Refillable CanonBCI 3/6 series cartridge with lots of features

[ocular]

@ocular
Did you verify that your leaking tank had a shorter neck than the OEM, because I used 'screen caliper' on your photo and they are the same length?Still don't know how one tank leaks because of a short neck and the others don't.Beats me how the company stays in business.I'm beat.

The picture compares the lengths of the failed cartridge to the OEM. There is a gap of sky between the end of the blue cartridge exit port and the base of the OEM cartridge. There is no gap between the end of the OEM cartridge port and the base of the blue SkyHorse. You don't need any calipers to see there is a difference.

Now maybe this problem is fixed in their new batch?

That fact that it has been documented suggests it is a problem. It should be an easy problem to remedy but may take major changes to equipment at the manufacturing level. I have tried to communicate with the manufacturers but I always find the language barrier and lack of response frustrating.

Grandads input welcome

 

[jackson]

Backing out, head bowed and penitent

 

[Grandad35]

Ocular,

I hope that you don't mind my editing your previously posted image. I rotated it slightly to get the carts level, cropped it to get just the area of interest, then added "guides" at 4 critical locations to make it easier to measure distances. If you can't see the guides on your display, download the image and display it with another program - they are only 1 pixel thick and may not be very visible.

I would first like to mention that it is not just the helght of the exit port that is critical - it is the distance from the top of the front positioning tab to the bottom of the exit port (the front positioning tab controls how far down the cart is pushed into the print head). As you can see, these carts differ by about 4 pixels (a strange unit of measurement). This is almost exactly the same as the difference in the heights of the exit ports, so this doesn't alter your initial assessment of the problem.

These exit ports are supposed to compress the rubber seal and form a liquid tight seal when the cart is in place. Do these carts just fall into place, or can you feel the rubber seal compress? If they don't meet much resistance, you can remove the rubber seal from the print head and install a flat spacer washer (with a thickness that is about the same as the difference in heights of the exit ports) under the seal. This should raise the seal into contact with these carts. Obviously, you will then have to remove the spacer washer to use other carts. This might be OK for a test to identify the problem, but it's not something that I would want to do with my printer.

 

[ocular]

Grandad I just love your posts!

Great graphic manipulation. I have already an extra washer (from a disposable rubber glove) under the blk inlet. This was inserted by the installer of my Sinopis CIS that I have put aside while testing these spongeless cartridges from SkyHorse. The Skyhorse cartridges definitely don't need as much force to click them down, consistent with the finding of a shorter neck.

I wonder if I scored an old model or a bad batch as it is hard to imagine a reputable crowd like Alotofthings continuing to sell these cartridges if they are physically different to OEM and are at risk of leaking the total contents into the printhead.

I would be keen to hear from anyone who has used the SkyHorse refillable spongeless cartridges from Alotof things.

Could they perform the "Rocker" test where an OEM cartridge is positioned against the generic cartridge as in the picture and if it can be rocked along its long axix as the cartridges are held together then the exit port necks are significantly different.

As well as the color cartridges I checked the SkyHorse BCI 3eblk and its neck is slightly shorter then the OEM but not as pronounced as the color cartridges. Less likely to leak but at risk, but probably OK in my system as there is an extra washer in place just around the black inlet only. As you suggest it maybe washers all around.

I have emailed skyhorse withe the issue. be interesting to see what there support is like.

ocular
Australia

 

[ocular]

Have continued to trial these "spongeless " cartridges in IP3000 and MP730. Have had 3 further leaks - one in black, one in cyan, one yellow.
The ink leaks from the exit port of the cartridge and leaks into the wells of the other cartridges ( and makes a mess).

2 reasons would seem to make this likely

1. The shorter neck of the cartridge as documented by the photos in this thread. This means that the seal between rubber washer around the printhead inlet and the rim of the exit port of the cartridge is suboptimal. The difference in neck length is also confirmed by noticing the OEM cartridge is a much tighter fit when clicked into the storage case that comes with the SkyHorse.

2. The design of the exit port of the cartridge in the skyhorse cartridge is different to the OEM. In the OEM there is a rim of plastic inside the exit port to keep the sponge from working its way out. In the Skyhorse cartridge there is no rim to keep the sponge inside the neck. The sponge tends to work its way out so that the sponge acts as a wick and causes ink to leak out. And in fact after refilling these faulty cartridges and placing the exit port squarely onto a flat sheet of paper the sponge is so close to the exit port opening that inks freely wicks onto the paper.

Not impressed with the quality control of these cartridges.
Alotofthings still seem to be selling them in the US.

ocular
Australia

 

[traveler]

I recently (June 06) received a complete set of ink cartridges for my Canon PIXMA ip4000 from alotofthings.com.
All are spongetype except for the Magenta one which is a Skyhorse (with an ARROW label sticker on top of the Skyhorse logo!!). The included instructions do not mention the orange plastic tab. An e-mail to alotofthings has not yet been answered.
At least at the beginning of this thread I have learned that it is the air vent plug & it has to be removed before printing.
I note the date on the bottom of the cartridge carton : 2009.03
Can anyone confirm that this Skyhorse spongeless cartridge should be a non-leaker? I see"earlier" buyers have reported ink leaking out of the Skyhorse.
Anyone get a response from alotofthings concerning leakage?

 

[ocular]

I have had no reply from alotofthings re the skyhorse spongeless cartridges and their liklihood of leaking.

I have a sample of these cartridges shipped direct from the manufacturers and I don't believe the problem of occasional leakage has been fixed up. I have directed the manufacturers to this thread.

The "sponge" in the exit port is not held in position by a lip as on the OEM cartridges and thus it can work its way out and if it is too close the exit port edge then ink can wickout into the surrounding wells of the print head structure and the whole contents of the ink cartridge will disappear overnight.

I have been in contact with skyhorse and they are not aware of this problem and said it must be because of the long distance the cartridges had to be freighted and will replace any faulty cartridges!

I have given some of these cartridges to my friends warning them of the possibility of leaking. So far I have had two reported cases of leakage. I would not want to be a retailer flogging these cartridges.

 

[traveler]

Copies of recent e-mails exchanged with alotofthings.com

To: support@alotofthings.com
Subject: Skyhorse spongeless cartridge


A magenta Skyhorse spongless cartridge was included as part of a set of normal sponge replacement cartridges for my PIXMA iP4000.
In trying to find out about the orange tab on the top of the cartridge, I discovered the inkjet printer forum which discussed the cartridge in detail. What concerns me is that they report that a number of users experienced heavy leaking of ink from the Skyhorse cartridges!
Since I was expecting the sponge type cartridges as a complete set but you decided to substitute one with the Skyhorse, could you please confirm that it has been thoroughly quality controlled so that it fits/seals properly into my Canon printer.
The box has the "Use before" date stamped 2009.03

alotofthings reply :

Subject: RE: Skyhorse spongeless cartridge
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 12:12:45 -0700

We have ourselves not been made aware of leaking issues with SkyHorse cartridges as you state in a forum you have read.
The forum would be helpful as we can see what they are saying.

We would not be selling the Skyhorse cartridges if they were leaking as someone stated.

With all of the manufacturers out there and a SkyHorse being the most expensive it does not make sense to do so.

andrea

 

[traveler]

I'm impressed with this follow-up by Andrea at alotofthings.com. It looks like they are a very serious company with a full understanding of the technology and associated issues!


RE: Skyhorse spongeless cartridge
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 16:55:06 -0700

Is there a possibility that they had a problem with an initial batch? Sure that is always a possibility.

But, what we do not quite know at this time is whether the batch or batches of cartridges that these people are discussing are from an initial batch, second batch or later.

What we also can not see from here is whether or not these are actually manufactured from the same source. Since many aftermarket companies do not manufacturer their own physical cartridges but simply buy them and fill them with ink we can not see from here whether or not these were indeed manufactured at the same time, from the same mold or even using the same plastic. A company like SkyHorse can currently have their own production for cartridges but also outsource them if they can not keep up with production. They may not actually make them at all.

Want a personal opinion on that issue? I do not believe that the cartridges are manufactured physically by SkyHorse. I believe that they are purchased from a third party. I base this on first generation spongeless cartridges we were receiving vs. second and even third generation. Yes, three generations of these cartridges have been seen here. (technically four if you account for different end caps for the cartridges which were previously orange, not clear.)

