OK to use inkjet paper in a laser printer?
in [Hardware]
|
From: Arthur Entlich on 6 Apr 2008 11:10 I just want to state publicly that Tony and I did NOT confer in any manner on our statements in regard to this issue and we each came to this discussion independently. Tony has substantially more knowledge and training and hands on experience than I do, in the area of laser printers and that technology, and I believe I can safely state that I have more knowledge of paper formulation and particularly inkjet paper design and use than he, and yet we both came to the nearly identical conclusions. Strange psychic power traveling half way around the world or similar general understanding and knowledge of the principles,... you decide ;-) Art Tony wrote: > kony <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:03:58 -0500, Tony >> <tonythebengaltiger(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>> Actually, the properties that make a coated paper desirable >>>> for inkjet use is the degree to which it absorbs ink, and >>>> the gloss. It doesn't have to have a low melting point to >>>> achieve this and most don't have a low melting point. >>>> >>>> I regularly put coated inkjet paper through a couple of >>>> laser printers I have, specifically it's semi-gloss photo >>>> paper as this type has reasonable toner adherance but most >>>> importantly for my needs, this type of paper delaminates >>>> when soaked in a detergent solution (I use it to make PCB >>>> etching patterns using the toner transfer method, in fact >>>> many many people do so with coated inkjet paper in laser >>>> printers without any problem, no damage to the fuser BUT >>>> that is no guarantee some other type of paper-like medium >>>> wouldn't cause problems). >>> If you have used coated paper in a laser printer without a problem then >>> either >>> the paper is designed for Laser use or you got lucky. >> False. Many, many people do so. >> >> >>> I have several customers >>> who have found out the hard way to check the packaging of their paper before >>> using it in a laser. >> Absolutely, if it is a specific type of paper using low >> melting point material it is listed as something unusual, >> not just coated paper or photopaper. >> >> >>> In some cases they have got away with it for some time and >>> suddenly the paper wraps around the fuser roller and then melts = new fuser. >> I've never claimed the risk was nonexistent, yes that is >> possible, and yet a rare exception to the norm. Someone >> with no need for coated paper should buy paper specifically >> described as suitable for laser printers. >> >> On the other hand, someone who has need for coated paper >> will generally find it works fine in a laser printer, now >> more than ever before paper manufacturers are producing >> paper that works in both types of printers because that >> opens up another market segment to them. It would be less >> of a gamble to try an unknown paper in a low value printer, >> especially an older one as they tended to operate fuser at >> higher temp. >> >> >> >>> So my advice remains the same, check the paper packaging, if it does not >>> mention Laser or Copier then it should not be used in a laser printer unless >>> the owner is prepared to risk a costly surprise. >>> Tony >> Ok, and most of the time that would be incorrect. Being >> conservative is good, especially when it's someone else's >> equipment, but being conservative to the point of ignoring >> the actual facts is excessive. >> >> Anyone using a paper only described as coated can in fact >> use it with only a very small risk. It is up to that person >> what risk to take, not you or I. > > I for one am not telling anybody to do anything. I merely answered a very > reasonable request for information and have provided an opinion. > For what it's worth, and I suspect you will find it worthless, here are some > bits of information. > > 1. This comes from a public HP document (user guide) for a current printer > "Do not use photo paper that is intended for Inkjet printers. > Do not use paper that is embossed or coated, or any media that produces > hazardous > > emissions, > or that melts, offsets, or discolors when exposed to 190�C (374�F) for 0.1 > second. > > Also, do not use > letterhead paper that is made with dyes or inks that cannot withstand that > temperature." > > This warning is typically present in most if not all HP LaserJet user guides. > > 2. http://www.okidata.com/mkt/downloads/OKIMediaGuide.pdf see page 12 item > G, OKI and HP seem to agree. > > 3. http://www.cs.indiana.edu/Facilities/FAQ/Printing/legal.html see the > note on the last page, it seems that the University of Indiana also agrees. > > 4. http://www.graphic-design.com/DTG/Design/Paper/Laser2.html this seems to > be a business but see the penultimate paragraph. > > There are many, many more that admonish people to not use coated papers in > laser printers unless specifically designed for that purpose which is all that > I said. It is unlikely in the extreme that a paper manufacturer would fail to > indicate the suitability of a particular paper for laser printers if indeed > that was the case. Therefore, is it not logical to assume that only paper that > is identified for use in a laser engine (printer or copier) is safe to use? > > I don't know where you get your information that "I've never claimed the risk > was nonexistent, yes that is > possible, and yet a rare exception to the norm.". I dispute that absolutely, I > think I can safely say that cooated paper that is not designed for laser > printer use will always in due course cause damageto most laser printers, it is > only a matter of time. It may not happen today but it will happen. And if you > can't accept that, perhaps you can accept that to take even the slightest risk > is stupidity; in many cases the cost of a fuser approches the cost of a > replacement printer. Why would anyone take that risk knowing that the risk > exists. My own experience is that all printer manufacturers will void warranty > if inkjet only coated paper damages a laser printer and I have seen this more > often than I would wish. > Once more, why take the risk when there are alternatives available? > > Tony > MS MVP Printing/Imaging >
From: measekite on 6 Apr 2008 12:17 Arthur Entlich wrote: > Please don't infer to know what the majority of people wish my > answering protocol to be on these newsgroups. I have explained the > reasons I top post numerous times in various groups I post within, and > you'll find them, at the top, holier than thou does what he wants and then rationalizes it. > intermingled and at the bottom of such previous requests or comments. > Top postings saves me valuable time which allows me to respond to many > more queries. It also saves times for many readers of my replies. > > Set posting positions are an old and outdated protocol, and if you > find how I post more important that the information I provide, then I > suggest you simply filter my posts out, if they are disturbing to > you. I get VERY few complaints from people who care about this, and I > actually get an equal number of people who have told me they prefer > top posting in this type of forum to that of intermingled or bottom > posting. > > Bottom posting perhaps had it's purpose when computers were slow, text > was big and bulky, and systems and users required more convention. > With today's much more sophisticated email clients and readers, the > issue is almost moot. Also, anyone following a thread will find top > posting considerably faster to read. > > It is a bit like sexual positions; God he even claims to know about those. Maybe he writes a manual on that too. ha ha ha > different strokes for different folks, and although there are still > many out there who think they should dictate to the world just what > strokes to use, I'm of the school that they should stick to making > those decisions for themselves, in the bedroom, or kitchen, or > hallway, or office desk, or elevator, or... > > ;-) > > Art > > > CBFalconer wrote: >> Arthur Entlich wrote: >>> Although inkjet printers have developed more refined inks and heads >>> which produce a more presentable result on uncoated paper, all "fine >>> art" and photographic quality papers for inkjets are still indeed >>> coated, or have chemistry incorporated within them for controlling dot >>> gain, and proper ink distribution to get the dynamic range required. >>> >>> Yes, there are a lot of uncoated papers available for inkjet use, but >>> they are almost all a compromise of quality over the coated papers. >> >> Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed >> with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all >> irrelevant material. See the following links: >>
From: Andrew Smallshaw on 6 Apr 2008 14:11 On 2008-04-06, Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp(a)mvps.org> wrote: > Please don't infer to know what the majority of people wish my answering > protocol to be on these newsgroups. I have explained the reasons I top > post numerous times in various groups I post within, and you'll find > them, at the top, intermingled and at the bottom of such previous > requests or comments. Top postings saves me valuable time which allows > me to respond to many more queries. It also saves times for many > readers of my replies. So it saves _you_ time and that's all that matters. To hell with everyone else. It wastes everyone's else time because a lengthy post like this has no context visible on screen. I for one had no idea what you were referring to until I scrolled down to have a look and _then_ back up again to reread your comments. But that doesn't matter because your time is all that matters. I wish top-posting advocates would shut up and learn the basics of netiquette. It has evolved over decades and most rules are there for a reason. By deliberately ignoring them you aren't helping anyone since your posts are not in the standard form expected by most readers. If you continually ignore established rules of etiquette whether on or off line people are entitled to regard your behaviour as inappropriate and/or insulting. This is without even considering the very purpose of quoting previous posts: if it is not providing context then there is no point in quoting at all. -- Andrew Smallshaw andrews(a)sdf.lonestar.org
