Procedure | Qty (ml) | Time (min) | Cost (USD) |
Clean Color Pairs Normal | 3 | 2:30 | 1.12 |
CL1 Pair | 3 | 2:30 | 1.12 |
Clean Color Pairs Powerfull | 10 | 2:45 | 3.74 |
Normal Cleaning | 12 | 4:00 | 4.49 |
Std. CL1 | 14 | 3:45 | 5.24 |
CL4 Pair | 24 | 2:50 | 9 |
Power Cleaning | 69 | 4:00 | 26 |
Std. CL3 | 101 | 4:00 | 38 |
Super Strong Cleaning | 176 | 5:50 | 66 |
Init. Fill | 618 | 20:00 | 230 |
On the 3800/3880 the full cycle of blacks swapping, PK>MK>PK, uses 5.6 ML. It was less on the x900 printers we were told but I doubt it is just 2 ML. I wonder whether you show the PK>MK switch here that uses the least amount of ink.
You engineer, you - you just couldn't help yourself! :);D Thanks Jerry. I'm currently dissecting a spare cleaning station.
I'll double check, Ernst. The way I gathered the data was to measure the amount of ink collected in the waste tank. I was surprised that either PK>MK or MK>PK would send so little ink to the waste tank. But, and I think that's where the rub is, any swap triggers an ANC. Since my printhead is missing some nozzles, the ANC always triggers a lengthy cleaning. So I don't know how to isolate the ink consumption of the swap vs. the cleaning. Any idea how I could do that? (Doing the swap in service mode still triggers the ANC before the next print, even with ANC off.) Maybe I should have just left that data out of the table.
What I recall is that the PK>MK switch on the 3800/3880 does not need as much ink because a little contamination of MK ink with PK will not be visible on matte media. The other way around and a minimum of MK ink left would show gloss difference on gloss media. So here it is PK>MK 1.6 ML versus MK>PK 4 ML.
When the x900 series were announced I wondered about the changes on that system. You might know, is the PK/MK switch near the head on the 3800/3880 so the black ink tubes (2) are not affected or is it near the cartridges so also the black tube (1) has to be refreshed with either black? I would assume the first solution is used but it will make the ink carriage + tubes assembly heavier on a relative small printer. For the x900 I can not see another solution than a switch near the heads, it would take way more ink on the long tube and way more time for refreshing if the switch is near the cartridges. My initial thought when they claimed less ML used on the x900 models was this difference in switch systems. But if both printer types have the same switch near the head then I find it strange that a x900 would use less ink on the switch cycle, channels and ink buffers near the head should have larger dimensions for a wider format with 360 nozzles per inch per ink channel (speed). It could be that your ANC story reveals another explanation; splitting the ink waste in two and using different terms for the wastes. A gain in less waste by a redesign of the switch near the head (bringing it even closer to the black nozzles) is of course also possible but why did the 3880 not get the same treatment then? Ink sales + printer service is the main part of the profit for printer manufacturers and there may be some differences in that approach between the 17" and 24"> models, ink per ML already differs. So I am not sure what actually happens but find 1 ML for half a cycle a low number that is not telling all.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots