> About 10 years ago, I maintained a few HP4 series printers. A billing > service had one with 300,000 pages. I replaced some minor plastic > parts that had worn out, and I think it ran for another 20,000 pages > before being retired. My HP4Plus went to about 130,000 pages. I know > of several others that are around 100,000 pages. Yep, they last as do > the older HPII and HPIII series printers.
I know of at least one LJ4050 that's over a million pages, and others approaching that. The fusers wear out a bit earlier than predicted (170-180K pages instead of 200K) and of course they've been through a couple of sets of rollers. My old LJ4M still works, but it's not anywhere near the class of those printers. Sometimes "new and improved" is actually true.
>> About 10 years ago, I maintained a few HP4 series printers. A billing >> service had one with 300,000 pages. I replaced some minor plastic >> parts that had worn out, and I think it ran for another 20,000 pages >> before being retired. My HP4Plus went to about 130,000 pages. I know >> of several others that are around 100,000 pages. Yep, they last as do >> the older HPII and HPIII series printers. >I know of at least one LJ4050 that's over a million pages, and others >approaching that.
Nice. Looking at my equipment log, I have customers with a 4000 and another with a 4050. 125,000 and 250,000 pages respectively as of about June 2009. I think the most pages on a single printer I've dealt with was a payroll service, that would print almost continuously 8 hrs per day, 5 days per week, resulting in about 300,000 pages per year. I think one made it to 600,000 pages. However, they weren't trying to break any records, so old printers were retired as soon as they developed any kind of mechanical problem.
>The fusers wear out a bit earlier than predicted >(170-180K pages instead of 200K) and of course they've been through a >couple of sets of rollers.
The LJII and LJIII would occasionally burn out the fuser lamp. More commonly, the relay in the power supply module would fry it contacts: <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/drivel/slides/hp-relay.html> Note the pitted contacts. The triac in the power supply would also blow up. I spent lots of time rebuilding HP LJII and LJIII power supplies.
More common failures in the HP LJII and LJIII fusers was a build up of melted toner on the thermostat and on the 4 stripped blades. These would eventually gouge the surface of the drum, and expose the underlying aluminum. A filthy felt scrubber will also gouge the drum. Pull the scrubber and remove any melted toner. Melted toner in the gears was also a problem.
If you have an HP LJII and LJIII, open the top, and pull the hinged stripper blade assembly towards the back of the printer. It's on the back side of the fuser. No need to remove the fuser from the unit. Take a plastic blade and scrape clean the 4 sharp stripper blades from any melted toner. If there's a vertical stripe smear, about 1/4" wide, about 2 inches from the left side of the page, remove the fuser, and clean the melted toner off the top of the thermostat. The think plastic end covers on the fuser tend to crumble or break off, but the fuser will work without them.
I don't really know how long an HP LJII or LJIII fuser is expected to last. I found myself rotating rebuilt fusers among my customers roughly every 100,000 pages.
Oh yeah... air hose the filth out of the ozone filter, under the corona wire, and on the bottom of the printer.
>My old LJ4M still works, but it's not >anywhere near the class of those printers. Sometimes "new and improved" >is actually true.
Jeff Liebermann wrote: >> My old LJ4M still works, but it's not >> anywhere near the class of those printers. Sometimes "new and improved" >> is actually true.
I find it uneconomical to buy parts for older kit. Easier to just hunt around for one at a thrift store (the going rate for LJ4's around here is $20) -- chances are, you'll also end up with some free toner in the printer!
On 4 nov, 15:40, Roger Blake <rogblak...@iname10.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-04, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> > Got my HP LaserJet 2100M (600 DPI w/PostScript capability) ca. 2000. Not > > only is the printer still working perfectly, but I'm still using the > > same cartridge I got with it!
> My Canon LBP-430 (same as an HP LaserJet 4L) is still soldiering on > after 15 years. I have changed the cartridge a couple of times, and > recently scored a few very inexpensive toners at a thrift store > to keep it going another 15 years. :-)
I have a canon LBP-4u which is also a Laserjet 4L in disguise. It was a skip find a few years ago, and works like a champ. I also salvaged some 4l toners to use with it should the need arise. Not sure what resolution it is, I think it could probably be better in this department.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:45:31 -0500, Meat Plow <m...@petitmorte.net> wrote:
>They upgraded to a 6p dual tray and gave >me the 4 rather than binning it. That was in 2001.
