stratman said:
Grandexp:
I just read your post that had been flagged and unavailable until now to read.
Had been flagged? Why? I thought the Hat needed some entertainment. He made an inappropriate generalization of Canon printers. The Pro 1 according to his description is apparently very different from all other Canon printers I have used in terms of how much ink is wasted by the cleaning cycles on starting up to print. My printers do not waste 5 ml. I used my printers without resetter for several years. I also have had a resetter for at least 2 years. I do not notice any difference in terms of ink waste. I have refilled each of my printers at least 100 times. No way I could miss the behavior of the cleaning cycles of the printers.
stratman said:
First, it has long been the gestalt of the forum that post-IP4500 model printers without ink monitoring perform more maintenance cycles of one sort or another.
Not all post ip4500 behave like that. My IP4700 and MP480 behave dot differenly with or withour using a resetter.
stratman said:
This means more ink gets drained from cartridges than when ink monitoring is once again, or always has been, functional. Some report ink purging continued at an accelerated rate even if ink monitoring had been restored after it had been overridden previously. Those comments by numerous forum members negate your declaration that The Hat was "totally false".
Get a printer and use it yourself. You will see how untrue it is. In fact I suspect that my IP4700 and MP480 don't always run a cleaning cycle when powering up. They most of the time don't do a cleaning cycle before printing either with or without resetter. They will do it only when the printer has been powered off for many days or weeks. If the printers were used yesterday they won't run cleaning cycles on powering up nor on starting a print job.
stratman said:
Second, the Hat did not identify printers of the IP4500 design or earlier models in his post, nor did he state that all printers will waste 5 ml's of ink when ink monitoring is off. This was a strawman argument on your part for dubious reasons. While there may be a difference in how Canon handled overridden ink level monitoring previously, it appears post-IP4500 models are different in the view of numerous forum members.
How do you interpret this words he said:
I have discovered that my printer a Pro 1 and quite possible most Canon printers act the same
when the ink monitoring is deliberately disabled by the user or when using a CISS with no ARC chips.
stratman said:
Third, I use a chip resetter with CLI-8 and PGI-5 cartridges and have never run out of ink before ink monitoring has informed of an empty cartridge. It appears you either underfill your cartridges, or, you do not reset your chips and fail to manually visualize cartridge ink levels as is necessary when the printer's ink level monitoring is off. This is a failure on your part to refill or monitor properly based on the capability of your printer.
You misread my post. I was talking about without resetting the chips. If the chips are not reset you can run out of ink and the print head will print black without getting any warning. This has happened to me many times. It is a proof that the detector that detects emptiness of the cartridge is disabled. Now let's see what Hat said:
So if anyone of you guy want to save your hard earned $$ then use some sort of chip that will record your ink status on screen
just as long as the printer is not running blind and trying to kill your print head out of pure revenge..
My print heads were never killed by not resetting my chips. I merely have to refill and go. I know there may be a risk but it has never damaged anything. I have an observation about this. If there is no ink (running out of ink) there is nothing for the print head heaters to burn to clog. So my print heads were never clogged. Since I always discover quickly that ink has run out the heaters were never hot enough to destroy anything.
stratman said:
Fourth, The Hat was offering an opinion, not a statement of fact, about "most Canon printers". He didn't "blow" anything. On the contrary, he restated widely held beliefs on the forum and added objective data concerning the extent of ink purging with the Pro1.
Unfortunately I did not see it that way. It's not just an opinion. It is much stronger than an opinion. Doyou suggest that I should keep quiet and let untrue speculation to spread freely? My post was not just my opinion. I was stating the truth. You don't have to believe it.
stratman said:
If you are to be judged by what you have written then you blow, grandexp. You have offered zero proof that all printers do not waste more ink when ink level monitoring is disabled, you offered a strawman argument in place of proof, and, you have been insulting where none had been given previously in the thread. You disagree - fine - but leave your attacks out when none were given to you or anyone for that matter.
You have a point here. I should say quite a few printers I used over the years do not show a difference in terms of ink wasted between with and without using a resetter. But Hat did not point out any other printer that actually proves to waste ink differently.
If Hat weighted his cartridges I can tell you by taking out the cartridges to weigh his printer will do a cleaning cycle after the cartridges are reinstalled. That's probably why his printer wasted a lot of ink. Whenever a chipped cartridge is removed and reinstalled the printer will detect it. The printer will then invoke a cleaning cycle to get the air, introduced when the cartridge was removed, out of the ink passage. The Hat's entire post was flawed if he weighed the cartridge to check how much ink was wasted as he described.
