Manually Cleaning 4900 Print Heads

[Shane Webster]

While I did RTFM, I had forgotten this feature and I believe it's only available via the printer's front panel.  For whatever reason, some nozzles of my C printhead seem to be constantly clogged.  Instead of running the cleaning cycle for all printheads, the 4900 allows a manual cleaning of 2 printheads at a time, which is very nice in this instance.  Now I'm able to clean C and VM in order to clear the C printhead without wasting ink in all the other printheads.  Perhaps now that I've used the printer for a bit, I should RTFM again. . .

[Mark D Segal]

While I did RTFM, I had forgotten this feature and I believe it's only available via the printer's front panel.  For whatever reason, some nozzles of my C printhead seem to be constantly clogged.  Instead of running the cleaning cycle for all printheads, the 4900 allows a manual cleaning of 2 printheads at a time, which is very nice in this instance.  Now I'm able to clean C and VM in order to clear the C printhead without wasting ink in all the other printheads.  Perhaps now that I've used the printer for a bit, I should RTFM again. . .

Hello Shane,

Very interesting post. Yes you're right - for this condition that is the correct option to use.

Now, I am also experiencing Cyan nozzle-check issues (I call them that on purpose, because I don't know whether the broken pattern on the nozzle-check is due to a clog or ink starvation or ink droppage). I have been communicating with Epson about this issue, but so far the discussion has not yielded a satisfactory outcome.

I am very interested in learning more detail about the conditions in which this happens to you:

Do you print every day, or are there longer intervals between using the printer?
Does this happen DURING a printing session, or only on start-up of the printer?
Do you notice it happening more usually if you haven;t used the printer for several days?
Is the pattern of the empty spaces rather random, or is it systematically similar every time it happens?
Do you find that one cleaning of that pair takes care of the issue?
Do you turn your printer off when you are finished a printing session?
Are you working in a particularly warm, dry environment, or would you say rather more normal room temperature and moderate humidity?

Sorry for asking so many questions, but all of these factors are relevant to establishing whether there is similarity between your problem and mine. This being a new printer model, the conditions of each case are useful to seeing whether behaviour is random or generic.

[Shane Webster]

Mark,

For the past two weeks, I've been printing at least every other day. 
I have the auto nozzle check turned off (though I may turn it on now) and have been checking the nozzle at the beginning of each printing day.
I don't believe I've checked back to back days if I've used the printer on both Monday and Tuesday (not really helpful in determining whether it's a usage issue)--though I do believe I've checked in the morning and afternoon and had to clean both times.
Prior to this morning, the empty spaces were random.  I now have a "stuck" clog--a nozzle that will not come clean.
Prior to this morning, cleaning had taken care of the issue, though last week I had to perform three cleanings to clean the C channel.
I do not manually turn the printer off after each use but it is set to turn itself off after so many hours of non-use.
I'm using it in about 78°F and moderate humidity (Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas area).

I can't recall exactly when I began noting the C channel constantly having issues.  I've had some large print jobs printed on both Epson Somerset Velvet and Moab Entrada Rag 300.  Last week I began printing my own prints on IGF.  I don't believe I've ever had a nozzle check pattern come out clean on the first go (quite a change from my 7880).  I know there is also a banding thread, and while it has nothing to do with the C channel, I did notice K banding on a particularly dark image I printed on IGF for a friend that corrected itself printing unidirectional 2880,  with microweave on. 

As noted above, I now have a C nozzle with a clog that won't clear.  I performed about 10 cleaning this morning with approximately 5 of them being power cleaning.  I broke down and power cleaned all heads as well--which lead to another interesting development--after power cleaning all heads, the LK head then decided to have a clog in two nozzles--which were cleared after a manual cleaning of the LK head.  I called Epson support to see if they had any suggestions.  I told the tech what was going on and she said she wouldn't have me perform any other measures and they would send me a replacement printer.  Since they were so quick to replace (and I'm quite pleased with their support though I hope this isn't an endemic 4900 issue), I suspect it may be an issue getting legs and Epson wants a sample of affected printers in order to determine the root cause and issue a maintenance fix.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks for your detailed response Shane. Your machine seems to be having a more serious issue than mine. I think it's still early days to tell whether these are one-off episodes or generic on the 4900. I am pleased for you that Epson is doing a replacement. Please post again with your experience on the replacement printer.

