On 13/09/2021 14:22, Figaro wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:09:48 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> It is very fine, though very clear on mine if you look through a
>> magnifying glass or, which is very convenient sometimes, you're quite
>> short-sighted, remove your glasses and can look at it in focus up very
>> close. The divergence in all the vertical lines starts where they cross
>> the third horizontal (well, slightly off horizontal line actually, as
>> they all are), and ends at the corresponding point at the bottom. It's
>> a curious feature, hard to spot with the naked (vision-corrected) eye,
>> but I think it must be a deliberate feature as it's so reproducible.
>>
>> If anyone else here has a Canon printer, I'd be very interested to know
>> whether they can observe this on a nozzle check pattern.
>
> Tried the nozzle check pattern on a Canon pixma 4800 series.
> Checked with an x8 magnifier, could not see any divergence on the fine
> lines.

I've just watched a reasonably old YouTube video which showed someone
printing out a nozzle check pattern from a Canon printer, but it's not
the same pattern as mine. Mine has the fine line grid at the top, then
three cyan blocks of different intensities, three blocks of magenta, one
block of yellow, one block of black presumably from the small cartridge,
and three blocks of grey.

The one I saw had just two blocks of different intensities for each
colour. Maybe that makes a difference?

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 16:49:31 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>> Tried the nozzle check pattern on a Canon pixma 4800 series.
>> Checked with an x8 magnifier, could not see any divergence on the fine
>> lines.
>
>I've just watched a reasonably old YouTube video which showed someone
>printing out a nozzle check pattern from a Canon printer, but it's not
>the same pattern as mine. Mine has the fine line grid at the top, then
>three cyan blocks of different intensities, three blocks of magenta, one
>block of yellow, one block of black presumably from the small cartridge,
>and three blocks of grey.

Mine was similar to yours except no blocks of grey. Using
compatible cartridges as well.
>
>The one I saw had just two blocks of different intensities for each
>colour. Maybe that makes a difference?

On 12:45 13 Sep 2021, MB said:
> On 12/09/2021 12:21, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone have a Which? subscription and can tell me what new
>> all-in-one printer-scanners they recommend please?
>
>
> I know that in the past, whenever I have looked at a Which report on
> anything that I knew a bit about, I have disagreed with them.

I have found the same too. Maybe they are alright for tin openers and
washing powder but I no longer trust their tech recomendations.

On 12/09/2021 04:42 pm, Tweed wrote:

[ ... ]

> Brother DCP-L3510CDW Colour Laser Printer - All-in-One, Wireless/USB 2.0,
> Printer/Scanner/Copier, 2 Sided Printing, 18PPM, A4 Printer
>
> About £250
>
> I have similar though minus the scanner. The big plus point is it is a
> laser so no drying out of nozzles. Brother, unless they’ve changed lately,
> supply full toner cartridges rather than starter cartridges. I’ve had mine
> a few years now and it is still on the original cartridges and hasn’t given
> a moment of trouble. Prints from my Windows machine, Raspberry Pi and does
> AirPrint from my iPad and phone.

Good suggestion.

I would never go back to inkjet printing again. Colour laser units
(incorporating scanners) are now so cheap, it's not worth the hassle of
all those inkjet cartridges which run out (or dry up) so quickly.

The only snag is the lack of HQ photo-printing, but that's what Happy
Snaps is for.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 12:07:00 +0100, Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12:45 13 Sep 2021, MB said:
>> On 12/09/2021 12:21, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a Which? subscription and can tell me what new
>>> all-in-one printer-scanners they recommend please?
>>
>>
>> I know that in the past, whenever I have looked at a Which report on
>> anything that I knew a bit about, I have disagreed with them.
>
>I have found the same too. Maybe they are alright for tin openers and
>washing powder but I no longer trust their tech recomendations.

I parted company with them after I bought a Nokia camera their best choice. The
camera had a known colour balance problem known by experts. They also increased
my subscription charge substantially without informing me first.
--

Martin in Zuid Holland

On 13/09/2021 16:19, Java Jive wrote:
> On 13/09/2021 09:09, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>> It is very fine, though very clear on mine if you look through a
>> magnifying glass or, which is very convenient sometimes, you're quite
>> short-sighted, remove your glasses and can look at it in focus up very
>> close.  The divergence in all the vertical lines starts where they
>> cross the third horizontal (well, slightly off horizontal line
>> actually, as they all are), and ends at the corresponding point at the
>> bottom.  It's a curious feature, hard to spot with the naked
>> (vision-corrected) eye, but I think it must be a deliberate feature as
>> it's so reproducible.
>>
>> If anyone else here has a Canon printer, I'd be very interested to
>> know whether they can observe this on a nozzle check pattern.
>
> I have a Canon Pixma iP4000 and know the test patterns you mean.  It's
> more trouble than I am prepared to go to actually run a test ATM, but
> I've never noticed such a divergence over many, many years of use with
> frequent printing of test patterns, because, I suppose like most people
> these days, the need to actually print anything gets less and less, and
> therefore on almost every use the print heads need cleaning/declogging
> and test print patterns checked before any printing of desired output
> can occur.
>
> It seems to me that there is some basic fault with your print head.