About 6 months ago, also I recycled 3ea HP LJ 6p printers I was saving for parts. I was down to one customer with a 6mp so it wasn't worth saving much. I needed the space more than the parts. I built up one printer and gave it to the neighbors kids. No complaints so I guess they're either using it effectively for school work, or have totally destroyed it by now.
The 6p was reasonably state-o-de-art in 2001 but is a loser by today's standards. It's very slow (8ppm), very slow to start (90 sec), a slight power hog, and a desk space hog. 600dpi is ok for everything except photographs. There are a few minor mechanical issues, but basically it's a decent printer (once it warms up). I don't like the large footprint, but the fairly low profile offers opportunities to hide the printer where the taller equivalents (i.e. LJ4) don't fit. As long as the rubber parts are clean and soft, I haven't seen many paper misfeeds. The HP 03A toner cart is rated at about 4000 pages (at 5% coverage), and seems to deliver (I've never kept track).
Most of the real failures I've seen on the HP LJ 6p series were blown electronics. There doesn't seem to be a pattern as most were caused by power glitches which seems to do random damage. I usually replace the main pickup roller on the 6P and similar construction 4P when diving in because it usually requires total disassembly to replace the roller and I might as well do it while disassembled.
David Nebenzahl wrote: > On 11/3/2009 9:39 PM Bob Larter spake thus:
>> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>>> One thing I really don't like about this, and really most HP printers >>> that I've used, is that it hates to print on the back of printed >>> sheets. Usually it eats/shreds about half the sheets one tries to >>> print this way. Yeah, I know, you can get HPs with "duplex" options, >>> but to me, that's utter bullshit. I remember the old Panasonic laser >>> printer my old office had. It was a huge beast, and certainly no >>> better than the HP we also had at the time (LJ 4???), but the >>> Panasonic would feed *any* paper you put into it, even if it had just >>> been run through the printer on one side. I'd always use it to print >>> out my manuals on 2 sides for proofing.
>> It'll work better if you ensure that you print on the correct side of >> the sheet first. Check your paper packet for an arrow, & a label >> saying "Print this side first", & load your paper tray accordingly. >> It'll also help to riffle the stack of paper before loading it into >> the cartridge. Give the paper cartridge a shake to even up the edges >> before putting it in the printer.
> I've done all those things; none of them make the slightest difference. > (As a former printer, it's an automatic reflex for me to fan paper > before inserting it into a paper-eating machine.)
Well, something is clearly wrong. I serviced Canon-engine lasers for many years, & all the larger models (ie; with more metal than plastic, such as the CX, SX & MX engines) had really good paper-handling, & could cope just fine with double-sided printing.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:12:18 +0000, baron > <baron.nos...@linuxmaniac.nospam.net> wrote:
>> The old Panasonic's were great printers ! As you remark it would print >> on anything including the back of already printed sheets. Ours was >> used with two and three part NCR paper. The hard part was the software >> to ensure that it registered and collated properly.
> The old Panasonic KX-4450 series laser printers were awful. When > clean, they would work just fine. They didn't jam because the > projecting paper trays would simulate a straight line paper path. They > did bar codes, which was a big attraction at the time. However, > keeping them running and clean was a challenge. I had one in a > machine shop that was as good as dead after about 30,000 pages. > Another was in a small factory next to a farm that ate enough dirt to > destroy almost all the rubber parts. The toner overflow mechanism was > messy and would frequently dump toner everywhere. It was instant > quality problems from "clumping" if someone dumped the "waste" toner > back into the toner bin. Much as I liked the economy of the bottled > toner, it was messy to refill. Because of the open toner bin > construction, I couldn't keep it clean with an air hose. There were > two in relatively clean environments that lasted to about 70,000 > pages, but they required almost constant cleaning to remain > functional.
The lasers I hated most were the small Toshibas - their fuser assemblies had a nasty habit of melting down. After seeing the same units coming back again & again, we eventually banned them from our workshop.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
>>> It'll work better if you ensure that you print on the correct >>> side of the sheet first. Check your paper packet for an arrow, & >>> a label saying "Print this side first", & load your paper tray >>> accordingly. It'll also help to riffle the stack of paper before >>> loading it into the cartridge. Give the paper cartridge a shake >>> to even up the edges before putting it in the printer.
>> I've done all those things; none of them make the slightest >> difference. (As a former printer, it's an automatic reflex for me >> to fan paper before inserting it into a paper-eating machine.)
> Well, something is clearly wrong. I serviced Canon-engine lasers for > many years, & all the larger models (ie; with more metal than plastic, > such as the CX, SX & MX engines) had really good paper-handling, & could > cope just fine with double-sided printing.
Yes, but those were Canon-engine printers, not HPs. As Jeff L. pointed out, the HP design suffers from an abrupt turn right at the paper-pickup point, which seems to be the snag that makes printing on just-printed sheets very problematic.
Believe me, I've tried this many, many times, as I prefer to print long documents on both sides of the paper.
-- Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?
> David Nebenzahl wrote: > > On 11/3/2009 9:39 PM Bob Larter spake thus:
> >> David Nebenzahl wrote:
> >>> One thing I really don't like about this, and really most HP printers > >>> that I've used, is that it hates to print on the back of printed > >>> sheets. Usually it eats/shreds about half the sheets one tries to > >>> print this way. Yeah, I know, you can get HPs with "duplex" options, > >>> but to me, that's utter bullshit. I remember the old Panasonic laser > >>> printer my old office had. It was a huge beast, and certainly no > >>> better than the HP we also had at the time (LJ 4???), but the > >>> Panasonic would feed *any* paper you put into it, even if it had just > >>> been run through the printer on one side. I'd always use it to print > >>> out my manuals on 2 sides for proofing.
> >> It'll work better if you ensure that you print on the correct side of > >> the sheet first. Check your paper packet for an arrow, & a label > >> saying "Print this side first", & load your paper tray accordingly. > >> It'll also help to riffle the stack of paper before loading it into > >> the cartridge. Give the paper cartridge a shake to even up the edges > >> before putting it in the printer.
> > I've done all those things; none of them make the slightest difference. > > (As a former printer, it's an automatic reflex for me to fan paper > > before inserting it into a paper-eating machine.)
> Well, something is clearly wrong. I serviced Canon-engine lasers for > many years, & all the larger models (ie; with more metal than plastic, > such as the CX, SX & MX engines) had really good paper-handling, & could > cope just fine with double-sided printing.
The old Apple LaserWriters with Canon engines are nearly unkillable, if a bit slow. The most jam-prone printer I ever saw, though, had a Xerox engine! You'd think that if anybody knew about paper handling, it'd be them...
> Actually something of a reverse gloat, along the lines of "my old printer > still works; does yours?".
Since you asked, yes, it did. I had an HP LaserJet III that I ran the page counter over to all zeroes. All it ever asked for was the odd new pick roller and toner. It never gave any power supply trouble. In fact, the only thing it didn't have was enough installed memory to handle some jobs.
It worked great until a basement flood came along. And it might have worked even then, but it disappeared before I could even try to clean it and see what would happen.
It was pretty weird seeing a printer that old reporting a page count of a few hundred after it rolled over.
More recently, I saw a Sharp AR-M450P unit make 1.5 million copies with only routine maintenance. Ironically enough, it was more reliable than the newer (330,000 copies) AR-M450 that replaced it.
> Which is a little puzzling; while the printer hasn't exactly been used in > a production environment, I have put plenty of pages through it: printed > out many entire manuals, etc. I'm just waiting for the cartridge to empty > out, but it still hasn't come close. (I even have a 2nd cartridge I got > with the printer, still in its foil package.)
Maybe you got a never-ending cartridge? :-)
Or perhaps it is in the page coverage percentage. Printer makers express toner cartridge life at a given % of coverage on a page. I think the usual figure is based on a 10% coverage. If I'm remembering it right, 10% coverage on a page is actually a lot closer to being "fully loaded" than you'd think.
> but the Panasonic would feed *any* paper you put into it, even if it had > just been run through the printer on one side. I'd always use it to print > out my manuals on 2 sides for proofing.
Evidently nobody ever told their dot-matrix printer design team that it was possible to do this. I had a KX-P2123 whose tractor feed had to be set up *precisely* or it would tangle and eat the paper. I knew of many others that had the same problem. I finally dumped it in favor of an Epson ActionPrinter T1000 (a printer that proved so tough that vandals with a baseball bat couldn't break it). I haven't powered it on in a while, but I'm sure it would still work fine.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:05:41 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well, something is clearly wrong. I serviced Canon-engine lasers for >many years, & all the larger models (ie; with more metal than plastic, >such as the CX, SX & MX engines)
>had really good paper-handling, & could >cope just fine with double-sided printing.
Let me try to explain again, for the third time (with some additions).
The printers expect the pages to be flat. Pages that have gone through the printer tend to be slightly warped. You can demonstrate this by finding a truly flat and smooth surface, and plopping a piece of printed paper onto this surface. Flip it over and compare how it lies on the flat surface to that of a clean unprinted page. It invariable has a lump on one side or other. That's fatal to many feed mechanism, especially those that use only a single foot or roller in the middle of the page.
