WHat is the difference between high yield and normal cartridges?

[Freddy_Kruger]

Besides amount of toner.

I just want to refill them so is there a point to buying the high yield?

 

[rdhital]

I think in you case you can buy the normal one. From what I understand both the cartridges are same size. Just that one is filled more. So if you are refilling it might be better to buy the cheaper one and then refill it. When you are refilling you can refill to the full.

 

[Ken_CW_Honolulu]

Besides amount of toner.

I just want to refill them so is there a point to buying the high yield?

HP 15a = 2,500 Pages @ 5% coverage
HP 15x = 3,500 Pages @ 5% coverage

HP 13a = 2,500 Pages @ 5% coverage
HP 13x = 4,000 Pages @ 5% coverage

As you can see, you can get a lot more pages out of the high yield cartridge. They have a lot more space for Toner. You will save time by refilling high yield cartridges as you will have to refill about two high yield for every three low-yield. If you're not replacing internal components (Drums, PCRs etc), then you may want to refill low-yield to increase turnover (more original cartridges and less worn parts in your printing cycles).

PS: 5% coverage is not really a whole lot of print on a page. 15-25% per page is probably more realistic, so take the original manufacturer's yields with a grain of salt. You can also increase your yield by the shake, rattle and roll technique. However, take care not to manhandle a close-to-empty cartridge in such a way as to slide the toner over to one side or the other. The idea is to evenly distribute the toner so it covers the interior rollers.

 

[tony uk]

5% is the standard all toner manufacturers use by a iso agreement so they are bound by law to use that percentage

 

[websnail]

5% is the standard all toner manufacturers use by a iso agreement so they are bound by law to use that percentage

Actually that's incorrect... It was never an ISO agreement but it was a standard that was used loosely (very loosely) by printer manufacturers.

Now things have changed a bit...

Inkjet Printers
ISO/IEC 24711:2006
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=40034

Mono lasers
ISO/IEC 19752
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=34911

Colour laser
ISO/IEC 19798:2007
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50015


Yep... nothing else to do me... I wish!

 

[tony uk]

so your sayimg there isnt a iso for this but then provide links to the iso docs??

 

[websnail]

so your sayimg there isnt a iso for this but then provide links to the iso docs??

Erm... no...

I said that the ISO didn't necessarily use 5% coverage as the measure to determine output.

When I originally posted I was thinking about the inkjet ISO where the 5% yield rule of thumb is NOT the primary measure for the ISO. Having looked back it seems I went with that as the baseline "ass-u-me" assumption, so I could be wrong with the colour laser ISO in which case, correct away.

 

[websnail]

Looking at it a bit further this pretty much says what I was trying to

In the past, printer and MFP original equipment manufacturers (OEMs)
used different, proprietary methods for testing and reporting consumable
yields. This made factual and accurate comparisons of products from
differing OEMs impossible. Reporting was traditionally done using
5% area coverage, but that did not guarantee comparable results
because many other testing variables affect the stated yield, including:
Page size and margin settings
Image types used to create 5% area coverage
Number of cartridges used during testing process
Number of printers/MFPs used during testing process
Environmental testing conditions (humidity, temperature, and so on)
Lack of stated confidence level for published consumable yield
Any variation in these factors during the testing process can cause
nontrivial differences in reported yields. The development of an industry
standard methodology for testing and reporting consumables yields has
helped alleviate these inconsistencies, and gives customers the reliable
information they need to make their technology decisions.

Ref: http://lithuania.xerox.eu/SUPGL-01.pdf

 

[tony uk]

Ok fair enough your right in stating that for ink no iso is in place although HP is trying to get one. As for laser printers there is a ISO in place this was initiated by HP for their own dark reasons i do have a doc on how this testing is done but yawnnnnnn

 

[websnail]

Ok fair enough your right in stating that for ink no iso is in place although HP is trying to get one.

Erm... nope.. didn't say that either unless you're referring to inkjets in which case there is now an ISO in place (see links above). I think that's been used now for about the last 6 months and it makes even less sense.

I do think you might need to read my posts a little more carefully though, you seem to be skimming and then confusing the heck out of what I said

As for laser printers there is a ISO in place this was initiated by HP for their own dark reasons i do have a doc on how this testing is done but yawnnnnnn

LOL... oh heck yes... Why pay 85 or whatever it is to find out how "fascinating" the testing procedures should be... ZZzzzz