A bit of further research on this, in case anyone's interested, has
shown this to be a fairly widespread problem with Canon printers with,
as usual, no manufacturer's acknowledgement of it or any reliable
solution. My problem was not quite as severe as shown here but of very
much the same nature:

https://superuser.com/questions/1475072/some-printed-text-and-lines-are-sharp-some-are-misaligned-not-fixed-by-manual

I've come to the conclusion that it's terminal.

Thanks for everyone who has commented. You're welcome to attend the
funeral.

On 16/09/2021 14:29, Norman Wells wrote:
>
> I've come to the conclusion that it's terminal.
>
> Thanks for everyone who has commented.  You're welcome to attend the
> funeral.

From what height do you intend to drop it? Post us a vid!

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 16/09/2021 14:29, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 13/09/2021 16:19, Java Jive wrote:

>> I have a Canon Pixma iP4000 and know the test patterns you mean.  It's
>> more trouble than I am prepared to go to actually run a test ATM, but
>> I've never noticed such a divergence over many, many years of use with
>> frequent printing of test patterns, because, I suppose like most
>> people these days, the need to actually print anything gets less and
>> less, and therefore on almost every use the print heads need
>> cleaning/declogging and test print patterns checked before any
>> printing of desired output can occur.
>>
>> It seems to me that there is some basic fault with your print head.
>
> A bit of further research on this, in case anyone's interested, has
> shown this to be a fairly widespread problem with Canon printers with,
> as usual, no manufacturer's acknowledgement of it or any reliable
> solution.  My problem was not quite as severe as shown here but of very
> much the same nature:
>
> https://superuser.com/questions/1475072/some-printed-text-and-lines-are-sharp-some-are-misaligned-not-fixed-by-manual
>
>
> I've come to the conclusion that it's terminal.
>
> Thanks for everyone who has commented.  You're welcome to attend the
> funeral.

Printers where the head is built into the ink cartridge are much better.

--
Max Demian

On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:29:16 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
<snip>
>
>A bit of further research on this, in case anyone's interested, has
>shown this to be a fairly widespread problem with Canon printers with,
>as usual, no manufacturer's acknowledgement of it or any reliable
>solution. My problem was not quite as severe as shown here but of very
>much the same nature:
>
>https://superuser.com/questions/1475072/some-printed-text-and-lines-are-sharp-some-are-misaligned-not-fixed-by-manual
>
>I've come to the conclusion that it's terminal.
>
>Thanks for everyone who has commented. You're welcome to attend the
>funeral.
I thibk that effect is due to the printer using both directions to
print one row. Rows going right-left can give a different effect than
ones going left-right owing to mechanical backlash.
--
Dave W

On 16/09/2021 19:30, Dave W wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:29:16 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>>
>> A bit of further research on this, in case anyone's interested, has
>> shown this to be a fairly widespread problem with Canon printers with,
>> as usual, no manufacturer's acknowledgement of it or any reliable
>> solution. My problem was not quite as severe as shown here but of very
>> much the same nature:
>>
>> https://superuser.com/questions/1475072/some-printed-text-and-lines-are-sharp-some-are-misaligned-not-fixed-by-manual
>>
>> I've come to the conclusion that it's terminal.
>>
>> Thanks for everyone who has commented. You're welcome to attend the
>> funeral.
>
> I thibk that effect is due to the printer using both directions to
> print one row. Rows going right-left can give a different effect than
> ones going left-right owing to mechanical backlash.

Yes, especially as the toothed belt wears.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 16/09/2021 17:11, Max Demian wrote:
> On 16/09/2021 14:29, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 13/09/2021 16:19, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>> I have a Canon Pixma iP4000 and know the test patterns you mean.  It's
>>> more trouble than I am prepared to go to actually run a test ATM, but
>>> I've never noticed such a divergence over many, many years of use with
>>> frequent printing of test patterns, because, I suppose like most
>>> people these days, the need to actually print anything gets less and
>>> less, and therefore on almost every use the print heads need
>>> cleaning/declogging and test print patterns checked before any
>>> printing of desired output can occur.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that there is some basic fault with your print head.
>>
>> A bit of further research on this, in case anyone's interested, has
>> shown this to be a fairly widespread problem with Canon printers with,
>> as usual, no manufacturer's acknowledgement of it or any reliable
>> solution.  My problem was not quite as severe as shown here but of very
>> much the same nature:
>>
>> https://superuser.com/questions/1475072/some-printed-text-and-lines-are-sharp-some-are-misaligned-not-fixed-by-manual
>>
>>
>> I've come to the conclusion that it's terminal.
>>
>> Thanks for everyone who has commented.  You're welcome to attend the
>> funeral.
>
> Printers where the head is built into the ink cartridge are much better.

My Epson XP-325 was used almost entirely for printing photos. It did
that very well, but I didn't use it enough and every time had to spend
ages cleaning the heads before printing. It used a lot of ink to do that
(I used Epson cartridges). Earlier this year The yellow cartridge
refused to print. It didn't respond to the usual cleaning methods, and
in the end I had to take the assembly out and soak it in isopropanol,
and then water. After drying , I replaced. it

It then worked...for 20 seconds. Then all the lights went out and it was
dead. Nothing. Failed PSU I guess. Unfortunately, like many things it
seemed impossible to disassemble, so even if I could have replaced the
failed component, there was no way to get to it.