Remelting the toner on the back side of the page sometimes causes the toner to stick to the rubber roller in the fuser, causing exit jams. Take a page of recently printed paper and slide an unprinted page over the printed page on the flat surface. If you're careful, you can feel the increased and erratic drag. If your not a believer, hang an alligator clip on the end of a fish scale. Plop the printed page into a stack of new unprinted paper. Pull and measure the tension required to pull the paper out of the stack. Now, do the same think with an unprinted page. Depending on the height of the stack, the printed page has increased drag over the unprinted page. Yes, I know that the printer does not pull paper from the middle of the stack. The weight of the paper pile is to simulate the pressure supplied by the rubber feed roller.
That's an especially bad problem if you print a stack of paper, and then feed the stack back through the printer again to print on the back side. The pages will stick together because the black plastic toner is fairly lumpy and slightly sticky. Printing on the back side also tend to transfer some toner from the back side to the rubber roller in the fuser assembly. The HPII and HPIII were especially bad at leaving impressions on the roller. Later printers uses a mylar sheet between the fuser and the rubber roller. Reheated toner on the back of the page would not stick to the mylar.
The rubber "feet" above the feed tray don't like to push against printed paper, where the black areas are much slicker than the unprinted white paper. It's usually not a problem with a fairly new printer, but after the rubber feet get worn and slick, things tend to slide. I just fixed an HP 4000 printer with this problem.
In my never humble opinion, the Canon printer feed mechanism sucks. It's major problems are the reliance on a single rubber feed roller located in the middle of the page. When everything is proper (new rubber, good flat 20 lb paper, no printing on the back, etc), it works just fine. When something changes, it has so little friction surface, that it screws up badly. If there's any crud in mechanism, the center feed will cause the leading edge to misalign or corrugate, resulting in a guaranteed paper jam.
The solution was provided in the 4000 thru 4300 series printers (and some others). It has 4ea "D" shaped rubber feet to feed the paper off the top of the stack. If one foot slips a little because it's sitting on some printing or a bulge, the others will still feed the page in a fairly straight line. The "D" feet are also very easy to replace.
These later printers also solved another problem. The HP LJ4 series had two sets of coupled rollers contact the paper at the same time. If there was even a slight difference in roller diameter, the paper would either wrinkle, or the rollers would slip, and the paper would jam. Bad design. This was fixed in later models by either having only one set of rollers make contact, or adding a clutch to allow for changes in roller diameter.
Incidentally, the HP4300 records the number of pages printed on a chip attached to the toner cart. The printer records errors including paper jams. I just connected to a customers network via VNC and looked at their 4300 log file. About 10,000 pages on the toner cart with 8 paper jams. I don't think I could ever come close to that with a Canon SX series printer. This particular machine has a duplexer, but it's normally not used for tax returns. I've seen this printer grind through piles and piles of printed tax returns without ever jamming. Their previous printer was an HP4si, which would jam at least 2-4 times per ream of paper.
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:28:37 GMT, "William R. Walsh"
<newsgrou...@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote: >Or perhaps it is in the page coverage percentage. Printer makers express >toner cartridge life at a given % of coverage on a page. I think the usual >figure is based on a 10% coverage.
HP originally used 5%. That resulted in yields for US and EU being slightly different due to the differences between letter size and A4 size paper. Since 2004, everyone uses ISO/IEC 19752.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:12:44 -0800, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote: >In article <hd003e$q...@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>, > Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David Nebenzahl wrote: >> > On 11/3/2009 9:39 PM Bob Larter spake thus:
>> >> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> >>> One thing I really don't like about this, and really most HP printers >> >>> that I've used, is that it hates to print on the back of printed >> >>> sheets. Usually it eats/shreds about half the sheets one tries to >> >>> print this way. Yeah, I know, you can get HPs with "duplex" options, >> >>> but to me, that's utter bullshit. I remember the old Panasonic laser >> >>> printer my old office had. It was a huge beast, and certainly no >> >>> better than the HP we also had at the time (LJ 4???), but the >> >>> Panasonic would feed *any* paper you put into it, even if it had just >> >>> been run through the printer on one side. I'd always use it to print >> >>> out my manuals on 2 sides for proofing.
>> >> It'll work better if you ensure that you print on the correct side of >> >> the sheet first. Check your paper packet for an arrow, & a label >> >> saying "Print this side first", & load your paper tray accordingly. >> >> It'll also help to riffle the stack of paper before loading it into >> >> the cartridge. Give the paper cartridge a shake to even up the edges >> >> before putting it in the printer.