[Garnick]

Hi Shane,

I'm chiming in here to offer my condolences. You may have seen some of my posts concerning the issues I've been experiencing with my 9900. Mark and I have been communicating on another thread and it's all sounding SOOOOO familiar. Far too familiar in fact, but I'm glad Epson is picking up the ball and running with it on this one. That's not to say that they haven't been helpful in my case, because they certainly have. I cannot stress enough how important it is to call Epson early and call often, in order to make sure your issues have been reported and a background file is in their database. Other than a somewhat different and new issue for me, your nozzle problems are something I can most certainly identify with, so I won't get into another long and involved description here. However, as I have done from day 1, I would suggest it might be a good idea to start an "issue log" for the new 4900 from the moment you see it spring to life. That way you will be able to refer to it with solid information if and when you have to call Epson again. Hopefully you will never need to use that log, but it will definitely be a handy tool to have if necessary.

The only thing I will add is that on several occasions I have found that when Pairs Cleanings can not solve the problem, a Normal Cleaning will sometimes be of help instead. I agree that Pairs Cleanings are very helpful and cost effective, when they actually do the job. However, I think that sometimes one can get caught up in that cycle and overlook the Normal Cleaning as a possibility after the fact.

Good luck with the new printer Shane. And also to Mark, I hope Epson will be taking care of you as well, and all of us for that matter.

Gary

[Mark D Segal]

Gary, I have to say that Epson has been very correct with me in the past. I think the current issue is a very new one on a new model, and they're handling their responses commensurately with the severity of the problems; the fact that the discussion over my issues isn't over-with doesn't mean they've abandoned me - far from; given the fact that my problems aren't a train smash, the thinking about exactly how to handle it hasn't quite jelled yet.

[ippolitois]

Just out of curiosity, is there a wiper blade for this printer? I find that I have to constantly clean the wiper blade in order to prevent this type of clogging on my 4000. I used to think it was the capping station, but I have discovered that if the wiper blade is not clean, it can contaminate the head as it tries to clean it. Ink tends to accumulate on it and then dry up between the two rubber pieces. When the cleaning cycle kicks in, I think it tends to rub that dry ink into the head again, and as the cleanings become more intense, it exacerbates the situation. I now clean it constantly, especially if I don't print for a while and it seems to be the answer so far. If I don't print for weeks, I will periodically take several Windex soaked swabs and clean the blade. This has helped the most. Two cleanings and I'm ready to print. Then before I shut the printer off, I re-clean the blade again especially if I'm doing a long print run with a couple of unscheduled "Auto cleans" the printer likes to do. The clean blade works as designed and DOESN'T clog the head. I can't seem to shut off the Auto nozzle and cleaning functions in the panel even though they are in the OFF position. Got to love Epson!!

Hope this helps.

Paul

[Garnick]

Hi Paul,

I don't know about the 4900, but I would assume that it does have a wiper. It's been many years since I had a 4000, which I then traded for another 7600. On the 7600 printers the wiper was througholy cleaned every 4-5 months and that seemed to keep things in good working order. When I first saw the wiper on the 9900 I was astounded at how small it is, about a quarter the size of the 7600 wiper. Not sure why that is, but I suppose it's a more efficient cleaning system overall. At some point I will however be cleaning that one myself as well, but probably not while it's under warranty. I'll let Epson handle that for now, but I agree, it is an integral and very important part of the system. I will say that I've never used Windex on the blade, only distilled water. Windex can contain ammonia and some alcohol as well, both of which can dry out the print head. However, if it works for you that's really all that counts, and it would seem that is the case.

Gary

[ippolitois]

Hi Gary,

I wasn't sure if distilled water is effective in cleaning the wiper blade. I'll pick some up and see how it works. I thought that the Windex wouldn't harm the head or the wiper, but perhaps using distilled water for regular maintenance and Windex for those moments when the only solution is to wheel the printer to the curb might be more prudent. I recently had the capping stations and wiper replaced and it still clogged a month later. Then one day the Epson tech I was corresponding with regarding the persistent clogging issues outlined in this and many other threads, blurted out that the only thing left was the wiper blade was dirty and suggested I clean it and so I did. As a example, I turned off the printer last Thursday and fired it up today, and voila perfect nozzle check.

I don't believe cleaning your own wiper blade would constitute voiding the warranty but perhaps you should ask Epson just to be safe. Let us know if this is the solution to all your nightmares or just another placebo.

