Rod Speed wrote:


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

Epsons have fixed print heads and usually are beyond economic repair
when they have problems.

I took mine apart and soaked it in meths. It was OK for a couple of
years. I need to do it again now though.

where did you get the meth?

That's the usual abbreviation for mentholated spirits, basically ethanol.

Metholated, ****ing spelling checker.

That sounds like methyl alcohol, which is toxic. Do not drink or inhale
it. There is a folk song about adulterated liquor with methyl alcohol:
"killed my pappy, drove my mammy stone blind".

Mort Linder

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 13:38:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:37:50 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"nospam" wrote in message
. ..
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

Epsons have fixed print heads and usually are beyond economic repair
when they have problems.

I took mine apart and soaked it in meths. It was OK for a couple of
years. I need to do it again now though.

where did you get the meth?

That's the usual abbreviation for mentholated spirits, basically ethanol.

Oops.

It's not the usual definition around here, though. Mention "meth" and
the meaning taken is methamphetamine. A frequent user is a "meth
head".

My son is a firefighter in an area that is partly rural. Quite a few
of his calls are to meth labs that have blown up and meth victims
(firefighters answer 911 calls here).
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Mort" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

Epsons have fixed print heads and usually are beyond economic repair
when they have problems.

I took mine apart and soaked it in meths. It was OK for a couple of
years. I need to do it again now though.

where did you get the meth?

That's the usual abbreviation for mentholated spirits, basically
ethanol.

Metholated, ****ing spelling checker.

That sounds like methyl alcohol, which is toxic. Do not drink or inhale
it. There is a folk song about adulterated liquor with methyl alcohol:
"killed my pappy, drove my mammy stone blind".

Mort Linder

"Mort" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:


"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

Epsons have fixed print heads and usually are beyond economic repair
when they have problems.

I took mine apart and soaked it in meths. It was OK for a couple of
years. I need to do it again now though.

where did you get the meth?

That's the usual abbreviation for mentholated spirits, basically
ethanol.

Metholated, ****ing spelling checker.

That sounds like methyl alcohol,

Its primarily ethanol.

which is toxic. Do not drink or inhale it.

Its completely safe to use it for cleaning, that's its main use.

There is a folk song about adulterated liquor with methyl alcohol: "killed
my pappy, drove my mammy stone blind".

Yes, it can do that if you drink it. It can kill you if you drink it too.

En el artículo , Mort
escribió:

That sounds like methyl alcohol, which is toxic. Do not drink or inhale
it.

In the UK, it's coloured purple and has an unpleasant taste added to
deter anyone from drinking it.

It's sold in corner shops in poorer areas in cans labelled "Ice White",
"Diamond White" or similar*.

* this may or may not be true.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

En el artículo , Martin Brown |||newspa
escribió:

Depends what you are using it for. Mine mostly gets used for printing
posters for the VH which have to survive about three weeks in sunlight
tops.

Some time ago, I had to have a sign made for an installation 9,000 feet
above sea level. This is above the cloud layer so is subject to high
levels of UV, which had bleached the colour put of previous signs in
short order.

For the latest sign I went to as different sign maker who offered to
apply a UV-protective coating at very little additional cost. I was
somewhat sceptical, having been promised UV-resistant signs in the past,
but he was as good as his word and it still looks like new four years
on.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo , Mort
escribió:

That sounds like methyl alcohol, which is toxic. Do not drink or inhale
it.

In the UK, it's coloured purple and has an unpleasant taste added to
deter anyone from drinking it.

It's sold in corner shops in poorer areas in cans labelled "Ice White",
"Diamond White" or similar*.

* this may or may not be true.

Methanol alcohol was commonly used for cleaning. Drinking it makes you
go blind. Literally! It has therefore been replaced by ethanol for said
purpose. Usually with weird color, taste and substances that causes
nausea added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol
--
teleportation kills

On 27/10/2015 00:00, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:35:50 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Mines now a Canon Pixma ix6550 which was on offer when I got it.