>> > I've done all those things; none of them make the slightest difference. >> > (As a former printer, it's an automatic reflex for me to fan paper >> > before inserting it into a paper-eating machine.)
>> Well, something is clearly wrong. I serviced Canon-engine lasers for >> many years, & all the larger models (ie; with more metal than plastic, >> such as the CX, SX & MX engines) had really good paper-handling, & could >> cope just fine with double-sided printing.
>The old Apple LaserWriters with Canon engines are nearly unkillable, if >a bit slow. The most jam-prone printer I ever saw, though, had a Xerox >engine! You'd think that if anybody knew about paper handling, it'd be >them...
My Xerox (a 5400) has been very good, about one jam every six months (usually after loading the tray). Does reasonably on double sided, but not perfect (I really would like to get the duplexer option, and am watching eBay for one). I actually am picking up a second 5400 this morning, too, for either spare or second use.
David Nebenzahl wrote: > Nope. Not the problem. It's inherent in the lousy HP feeder design. I've > never seen a LaserJet that would print on the back side of just-printed > sheets even when brand new.
I've done it all the time on LaserJet II, III, 4m, and 5 printers. (I often keep a tray full of scrap paper that's already printed on one side.) It works best if the paper has chance to cool and lose its curl, though. If it's hot out of the machine you may have problems. Sometimes if the weather is try the paper will come out with a static charge that makes it stick together and misfeed, too.
D Yuniskis wrote: > I couldn't *kill* my LJii! I finally had to get rid of it as > the electric costs were ridiculous (though the toner carts > were awful cheap!)
The fuser eventually went out on my II, after many years. I got rid of it and replaced it with a heavily (ab)used 4m, surplus from a college computer lab. Used that for three or four years until the output rollers got too warn and it started to jam; I could have fixed it, but at that point I was sick of how slow it was, so I went to the local computer recycler and bought a lightly used 2300n. These HP laser printers are so cheap on the used market and hold up so well in home use.
David Nebenzahl wrote: > On 11/5/2009 7:05 PM Bob Larter spake thus: >> Well, something is clearly wrong. I serviced Canon-engine lasers for >> many years, & all the larger models (ie; with more metal than plastic, >> such as the CX, SX & MX engines) had really good paper-handling, & >> could cope just fine with double-sided printing.
> Yes, but those were Canon-engine printers, not HPs.
The HP LaserJet II, III, and 4 series printers all used Canon print engines.
> As Jeff L. pointed > out, the HP design suffers from an abrupt turn right at the paper-pickup > point, which seems to be the snag that makes printing on just-printed > sheets very problematic.
The II and III suffer least from that problem, because their trays project out the front. It makes them very bulky, though.
William R. Walsh wrote: > Or perhaps it is in the page coverage percentage. Printer makers express > toner cartridge life at a given % of coverage on a page. I think the usual > figure is based on a 10% coverage.
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Liebermann wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:05:41 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> Well, something is clearly wrong. I serviced Canon-engine lasers for >> many years, & all the larger models (ie; with more metal than plastic, >> such as the CX, SX & MX engines)
Yep, you're right. It's been long enough that I just misremembered.
> All the HP (something)X LaserJet printers were made by Canon.
Yep. I first learned to repair lasers when I worked for Canon. That knowledge came in very handy for fixing other brands.
[snip lots of useful info]
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:56:06 -0800, David Nebenzahl wrote: > This inspired by the mini-thread in the thread up yonder about HP > DeskJet printers. Actually something of a reverse gloat, along the lines > of "my old printer still works; does yours?".
> Got my HP LaserJet 2100M (600 DPI w/PostScript capability) ca. 2000. Not > only is the printer still working perfectly, but I'm still using the > same cartridge I got with it!
Our home office printer is an HP LJ III which we purchased new on July 27, 1990. I have the exact date at hand because we came across the canceled check several years ago and taped it to the cover of the printer. $1,872.50 - IN 1990 US$$$!!
All-in-all, I've been able to keep it supplied with toner cartridges by buying them in unopened boxes at 2nd-hand stores-- which were no doubt dropped off by folks that just had to 'upgrade' to the troublesome inkjet printers.
Admittedly, it does not get heavy use. The only repair I've had to do to it is replace the fuser assy -- about 2 years ago.
Jonesy -- Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux 38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2 * Killfiling google & XXXXbanter.com: jonz.net/ng.htm
|