It went to the tip, with my Canon IP3000 for company. This had worked
perfectly under Win7, but there was no effective photo-printing driver
for it under Linux.

I see no point in buying another inkjet at present.

--

Jeff

In article <si04t2$1ipv$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>> I thibk that effect is due to the printer using both directions to
>> print one row. Rows going right-left can give a different effect than
>> ones going left-right owing to mechanical backlash.
>
>Yes, especially as the toothed belt wears.

That's why some dot matix printers had a "draft" highspeed graphics
mode and a "quality" graphics low speed mode -- one of the features
was to only stroke the graphics left-to-right, then the columns of
dots lined up better.

It didn't affect text, as each line of text was its own self contained
pass (apart from using | to make columns!) so you wouldn't see the
slight offset.

--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk

On 13/09/2021 15:05, charles wrote:
> In article<iq92u0FktavU1@mid.individual.net>,
> williamwright<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>> On 13/09/2021 12:45, MB wrote:
>>> On 12/09/2021 12:21, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>> Does anyone have a Which? subscription and can tell me what new
>>>> all-in-one printer-scanners they recommend please?
>>>
>>> I know that in the past, whenever I have looked at a Which report on
>>> anything that I knew a bit about, I have disagreed with them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, and me.
>> Bill
> and me - more than once
>
> Charles

Often it is just prejudice of one reviewer for or against a particular
maker.

On 12/09/2021 23:19, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 12/09/2021 20:06, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 12/09/2021 13:01, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> It would be handy to know the Canon model numbers recommended by Which?
>>> if you could let me know please.  I'm familiar with Canon
>>
>> I put a search into Which? for Canon all-in-one inkjet printers with
>> wifi and asked for the list in ascending order of price.
>>
>> I then collected the quick summaries of the tester's reports, and
>> these are as follows.
>
> <snipped review summaries>
>
> Thank you very much indeed for that.  It's much appreciated.
>
> I haven't decided what to do yet, having been busy taking out the print
> head, washing that out, doing a head alignment etc.

As you may have seen elsewhere, I think the fault is terminal. Although
there are short-term workarounds, I really need a new printer, and am
going off Canon somewhat as it seems to be a problem peculiar to them.

You were very helpful in giving me Which?'s recommendations on Canon
printers but I wonder if I could bother you again and ask what they do
actually recommend as best buys in other makes? If it would help to go
up to about £250, I'd be happy with that.

Given the model numbers I can of course then research them.

Having tried yesterday, I'm not sure my local library has an online
subscription to Which? but it would certainly help me to know which
issue (if just one) your summaries come from, as I may be able to track
it down. Which? seem to have a computing section now as well as the
main one that may be confusing matters.

Do you perhaps have a personal recommendation?

Thanks for your help.

On 17/09/2021 17:57, Norman Wells wrote:
> You were very helpful in giving me Which?'s recommendations on Canon
> printers but I wonder if I could bother you again and ask what they do
> actually recommend as best buys in other makes? If it would help to go
> up to about £250, I'd be happy with that.

Before you write off your current printer, you might want to consider
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/403102926220?hash=item5ddace858c:g:z~kAAOSwYMthJhYY
(a replacement head at a reasonable price) or (Head cleaner)
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/400792650671?hash=item5d511a83af:g:-EMAAOSwe7BW0wSh

Back yo your request. I set the Which? search parameters to All-in-one
Inkjets with wifi, with a test score of at least 65 and a price of no
more than £300.

In view of the other comments here, I was surprised to see Brother was
not included in the results, so I did a second check on Brother
printers. The highest scoring inkjet had a score of 64, so out of range.
There were some Brother Best Buys but they were all laser printers, and
most were just printers rather than all-in-ones.

Anyway, back to the ones that met my search criteria:

Epson EcoTank ET-M3170 BEST BUY Score 77. Price £290
If you print office documents regularly, this Epson inkjet is a
fantastic option. It challenges even a laser printer for cheap, fast and
high quality black-text printing. It isn't widely available but you
should be able to find it online.
Pros:
Rock-bottom running costs
Fast and high quality black-text printing
Wi-fi
AirPrint
Automatic document feeder
Auto double-sided printing
Cons:
Graphics and images printing could be better
Mediocre scanner
Expensive

Canon Pixma G4511 BEST BUY Score 74. Price £270
Although its predecessor, the G4500, fell short of being a Best Buy,
Canon has got it right with this newer version. It matches good print
quality with rock-bottom running costs.
Pros:
Low running costs
Good printing quality
Document feeder
Wi-fi
AirPrint
Decent scanner
Cons:
Slow at printing photos
Mono copies grainy
Lacks automatic double-sided printing

Canon Pixma G3560 BEST BUY Score 74. Price £220
This all-in-one ink tank printer ticks all the right boxes, with solid
printing performance and cheap-as-chips running costs. It’s not the best
for printing photos, but it’s a well-deserved Best Buy and a solid pick
for your home office.
Pros:
Cheap to run
Good quality on black text and graphics
Wi-fi ready
Cons:
Photos could be better
No automatic double-sided printing
No document feeder