Paul

[Farmer]

If you put a chemical into contact with part of the printer and that causes any issues, then, yes, your warranty may be in jeopardy.  The parts are not designed or designed for user maintenance.

On old machines out of warranty, then cleaning the wiper blade can be a great idea, but if you need to do it regularly, I'd suggest you need a new wiper blade as they do wear out.  Distilled water is a good idea.

[Mark Muse]

I am unhappy to hear about these problems on the x900 printers. I am waiting for delivery of a 4900 specifically because of the grief I have had with my 4800 and clogged nozzles. My total ink to paper ratio is 1(ml) / 9(cm) almost exclusively with matte papers. This is based on the information printed on the nozzle check printout. How does that compare to the 4900 and other 4800s I wonder? I know there are other variables but information from enough printers would give a general idea of how typical (or not) this is.

My experiences with Epson support have been somewhat less than helpful as well.

On the positive side of the ledger their print quality is about as good as it gets, and is the only reason I am willing to buy another Epson printer.

[Mark D Segal]

I am unhappy to hear about these problems on the x900 printers. I am waiting for delivery of a 4900 specifically because of the grief I have had with my 4800 and clogged nozzles. My total ink to paper ratio is 1(ml) / 9(cm) almost exclusively with matte papers. This is based on the information printed on the nozzle check printout. How does that compare to the 4900 and other 4800s I wonder? I know there are other variables but information from enough printers would give a general idea of how typical (or not) this is.

My experiences with Epson support have been somewhat less than helpful as well.

On the positive side of the ledger their print quality is about as good as it gets, and is the only reason I am willing to buy another Epson printer.

I don't know what your measurement means because it is normal to talk of ink coverage in terms of ml per sq.inch or sq. cm. The consensus view I see from various posts including my own measurements indicate for the x900 models about 1.4 ~  1.5 ml per sq.ft. of coverage, excluding ink consumed in cleaning cycles. We can no longer measure that directly because the means for doing so has been eliminated though successive amendments to the Epson driver. For the paper I use virtually all the time, (Ilford Gold Fibre Silk), ink is much less expensive than the paper. And depending on your usage rate, amortization of the machine itself is non-trivial. I've given a picture of all this in my review of the 4900 printer on this website.

[Shane Webster]

Please post again with your experience on the replacement printer.

I will. The new printer should arrive tomorrow though I probably won't have time to do much with it until Wednesday.

I will certainly begin keeping a log with the new printer.  I have great difficulty seeing this as an issue affecting all the 4900 printers because I would think it would have been caught during its QC.

[Mark D Segal]

I have great difficulty seeing this as an issue affecting all the 4900 printers because I would think it would have been caught during its QC.

I would hope you are right, but QC is not fail-safe in any environment I'm familiar with.

[Mark Muse]

I don't really know what these measurements mean either which is why I gave it as a ratio, assuming all 4800s are the same in this regard. Of course ink coverage should be calculated by the square something (feet, meters) to be meaningful, but that is not what it says on the printout. It says Cur.InkCount: 1009.3 ml; Cur.PaperCount: 9019.0 cm. Would you assume that to be square anything?

OK, I checked the manual which says it is square meters. No idea why they indicate cm on both the nozzle check print and through the menu on the printer itself. Ink consumption is ml as indicated. So this printer has averaged 1ml of ink per 9 square meters of paper? That can't be right. This thing drinks ink. Your figure for the x900 machines is ~1.45 ml per square ft. Even if that was per square meter my figures would not make sense.

By the way Mark, I read your review of the 4900 when I was researching it as a possible purchase. Thanks, it was informative.

[Mark D Segal]

You are welcome, glad you found it useful.

The measurement from the 4800 nozzle check is linear, not square (I had one years ago and drilled-down on that question). It's the length of paper processed through the printer. Totally meaningless for the purpose at hand.

[artbot]

as for cleaning solutions...  the best replacement i've found for factory water based solution is distilled water and bissell hard floor cleaner (a non sudsing surfactant).  10-20 parts water to one part surfactant. as far as fears that "water" will harm your printer, that's impossible.  ink in contact with your heads is far more "dangerous" to your printer than low dyne water.  ...ink has resins and can clog, water is "good" for your heads.  windex has certain drying agents.  although it can cut the ink a bit quicker, it also will blend with the ink adding those evaporative qualities to the part/ink.  i'd stay away from windex unless you mix with a bit of glycol ether (the same stuff that causes your ink to not dry out quickly).