, and there was some unevenness and banding in the first 20-25%, but then it seemed to sort itself out. I then coated an image and that looked good, so I assume it’s ok now.
The idea of doing the nozzle check over a black patch is a clever one. I might try that.
The Epson R1900 driver does that checkerboard pattern that is supposed to work on plain paper, and another piezo user suggested to me that it may be possible to construct something similar using the purge pattern for K & GO (LLK) and using calibration mode. But I suspect that the Epson pattern is done in two passes, not one.
A follow-up question. I’ve probably got more than one working channel. Perhaps as many as three. I think LM & LC are probably ok. I could put GO in these channels, could I not, and modify the GO curve to give me 10,000 units in each? This would allow me to do more GO printing between refills. Any reason why not to?
I don’t see why this wouldn’t work, but your idea of Piezoflush in the other channels is a MUCH cheaper solution then GO in multiple channels. As channels die you can move your GO cart around by changing the GO curve to that channel. This is a super easy and cheap solution to re-purpose your R2400 into a GO printer. Piezoflush is well over 1/2 the cost of GO and to go along with your other thread asking about diluting, the Piezoflush solution should not be adjusted in anyway from it’s original formulation as it is intended to be.
I removed your thread posting asking this question, because it tries into this one, no need for duplicate threads.
I’m not sure I communicated my idea and my question clearly enough.
My idea was to print a GO coating by simultaneously using 10,000 units from each of the three GO carts, rather than 30,000 units from one. So the other additional two carts with GO aren’t just sitting there doing nothing - they’re all in use on each GO print job. So I can print three times as much GO between refills. In order to do this I have to edit the GO curve to use all three channels simultaneously, but that’s not hard.
My question was - is there any potential issue with laying down a single coat of GO using three GO carts rather than one? I can’t see any.
Well, I can see one small drawback. Each head clean that occurs will draw GO from 3 carts rather than one. I would need to decide whether that small price is worth the convenience of less frequent refills.
Well, I can see one small drawback. Each head clean that occurs will draw GO from 3 carts rather than one. I would need to decide whether that small price is worth the convenience of less frequent refills.
This is why I suggested only using 1 GO channel, instead of 3 at the same time, you are going to waste far more GO if you have it installed in more then 1 channel from cleaning cycles. I don’t see why it wouldn’t work printing from 3 channels using a customized GO curve to print 10K out of each, BUT I haven’t tested that theory nor have time too do so.
It’s not a bad idea, but it would be more cost effective to print GO out of 1 channel, the way it was intended and developed to do and install flush in the other channels. If you do test this theory, let me know how it turns out, I would be curious to know if it works or not.
Looking at the comparative prices of GO and flush, I’m still thinking about it. Refilling those bottom-fill R2400 carts is a right pain and I don’t want to do it all that often. And if you’re coating 13"x19" prints you don’t get many prints per cart. I think what I’ll do is stick to one cart and just put the extra two in when I’m doing something like a run of 13"x19". Thanks.
I would have to agree with you, I also find it easier to fill multiple carts at the same time with the same ink.
I did a test a while ago to find out how many prints you could get out of 1 2880 cart with GO on 8.5"x11" paper = 16 prints at 1440 dpi, bi-directional using the 30K curve, so if you used the 3 carts at the same time using a 10K curve for each, you should get approx. 48 prints, having to refill a whole less often.
InkjetMall Information
Why buy from us
My InkjetMall account
Contact Info