Canon PIXMA G7050 BEST BUY Score 73. Price £288
Overall, this model’s print quality is decent, and it has several useful
features. But the Pixma G7050’s real strength lies in its extremely
cheap running costs, which help to offset the price of the printer
itself. This Best Buy is one we’d recommend for a busy home or small office.
Pros:
Very cheap to run
Large paper capacity
Easy to use
Cons:
Photo printing quality could be better
Printing speeds are below average
No SD card or Bluetooth support

HP Smart Tank Plus 555 BEST BUY Score 71. Price £200
While both Canon Megatank and Epson Ecotank printers have become Best
Buys, HP’s first real foray into tank printing is somewhat
underwhelming. It’s cheap to run but its print quality is mediocre and
it lacks useful features.
Pros:
Very low running costs
Decent at printing black text and office graphics
Wi-fi
AirPrint
Good scanner
Cons:
Mediocre photo and image printing
Underwhelming copier
Manual double-sided printing

HP Smart Tank Plus 559 BEST BUY Score 71. Price £200
This is a reasonable inkjet printer that’s very cheap to run. So if
economical printing is a high priority, it’s worth considering. But
print quality isn’t up there with the best and it’s painfully slow. For
better options see our recommended Best Buy models instead.
Pros:
Very low running costs
Reasonable print quality
Wi-fi and Bluetooth
Cons:
Very slow with graphics and photos
Manual double-sided printing

Epson EcoTank ET-2715 BEST BUY Score 71. Price £230
This is a good all-in-one inkjet printer that’s cheap to run. Print
quality could be a tad better, but the copying and scanning functions
work well. It’s a Which? Best Buy.
Pros:
Very low running costs
Reasonable print quality
Wi-fi
Cons:
Very slow with graphics and photos
No Apple AirPrint

Canon PIXMA GM4050 BEST BUY Score 70. Price £250
If you’re looking for a monochrome printer then the Pixma G4050 is a
fantastic machine for printing as much as you want and not having to
worry about the cost. It's a Best Buy, like other models in this range.
Pros:
Very low running costs
Reasonable print quality
Fast
Good scanner
Double-sided printing
Cons:
Monochrome only
Copier quality could be better

Epson EcoTank ET-3750 BEST BUY Score 70. Price £300
Although its print quality isn't the best we've ever seen and it costs a
lot to buy, this Epson model is a powerhouse for saving you money in the
long term. If you frequently print and don't want to be making constant
trips to the shops for ink, put it on your shortlist.
Pros:
Extremely low printing costs
Good at printing mixed pages of images and text
Wi-fi
Automatic document feeder
AirPrint
Cons:
Struggles printing office documents
Poor at printing photos
Noisy

HP OfficeJet 250 Score 70. Price £225
Although you're paying a premium for portability here, this HP is well
worth a look if you want a small printer you can take away with you. It
only just misses out on being a Best Buy.
Pros:
Portable
Fast black-text printing
Decent with images and photos
Wi-fi
Low ink costs
Cons:
Noisy
Doesn't automatically print double-sided
Combined colour cartridge
No ethernet
Expensive for an inkjet

Epson EcoTank ET-2710 Score 69. Price £166
There are a few small niggles here and there, and the purchase price
will be too high for some, but if you're keen on long-term printer ink
savings, this EcoTank takes some beating.
Pros:
Good overall print quality
Extremely low printing costs
Wi-fi
Decent scanner and copier
Cons:
Black-text printing could be better
Doesn't automatically print double-sided
No AirPrint

Epson EcoTank ET-2711 Score 69. Price £178
There are a few small niggles here and there, and the purchase price
will be too high for some, but if you're keen on long-term printer ink
savings, this EcoTank takes some beating.
Pros:
Good overall print quality
Extremely low printing costs
Wi-fi
Decent scanner and copier
Cons:
Black-text printing could be better
Doesn't automatically print double-sided
No AirPrint

HP Smart Tank Plus 570 Score 68. Price £280
This is a decent inkjet printer that’s very cheap to run. So if
economical printing is a high priority, then it’s worth including on
your shortlist. But print quality isn’t up there with the best and it’s
very slow in operation. For better options see our recommended Best Buy
models instead.
Pros:
Very low running costs
Reasonable print quality
Wi-fi and Bluetooth
AirPrint and Cloud Print
Good scanner
Cons:
Very slow with graphics and photos
Manual double-sided printing

Epson EcoTank ET-2751 Score 68. Price £300
This is a reasonable inkjet printer that’s very cheap to run, so it’s
worth considering if economical printing is a high priority. But print
quality isn’t up there with the best and it’s painfully slow. For better
options see our recommended Best Buy models.
Pros:
Very low running costs
Reasonable print quality
Double-sided printing
Cons:
Very slow with graphics and photos

HP Officejet 6950 Score 68. Price £105
Although it doesn't quite make the grade as a Best Buy, there's plenty
to like about the Officejet 6950, and it's a decent price for the
functions and features that you get.
Pros:
Automatic double-sided printing
Document feeder
Wi-fi
Ethernet
AirPrint
Cons:
Inefficient with ink
Mono copies could be better
A little noisy