First generation of spongeless cartridges contained a clear plastic film that extended over the entire top of the cartridge and the cartridge worked more like the sponge based ones by design. The fill hole was located towards the back of the cartridge and was flush with the top, it was not located on the front of the cartridge. This used a simple air path to regulate the amount of air getting in.

Second set of spongeless cartridges came in similar to the design shown with the orange tab. The difference is that these also had a film covering the entire top of the cartridge. The fill hole was in the same location, but the vent path lead towards the front of the cartridge just in front of the label (if you look at our initial instructions for refilling spongeless refillables: http://alotofthings.com/viartshop/article.php?category_id=8&article_id=61&page= ).

The third generation that we received contained the orange pull tab as you see in the picture shown under variations in refilling: http://alotofthings.com/viartshop/article.php?category_id=8&article_id=60&page=
It is doubtful that SkyHorse made these adjustments as quickly as they did batch after batch. (Batch after batch may not be entirely fair to say as there may have actually been a dozen batches in between for all we know.)

Considering the difficulty in acquiring these cartridges where we have actually had to wait months to receive them it is doubtful they manufacture them in house.


Since we do sell a much larger quantity of empty cartridges of this type then pre-filled (about 60-1) we would expect to see the same type of results when individuals are refilling them. There is always an added "x" factor when individuals refill themselves. This can be overfill, under fill, not reading directions, etc, etc. We simply have not received these same types of messages (all this leaking) that appear in this forum. And with refillers we would almost expect to see more of them. If the problem exists with the cartridges leaking like these mentioned then no one is telling us about it.


I would also like to point out one other thing: These cartridges would not make a good long lasting CISS cartridge. They are actually proving to be extremely problematic in CISS units to many of those who have tried making them out of these cartridges.

Just a few extra notes on the cartridges: If you take a close look at these cartridges you'll notice that there is a small slit on the plastic "tube" inside the cartridge leading from the exit port. This in part replicates the "wall" or dam used in other types of cartridges of sponge / reservoir design. Along with that dam is a normal wall dam just offset the center of the cartridge. These two dams are designed to reduce pressure on the sponge material. The sponge of course is designed to have a specific retention rate to hold back the ink. This retention along with the small amount of sponge material located in the vent tube towards the back of the cartridge replaces the entire sponge normally found in sponge / reservoir designed cartridges.

If the problem exists in localized batches the problem may not be the plastic and the length of the plastic exit port, but instead the sponge material or placement of the sponge material. If inserting the cartridge into the printer results in the loss of ink then the if the incorrect sponge material or a sponge material with a lower surface tension would probably encourage the ink to leak once it is deformed slightly when inserting into the print head. That of course is a hypothesis. I am questioning this aspect though based on a similar cartridge we have seen SkyHorse manufacture in the past which was for an Epson printer but was designed exactly like the BCI-3e ( http://alotofthings.com/viartshop/article.php?category_id=10&article_id=40&page= ) . There were refillable spongeless identical in design to the BCI-3e with the exception that the sponge material was not the same as used in these cartridges.

Hey, if you do not mind could you at least mention that your email sent to us was sent on Sunday 7/2/06 , 7:26pm Pacific time and answered Monday 7/3/06 12:13pm Pacific. When you posted your initial message you only gave us four hours on a Sunday night to respond.

Oh, forgot one last thing: Let's cut to the chase since this will eventually be brought up at some time. if SkyHorse are good cartridges why are we getting rid of them?
In a recent 6 month comparison we allowed consumer to purchase a variety of cartridges and compare them under various conditions. Though SkyHorse was well rated both for initial out of the box use and for refill ability we have decided to discontinue the line of cartridges completely.
We are no longer going to be carrying the ArrowJet / SkyHorse line of cartridges for several reasons, the primary one being that inconsistency of product availability. Orders we have placed for product have taken as long as 5 months to receive. The inability to receive product by SkyHorse is not perceived by consumers to be a manufacturer issue, but our shortcoming. Since this issue of lack of product availability is too consistent and causes a great deal of headaches here we have decided that the trade off it not worth it.

Andrea D.
www.alotofthings.com