I bought another brand of waste ink bottle, because I found it better, but more expensive. Last time I mentioned the brand my post was edited to remove the reference. With that brand there was an option about how long the tubing was. I do have an IJM one here somewhere, but I’ve not fitted it yet so I don’t know whether the tubing is long enough to do what I suggested.
Your experience sounds rather similar to some of mine. I hope you nail it rather than keeping on running around in circles chasing your tail.
I got this R2880 for two reasons. One was so I could have one printer dedicated to photo prints (R3000) and the other to matte, thu other reason was to play around and learn how clear clogs, and deal with other issues. I’m learning lots!
I found the tubing IJM gave me was plenty long enough to feed it through the back vents on the R3000.
I took a really close look at the carriage unit tonight. The intake ports (the pins that push into the carts) are clean and clear on most of the channels, EXCEPT for cyan and magenta channels. In the VLM channel, 3 out of 4 intake holes are completely plugged with pigment. These had been sitting with the carts filled with piezoflush for a week. I’m sorry to say, I think I need a stronger cleaner than piezoflush for this. I had tried sucking and pushing with a piezoflush filled syringe, to no avail. I’m sure this explains why these channels take so long to “prime” after doing he paper towel underneath the head trick.
This is the final chapter for my R2880. (Brian, if you want any spare parts, they’re yours now).
As I said before, I got this printer for 2 reasons. One was to have one printer dedicated to matte prints, the other was to have a printer to experiment with. I bought it for cheap knowing there were clog issues. I actually had it working somewhat, but there were stubborn clogs that didn’t dissolve or soften in spite of storing carts with piezoflush in them for a week. There was no further change in the VLM, which still had a good 30 segments missing. It was at this point I decided to remove the head so I could soak it directly in solvent. It actually wasn’t too difficult to remove the head, and I didn’t have to dismantle the printer too much to get the head out. However, I am totally embarrassed by the fact I didn’t read one VERY important step in the R2880 service manual. I’m a teacher that is always chewing out my students for not reading instructions. The missed instruction was to remove the CSIC FCC from the connector on the CSIC board. When I tried to lift the CSIC board out as instructed, the connector side seemed stuck (of course it was!). I ended up damaging the cable and now all inks except for yellow report as out of ink. The cartridges are full, and they’ve been reset with the tool from IJM.
I have learned a couple of things in the whole process:
pigment inks can form very bad clogs that won’t dissolve, even in piezoflush. I tried, as an experiment, using 50:50 propylene glycol:acetone as well. I could see three of the cartridge inlet pins were completely clogged and noting except physical scrubbing would remove those clogs. If such a clog existed inside the head, or if there were solid chunks of pigment floating inside the head, these would never break up with the usual solvents. I hear that Epson has something super strong that you’re not supposed to use for storing the printer. Perhaps this stuff would work, but I didn’t have any.
I don’t believe the print head is as fragile as I assumed. I don’t think a paper jam would wreck the print head, nor do I think using good quality paper towels would damage the print head. The worst thing that I think might happen is that some fibres might get into one of the nozzles. I’m sure a few cleanings would get those out.
Thanks to Kelly and Dana for humoring me along. I hope I didn’t seem like a pest with this one. Don’t worry, I won’t be experimenting with my R3000! Well, that’s not quite true. I’m going to experiment with some 13x19 San Gabriel Semigloss this weekend!
Thanks to Brian who’s had similar but not so severe experiences with his R2880.
I may remove the head and take it apart to see how bad it looks on the inside. I’ve probably dumped about 300 mL of piezoflush through this printer. it would be interesting to see what’s left inside the head.
Thanks for the offer, but I suspect what I need most is a new print head myself.
It’s not clear from your post whether the soaking of the head - outside the printer - might have worked. Do you have a view?
I’d also be interested in hearing what you find inside the head if anything. And also whether you think that replacing the manifold - as I suggested in another thread - might be viable.
Considering all the piezoflush I put through the head, I was surprised how much black gunk came out. Also, once the pigment hardens into a plug, for example in the intake “pins”, the pigment softens but won’t clear. I took a chance with 50:50 propylene glycol:acetone, and that mixture only softened but did not flush out the intake. If there exists such a plug or solid clump inside the head, it could be difficult to remove with the solvents we have at hand.
I read about one such procedure that involved using a syringe to suck directly on the clogged nozzles. I would like to see if I can cut the damaged end of the CSIC cable, expose the terminals and reconnect.
I am also considering stopping my messing around and getting a $300 Artisan. I would probably use Jon’s dye inks because I don’t need the longevity for these prints.
I don’t really consider any of this a pity. Given the clogs on the intake, I would likely have fought flow related issues all the time. I have learned how important it is to keep things clean. I will want to inspect the intakes on a regular basis.
Which reminds me, I need to give my R3000 cartridges a shake.
[QUOTE=Brian_S;8530 . . .And also whether you think that replacing the manifold - as I suggested in another thread - might be viable.
All in all, a pity.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, I didn’t know the manifold was replaceable. Maybe it can be cleaned this way? Maybe the inside of the head can be cleaned?