From: rjn on 6 Apr 2008 14:29 Tony <tonythebengalti...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Do not use paper that is embossed or coated, or any media > that produces hazardous emissions, or that melts, offsets, > or discolors when exposed to 190°C (374°F) for 0.1 second. From this, could we develop a 3-step media home safety check? 1. RTFM Read the packaging. If it says "do not use in laser printers", or "for injet printers only", Stop. The media is not suited to laser. 2. Half-Temp Test Hit the media with the airstream from a hair dryer. Do this in a location where any surprise results, like fire or nasty fumes, can be managed. For extra credit, first check the air temp at the nozzle with an oven thermometer. It may be in the vicinity of 200 degrees F, well below fuser temp, but hot enough to identify really risky polymer- based, and some coated media. If a second person is available, have a Q-tip handy for checking the stability of any coating. If the media relaxes, shrinks or delaminates when hit with this air, it is not suitable for laser. If the coating softens, gets sticky or changes color, Stop. The media is unsuited. 3. Full Temp Test Have a plan for handling fire or hazardous fumes if this step goes awry. Windows open. Vent fan running. Extinguisher handy. Wear a respirator. Ray Bradbury reminds us that typical maximum fuser temps (which we emulate here) are only 50 degF below the temp at which normal paper ignites. You really need a reliable oven thermometer for this, to minimize fire risk. Tape a bare wire to the media sample. Don't use string or thread, as it may melt. Put a not-too-valuable cooking sheet in your oven (as in, do not use your pizza stone). Set the temp to 400 degrees F. When at that temp ... Put the media sample on the sheet. Quickly remove it. Check the coating for problems as in #2, and the media generally. If the media passes these tests, it probably won't immediately burst into flames, foul the fuser, or kill you with poisonous fumes. Whether you'll like the laser printed results is another matter. Don't try this at home until c.p.p. reaches consensus on it. -- Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name(a)ispname.tld http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.
From: ray on 6 Apr 2008 14:48
You provide some of the best information on this group, keep it up. I prefer top posting, no need to scroll down to the bottom of a thread that I am following. Thanks On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:40:31 GMT, Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp(a)mvps.org> wrote: >Please don't infer to know what the majority of people wish my answering >protocol to be on these newsgroups. I have explained the reasons I top >post numerous times in various groups I post within, and you'll find >them, at the top, intermingled and at the bottom of such previous >requests or comments. Top postings saves me valuable time which allows >me to respond to many more queries. It also saves times for many >readers of my replies. > >Set posting positions are an old and outdated protocol, and if you find >how I post more important that the information I provide, then I suggest >you simply filter my posts out, if they are disturbing to you. I get >VERY few complaints from people who care about this, and I actually get >an equal number of people who have told me they prefer top posting in >this type of forum to that of intermingled or bottom posting. > >Bottom posting perhaps had it's purpose when computers were slow, text >was big and bulky, and systems and users required more convention. With >today's much more sophisticated email clients and readers, the issue is >almost moot. Also, anyone following a thread will find top posting >considerably faster to read. > >It is a bit like sexual positions; different strokes for different >folks, and although there are still many out there who think they should >dictate to the world just what strokes to use, I'm of the school that >they should stick to making those decisions for themselves, in the >bedroom, or kitchen, or hallway, or office desk, or elevator, or... > >;-) > >Art > > >CBFalconer wrote: >> Arthur Entlich wrote: >>> Although inkjet printers have developed more refined inks and heads >>> which produce a more presentable result on uncoated paper, all "fine >>> art" and photographic quality papers for inkjets are still indeed >>> coated, or have chemistry incorporated within them for controlling dot >>> gain, and proper ink distribution to get the dynamic range required. >>> >>> Yes, there are a lot of uncoated papers available for inkjet use, but >>> they are almost all a compromise of quality over the coated papers. >> >> Please do not top-post. Your answer belongs after (or intermixed >> with) the quoted material to which you reply, after snipping all >> irrelevant material. See the following links: >> |