Epson EcoTank ET-2756 Score 67. Price £250
We've tested a lot of EcoTank printers. While some make it as Best Buys,
others - like this model - prove a touch underwhelming. There are better
printers available for your money.
Pros:
Decent at printing photos and images
Incredibly low running costs
Built-in wi-fi
New ink tank and bottle system
AirPrint
Auto-duplex
Cons:
Mediocre print quality on black text and office graphics
Expensive to buy

On 18/09/2021 12:12, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 17/09/2021 17:57, Norman Wells wrote:
>> You were very helpful in giving me Which?'s recommendations on Canon
>> printers but I wonder if I could bother you again and ask what they do
>> actually recommend as best buys in other makes?  If it would help to go
>> up to about £250, I'd be happy with that.
>
> Before you write off your current printer, you might want to consider
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/403102926220?hash=item5ddace858c:g:z~kAAOSwYMthJhYY
>
> (a replacement head at a reasonable price) or (Head cleaner)
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/400792650671?hash=item5d511a83af:g:-EMAAOSwe7BW0wSh
>
>
> Back yo your request. I set the Which? search parameters to All-in-one
> Inkjets with wifi, with a test score of at least 65 and a price of no
> more than £300.

Thank you for all of that, it really is most helpful.

I'll just go away and print it out. Hopefully, I'll even be able to
read it!

I would agree with IJJ about soaking the head but it is easier to soak
it in warm water and slosh it about a bit until the ink swimming in the
water is thinner and thinner. Canon ink is water based not spirit so
there's no need to solvent it. Then start over and stand it on a piece
of kitchen this time soaked in warm water and leave it standing there
for a few hours.
Repeat this process until blotting it on a piece of kitchen towel
results in little or no debris. You can also examine the head with a
loupe if you have one to make sure all the heads are clear or at least
appear to be.
Once all appears clean from both the underside and the cartridge pads
and all is dry, bite the bullet and put the printer back together and
test it. If you can afford it you would be better to use a fresh set of
Canon carts.
If after all this you still cannot get it to work properly then as IJJ
says you can get a new head carrier off eBay for about £12.
I have a MG6250 which I wanted to keep as it prints 9600x4800 and scans
9600x2400 (or was it the other way round?) Either way I managed to
unblock it at least twice but got bored with it and bought the new
carrier and its been perfect ever since - and I'm talking 2-3years here.

On 18/09/2021 13:48, Norman Wells wrote:

>
> Hopefully, I'll even be able to read it!
>
>
I don't think there is a Which? report on opticians

:-)

Jim

On 18/09/2021 17:10, Woody wrote:
> I would agree with IJJ about soaking the head but it is easier to soak
> it in warm water and slosh it about a bit until the ink swimming in the
> water is thinner and thinner. Canon ink is water based not spirit so
> there's no need to solvent it. Then start over and stand it on a piece
> of kitchen this time soaked in warm water and leave it standing there
> for a few hours.
> Repeat this process until blotting it on a piece of kitchen towel
> results in little or no debris. You can also examine the head with a
> loupe if you have one to make sure all the heads are clear or at least
> appear to be.
> Once all appears clean from both the underside and the cartridge pads
> and all is dry, bite the bullet and put the printer back together and
> test it. If you can afford it you would be better to use a fresh set of
> Canon carts.
> If after all this you still cannot get it to work properly

Apart from using genuine Canon inks, I've done all that with no
improvement. I've also done a head alignment and even cleaned the
timing strip (which wasn't noticeably dirty or greasy) to no avail.

> then as IJJ
> says you can get a new head carrier off eBay for about £12.
> I have a MG6250 which I wanted to keep as it prints 9600x4800 and scans
> 9600x2400 (or was it the other way round?) Either way I managed to
> unblock it at least twice but got bored with it and bought the new
> carrier and its been perfect ever since - and I'm talking 2-3years here.

I'm sure the nozzles aren't blocked and that I've done all I can to
clean them thoroughly. The fault seems as if it must be a printhead or
transport one, but the closest reference I can find online:

https://superuser.com/questions/1475072/some-printed-text-and-lines-are-sharp-some-are-misaligned-not-fixed-by-manual

seems to imply it's a fault Canon are aware of but won't acknowledge,
and that there's no reliable solution.

Maybe a new printhead will solve the problem, so I've decided to gamble
on one off Ebay from China for £22.73 that I should receive by the end
of October. That's the cheapest price I could find for one described as
'new' rather than refurbished, which could mean anything. There was one
displayed at £14.20 but that, strangely, was for 'black / white' which
seems very odd for a 6 cartridge printhead! Clicking on 'full-colour'
brings up a higher price, so i don't know what's going on there at all.

We'll see what I get and whether it works.