As for soaking the head outside the printer, I’m not convinced it would do any better. Here are two pictures of the head, one of the whole underside, a second is a closer view.
I’m not an expert, but I didn’t observe any buildup of pigment on the surface itself. Perhaps a good capping station would have been able to apply good suction to pull out the blockages, but if a nozzle is really blocked and there’s good flow through the other nozzles, there may not be enough suction to relieve a bad block on some nozzles. At least, that’s my hypothesis. I’m certain this printer suffered from a severe lack of use. Given how blocked the intake ports were, if any of these nozzles were blocked just as bad, it would take suction applied directly to a blocked nozzle to free it. Also, I assume these heads have oscillating plates (Google image search Epson piezo print head). If the blockage is in between the oscillating plates or in one of these ports, I have no idea how this could be flushed if it gets as badly plugged as the manifold got. By the way, I noticed that the badly plugged ports were cyan and magenta. Yellow wasn’t so bad, and the blacks were completely clean.
So to answer your question, if I were to store this thing in piezoflush for a few months, perhaps do daily head cleans, it might free up. I would have to say, though, once the head has gotten to the point where you have missing segments in the same place that don’t clear with several head cleans, it’s probably a losing battle.
I think I remember reading from the IJM that it’s a good idea to flush out the system annually with piezoflush. I’m inclined to agree. I was debating whether or not it would be overkill. I’m considering that it may be something that should be very strongly recommended.
No-one has said that the manifold is replaceable. But you can buy it. So … ?
As for whether it’s a lost cause, the only instance I’ve seen of someone doing a head soak is that one report here on IJM, and if you read that thread you’ll see that his joy was short-lived, so perhaps you’re right. But if the only issue is some stubborn clogs that can only be dealt with this way, then you might be in luck.
My desktops usually have at least one or two months a year with flush carts left in, with nice clean flush nozzle checks. The 1900 is still going strong 4½ years on. I think it’s a good idea.
I’ve got one better picture of the head I found after brightening one picture I took last August. I don’t know exactly how the interior of the head is built, but there should be 8 “lines” which I assume are the dark vertical lines that seem to run in pairs. In this image, I believe you can see the nozzles of the head coming from those 8 lines. I also noticed in this image one of the nozzles (?) is missing? I no longer have the head. I got so frustrated I threw it so hard it ended up on the other side of the planet. I believe it ended up in Brian’s back yard somewhere.
I’m only posting this out of pure interest, just in case some one actually is interested in what the underside of the head looks like and doesn’t want to rip apart the printer. (By the way, I really wouldn’t recommend doing this on a good printer you intend to keep unless you know with confidence you can put it back together. I learned, knowing I was likely junking mine)
That is one of the nastiest head I’ve ever seen! (The surface should be mirror-like)
Here’s a photo of what the underside of a R2880 head SHOULD look like (and this is even an old/abused head):
As Larry said, I now have custody of that particular print head. I intend to use it to practice printer open heart / brain surgery.
The print head looks pretty much as you (Dana) photographed it - mirror-like with some faint lines. I think Larry did some digital enhancement in an attempt to highlight its underlying structure. It’s not how the head looks to the naked eye.
However I also have an R2400 print head, which I plan to use for similar purposes, and it doesn’t have a mirror-like surface - more matte. Do you recall if the R2400 print head was so different, or is this a sign of something bad?
That’s true. I don’t have a macro lens, just an 18-140 lens. Lighting was tricky because I was interested in what I could see inside. Also, I wanted to see if I could assess the condition of the nozzles. To do so, I had to take the picture with little reflected light, boost the exposure, and hence the noise.
Here’s another which shows different details, but individual nozzles don’t seem so visible.
I have a very strong feeling now that if an “initial fill” had been done early one with piezoflush, and left for a week or a month, the clogs may have been freed up without damaging the internal seals. I realized the head was probably toast when injecting piezoflush into one nipple caused ink/piezoflush to come out from a neighbouring one, indicating the internal seals had broken. Personally, I’d be EXTREMELY cautious about using the flushing kit. The plungers do not move smoothly when used with piezoflush causing the plunger to suddenly move, causing greater pressure than intended. For the life of me, I don’t know how Dana can squirt piezoflush out from these syringes so smoothly and effortlessly!
I took the 2880 print head in question out into the harsh light of the Australian midday summer sun, and under that light it looks just like that last photo of Larry’s. I think what is happening is that under this sort of strong, hard light, you’re looking through the mirrored surface onto the internals of the head. Under softer light, such as in Dana’s photo, you only see the mirrored surface.
I’ve used the cleaning kit on a number of printers, and to my knowledge never have I burst an internal membrane. Even on a 1410 that was irredeemably clogged, and which went to the e-waste. And I used a fair bit of force on that printer, since I had nothing to lose. Perhaps I’ve just been lucky, and also none of my clogs (other than the 1410) were all that bad.
InkjetMall Information
Why buy from us
My InkjetMall account
Contact Info