On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 12:28:34 +0100 (BST), mjb@signal11.invalid (Mike)
wrote:
>In article <si04t2$1ipv$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
>Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> I thibk that effect is due to the printer using both directions to
>>> print one row. Rows going right-left can give a different effect than
>>> ones going left-right owing to mechanical backlash.
>>
>>Yes, especially as the toothed belt wears.
>
>That's why some dot matix printers had a "draft" highspeed graphics
>mode and a "quality" graphics low speed mode -- one of the features
>was to only stroke the graphics left-to-right, then the columns of
>dots lined up better.
>
>It didn't affect text, as each line of text was its own self contained
>pass (apart from using | to make columns!) so you wouldn't see the
>slight offset.
I have an Epson printer which has an alignment program. It prints out
three rows of verticals composed of various dot densities in pairs of
lines printed L-R and R-L spaced at a range of distances. You have to
enter the number of the pattern which is most in-line on each of the
three rows. The printer remembers your settings and then uses them for
all rows that use bi-directional travel.
--
Dave W

On 18/09/2021 21:50, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 17:10, Woody wrote:
>> I would agree with IJJ about soaking the head but it is easier to
>> soak it in warm water and slosh it about a bit until the ink swimming
>> in the water is thinner and thinner. Canon ink is water based not
>> spirit so there's no need to solvent it. Then start over and stand it
>> on a piece of kitchen this time soaked in warm water and leave it
>> standing there for a few hours.
>> Repeat this process until blotting it on a piece of kitchen towel
>> results in little or no debris. You can also examine the head with a
>> loupe if you have one to make sure all the heads are clear or at
>> least appear to be.
>> Once all appears clean from both the underside and the cartridge pads
>> and all is dry, bite the bullet and put the printer back together and
>> test it. If you can afford it you would be better to use a fresh set
>> of Canon carts.
>> If after all this you still cannot get it to work properly
>
> Apart from using genuine Canon inks, I've done all that with no
> improvement.  I've also done a head alignment and even cleaned the
> timing strip (which wasn't noticeably dirty or greasy) to no avail.
>
>> then as IJJ says you can get a new head carrier off eBay for about £12.
>> I have a MG6250 which I wanted to keep as it prints 9600x4800 and
>> scans 9600x2400 (or was it the other way round?) Either way I managed
>> to unblock it at least twice but got bored with it and bought the new
>> carrier and its been perfect ever since - and I'm talking 2-3years here.
>
> I'm sure the nozzles aren't blocked and that I've done all I can to
> clean them thoroughly.  The fault seems as if it must be a printhead
> or transport one, but the closest reference I can find online:
>
> https://superuser.com/questions/1475072/some-printed-text-and-lines-are-sharp-some-are-misaligned-not-fixed-by-manual
>
>
> seems to imply it's a fault Canon are aware of but won't acknowledge,
> and that there's no reliable solution.
>
> Maybe a new printhead will solve the problem, so I've decided to
> gamble on one off Ebay from China for £22.73 that I should receive by
> the end of October.  That's the cheapest price I could find for one
> described as 'new' rather than refurbished, which could mean
> anything.  There was one displayed at £14.20 but that, strangely, was
> for 'black / white' which seems very odd for a 6 cartridge printhead! 
> Clicking on 'full-colour' brings up a higher price, so i don't know
> what's going on there at all.
>
> We'll see what I get and whether it works.

Just to update this for anyone who may on the off-chance still be
interested, the 'new' print head arrived well ahead of schedule, coming
inexplicably from Germany rather than China, but was even worse than the
original.  The printer wouldn't even perform a head alignment on it, and
it wouldn't print out anything like a satisfactory  test page.  It too
was blurry with streaky colours and black vertical lines diverging as in
the page linked to above.  I suspect therefore that it was just a
salvaged one cleaned up a bit but maybe unchecked.

Strangely, the original print head seemed to be worse too when reinserted.

So, that was all a complete waste of time and effort.  Not being able to
sort out the problem any sensible way, the only realistic option was to
get a new printer, and I thank everyone who went to the trouble of
making recommendations.  But, of course, in the best traditions of all
inkjet printer makers everywhere who like nothing better than confusion
marketing, none of the models recommended, particularly by Which?,
corresponded with anything currently on the market.

I've ended up with an Epson XP-8600 at just under £100 and that seems
perfectly satisfactory at the moment.  It certainly wheezes, sucks and
clonks a lot less than the old Canon and, most importantly, is not a
Canon.  Whether it will work OK with card for Christmas cards is the
next thing to try, but it looks as if it may require single sheets to be
fed in which will be a pain but workable.

On Thu 14/10/2021 17:49, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 21:50, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 17:10, Woody wrote:
>>> I would agree with IJJ about soaking the head but it is easier to
>>> soak it in warm water and slosh it about a bit until the ink swimming
>>> in the water is thinner and thinner. Canon ink is water based not
>>> spirit so there's no need to solvent it. Then start over and stand it
>>> on a piece of kitchen this time soaked in warm water and leave it
>>> standing there for a few hours.
>>> Repeat this process until blotting it on a piece of kitchen towel
>>> results in little or no debris. You can also examine the head with a
>>> loupe if you have one to make sure all the heads are clear or at
>>> least appear to be.
>>> Once all appears clean from both the underside and the cartridge pads
>>> and all is dry, bite the bullet and put the printer back together and
>>> test it. If you can afford it you would be better to use a fresh set
>>> of Canon carts.
>>> If after all this you still cannot get it to work properly
>>
>> Apart from using genuine Canon inks, I've done all that with no
>> improvement.  I've also done a head alignment and even cleaned the
>> timing strip (which wasn't noticeably dirty or greasy) to no avail.
>>
>>> then as IJJ says you can get a new head carrier off eBay for about £12.
>>> I have a MG6250 which I wanted to keep as it prints 9600x4800 and
>>> scans 9600x2400 (or was it the other way round?) Either way I managed
>>> to unblock it at least twice but got bored with it and bought the new
>>> carrier and its been perfect ever since - and I'm talking 2-3years here.
>>
>> I'm sure the nozzles aren't blocked and that I've done all I can to
>> clean them thoroughly.  The fault seems as if it must be a printhead
>> or transport one, but the closest reference I can find online:
>>
>> https://superuser.com/questions/1475072/some-printed-text-and-lines-are-sharp-some-are-misaligned-not-fixed-by-manual
>>
>>
>> seems to imply it's a fault Canon are aware of but won't acknowledge,
>> and that there's no reliable solution.
>>
>> Maybe a new printhead will solve the problem, so I've decided to
>> gamble on one off Ebay from China for £22.73 that I should receive by
>> the end of October.  That's the cheapest price I could find for one
>> described as 'new' rather than refurbished, which could mean
>> anything.  There was one displayed at £14.20 but that, strangely, was
>> for 'black / white' which seems very odd for a 6 cartridge printhead!
>> Clicking on 'full-colour' brings up a higher price, so i don't know
>> what's going on there at all.
>>
>> We'll see what I get and whether it works.
>
> Just to update this for anyone who may on the off-chance still be
> interested, the 'new' print head arrived well ahead of schedule, coming
> inexplicably from Germany rather than China, but was even worse than the
> original.  The printer wouldn't even perform a head alignment on it, and
> it wouldn't print out anything like a satisfactory  test page.  It too
> was blurry with streaky colours and black vertical lines diverging as in
> the page linked to above.  I suspect therefore that it was just a
> salvaged one cleaned up a bit but maybe unchecked.
>
> Strangely, the original print head seemed to be worse too when reinserted.
>
> So, that was all a complete waste of time and effort.  Not being able to
> sort out the problem any sensible way, the only realistic option was to
> get a new printer, and I thank everyone who went to the trouble of
> making recommendations.  But, of course, in the best traditions of all
> inkjet printer makers everywhere who like nothing better than confusion
> marketing, none of the models recommended, particularly by Which?,
> corresponded with anything currently on the market.
>
> I've ended up with an Epson XP-8600 at just under £100 and that seems
> perfectly satisfactory at the moment.  It certainly wheezes, sucks and
> clonks a lot less than the old Canon and, most importantly, is not a
> Canon.  Whether it will work OK with card for Christmas cards is the
> next thing to try, but it looks as if it may require single sheets to be
> fed in which will be a pain but workable.
>

Do remember Norman that Epson printers need to be worked preferably once
a week and at worst once a fortnight, otherwise they dry up.

On 14/10/2021 17:49, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 21:50, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 17:10, Woody wrote:
>>> I would agree with IJJ about soaking the head but it is easier to
>>> soak it in warm water and slosh it about a bit until the ink swimming
>>> in the water is thinner and thinner. Canon ink is water based not
>>> spirit so there's no need to solvent it. Then start over and stand it
>>> on a piece of kitchen this time soaked in warm water and leave it
>>> standing there for a few hours.
>>> Repeat this process until blotting it on a piece of kitchen towel
>>> results in little or no debris. You can also examine the head with a
>>> loupe if you have one to make sure all the heads are clear or at
>>> least appear to be.
>>> Once all appears clean from both the underside and the cartridge pads
>>> and all is dry, bite the bullet and put the printer back together and
>>> test it. If you can afford it you would be better to use a fresh set
>>> of Canon carts.
>>> If after all this you still cannot get it to work properly
>>
>> Apart from using genuine Canon inks, I've done all that with no
>> improvement. I've also done a head alignment and even cleaned the
>> timing strip (which wasn't noticeably dirty or greasy) to no avail.
>>
>>> then as IJJ says you can get a new head carrier off eBay for about £12.
>>> I have a MG6250 which I wanted to keep as it prints 9600x4800 and
>>> scans 9600x2400 (or was it the other way round?) Either way I managed
>>> to unblock it at least twice but got bored with it and bought the new
>>> carrier and its been perfect ever since - and I'm talking 2-3years here.
>>
>> I'm sure the nozzles aren't blocked and that I've done all I can to
>> clean them thoroughly. The fault seems as if it must be a printhead
>> or transport one, but the closest reference I can find online:
>>
>> https://superuser.com/questions/1475072/some-printed-text-and-lines-are-sharp-some-are-misaligned-not-fixed-by-manual
>>
>>
>> seems to imply it's a fault Canon are aware of but won't acknowledge,
>> and that there's no reliable solution.
>>
>> Maybe a new printhead will solve the problem, so I've decided to
>> gamble on one off Ebay from China for £22.73 that I should receive by
>> the end of October. That's the cheapest price I could find for one
>> described as 'new' rather than refurbished, which could mean
>> anything. There was one displayed at £14.20 but that, strangely, was
>> for 'black / white' which seems very odd for a 6 cartridge printhead!
>> Clicking on 'full-colour' brings up a higher price, so i don't know
>> what's going on there at all.
>>
>> We'll see what I get and whether it works.
>
> Just to update this for anyone who may on the off-chance still be
> interested, the 'new' print head arrived well ahead of schedule, coming
> inexplicably from Germany rather than China, but was even worse than the
> original. The printer wouldn't even perform a head alignment on it, and
> it wouldn't print out anything like a satisfactory test page. It too
> was blurry with streaky colours and black vertical lines diverging as in
> the page linked to above. I suspect therefore that it was just a
> salvaged one cleaned up a bit but maybe unchecked.

At least ebay let you send it back for a refund because it didn't work.

I suspect you are right, and the one you got was a salvaged one. The
replacement printhead I bought from ebay a few years ago was described
as "new old stock - genuine Canon part" and it worked perfectly (and it
still is). I did pay £50 for it though.

Jim

On 14/10/2021 18:41, Woody wrote:
> On Thu 14/10/2021 17:49, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 21:50, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 18/09/2021 17:10, Woody wrote:
>>>> I would agree with IJJ about soaking the head but it is easier to
>>>> soak it in warm water and slosh it about a bit until the ink
>>>> swimming in the water is thinner and thinner. Canon ink is water
>>>> based not spirit so there's no need to solvent it. Then start over
>>>> and stand it on a piece of kitchen this time soaked in warm water
>>>> and leave it standing there for a few hours.
>>>> Repeat this process until blotting it on a piece of kitchen towel
>>>> results in little or no debris. You can also examine the head with a
>>>> loupe if you have one to make sure all the heads are clear or at
>>>> least appear to be.
>>>> Once all appears clean from both the underside and the cartridge
>>>> pads and all is dry, bite the bullet and put the printer back
>>>> together and test it. If you can afford it you would be better to
>>>> use a fresh set of Canon carts.
>>>> If after all this you still cannot get it to work properly
>>>
>>> Apart from using genuine Canon inks, I've done all that with no
>>> improvement.  I've also done a head alignment and even cleaned the
>>> timing strip (which wasn't noticeably dirty or greasy) to no avail.
>>>
>>>> then as IJJ says you can get a new head carrier off eBay for about £12.
>>>> I have a MG6250 which I wanted to keep as it prints 9600x4800 and
>>>> scans 9600x2400 (or was it the other way round?) Either way I
>>>> managed to unblock it at least twice but got bored with it and
>>>> bought the new carrier and its been perfect ever since - and I'm
>>>> talking 2-3years here.
>>>
>>> I'm sure the nozzles aren't blocked and that I've done all I can to
>>> clean them thoroughly.  The fault seems as if it must be a printhead
>>> or transport one, but the closest reference I can find online:
>>>
>>> https://superuser.com/questions/1475072/some-printed-text-and-lines-are-sharp-some-are-misaligned-not-fixed-by-manual
>>>
>>>
>>> seems to imply it's a fault Canon are aware of but won't acknowledge,
>>> and that there's no reliable solution.
>>>
>>> Maybe a new printhead will solve the problem, so I've decided to
>>> gamble on one off Ebay from China for £22.73 that I should receive by
>>> the end of October.  That's the cheapest price I could find for one
>>> described as 'new' rather than refurbished, which could mean
>>> anything.  There was one displayed at £14.20 but that, strangely, was
>>> for 'black / white' which seems very odd for a 6 cartridge printhead!
>>> Clicking on 'full-colour' brings up a higher price, so i don't know
>>> what's going on there at all.
>>>
>>> We'll see what I get and whether it works.
>>
>> Just to update this for anyone who may on the off-chance still be
>> interested, the 'new' print head arrived well ahead of schedule,
>> coming inexplicably from Germany rather than China, but was even worse
>> than the original.  The printer wouldn't even perform a head alignment
>> on it, and it wouldn't print out anything like a satisfactory  test
>> page.  It too was blurry with streaky colours and black vertical lines
>> diverging as in the page linked to above.  I suspect therefore that it
>> was just a salvaged one cleaned up a bit but maybe unchecked.
>>
>> Strangely, the original print head seemed to be worse too when
>> reinserted.
>>
>> So, that was all a complete waste of time and effort.  Not being able
>> to sort out the problem any sensible way, the only realistic option
>> was to get a new printer, and I thank everyone who went to the trouble
>> of making recommendations.  But, of course, in the best traditions of
>> all inkjet printer makers everywhere who like nothing better than
>> confusion marketing, none of the models recommended, particularly by
>> Which?, corresponded with anything currently on the market.
>>
>> I've ended up with an Epson XP-8600 at just under £100 and that seems
>> perfectly satisfactory at the moment.  It certainly wheezes, sucks and
>> clonks a lot less than the old Canon and, most importantly, is not a
>> Canon.  Whether it will work OK with card for Christmas cards is the
>> next thing to try, but it looks as if it may require single sheets to
>> be fed in which will be a pain but workable.
>>
>
> Do remember Norman that Epson printers need to be worked preferably once
> a week and at worst once a fortnight, otherwise they dry up.

If it has somewhere to put it you should put a sponge of water.

My larger one was checked by an engineer and that was his hint.

They need moisture.

And run a test sheet through it as often as you can tolerate.

Tony

On 14/10/2021 18:41, Woody wrote:

> Do remember Norman that Epson printers need to be worked preferably once
> a week and at worst once a fortnight, otherwise they dry up.

Thanks for the tip.