It has the advantage of taking the same ink cartridges as another
multifunction printer that I own.

My only beef with Epson is that 1) the printer will die only if you
have purchased a complete new set of ink cartridges, and, 2) the ink
cartridges purchased for the old printer will not work in the new
printer.

I use third party clone inks

I use only Epson ink and Epson photo paper.

Depends what you are using it for. Mine mostly gets used for printing
posters for the VH which have to survive about three weeks in sunlight
tops. Since Canon magenta doesn't much like this outdoor environment
either laminated or under glass or perspex I see no point in paying for
the more expensive OEM inks when they also fade. The clone inks do fade
faster and colour balance isn't quite right but not by all that much.

If you print on the official material and with Canon inks then longevity
is improved provided you keep it out of direct sunlight.

On pigment based inks then the risk of clones jamming is a lot worse.

Any serious photoprints I have printed at a lab on Fuji Crystal Archive
which is way better reproduction than any inkjet I have ever seen.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"android" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo , Mort
escribió:

That sounds like methyl alcohol, which is toxic. Do not drink or inhale
it.

In the UK, it's coloured purple and has an unpleasant taste added to
deter anyone from drinking it.

It's sold in corner shops in poorer areas in cans labelled "Ice White",
"Diamond White" or similar*.

* this may or may not be true.

Methanol alcohol

Its either methanol or methyl alcohol.

was commonly used for cleaning.

Metho was in fact much more commonly used.

Drinking it makes you go blind. Literally!

It kills you too.

It has therefore been replaced by ethanol for said purpose.

Utterly mangled all over again.

Usually with weird color, taste and
substances that causes nausea added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

"android" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artículo , Mort
escribió:

That sounds like methyl alcohol, which is toxic. Do not drink or inhale
it.

In the UK, it's coloured purple and has an unpleasant taste added to
deter anyone from drinking it.

It's sold in corner shops in poorer areas in cans labelled "Ice White",
"Diamond White" or similar*.

* this may or may not be true.

Methanol alcohol

Its either methanol or methyl alcohol.

Sure it is. I type fast and don't always proofread this stuff. Do you
have anything else that you feel that you have enlighten the class with.
The mike is on...

was commonly used for cleaning.

Metho was in fact much more commonly used.

Drinking it makes you go blind. Literally!

It kills you too.

It has therefore been replaced by ethanol for said purpose.

Utterly mangled all over again.

Usually with weird color, taste and
substances that causes nausea added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol

--
teleportation kills

En el artículo , android
escribió:

Do you
have anything else that you feel that you have enlighten the class with.

Highly unlikely, considering who you're replying to.

http://tinyurl.com/RodSpeedFAQ

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 26/10/2015 14:29, Bob Minchin wrote:
Epsons have fixed print heads and usually are beyond economic repair
when they have problems.

I took mine apart and soaked it in meths. It was OK for a couple of
years. I need to do it again now though.

When I had a blocked one and Googled on fixing it, they said to use
ammonia.

--
*I finally got my head together, now my body is falling apart.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

"android" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artÃ*culo , Mort
escribió:

That sounds like methyl alcohol, which is toxic. Do not drink or inhale
it.

In the UK, it's coloured purple and has an unpleasant taste added to
deter anyone from drinking it.

It's sold in corner shops in poorer areas in cans labelled "Ice White",
"Diamond White" or similar*.

* this may or may not be true.

Methanol alcohol

Its either methanol or methyl alcohol.

Sure it is. I type fast and don't always proofread this stuff.

Why not? Should we just ignore all your posts then, as potentially
containing crap?

You mean typos? If they hurt your eyes, then please do!
--
teleportation kills

In article , Tim Streater wrote:

Mort:
That sounds like methyl alcohol, which is toxic. Do not
drink or inhale it.

Mike Tomlinson:
In the UK, it's coloured purple and has an unpleasant taste
added to deter anyone from drinking it.

It's sold in corner shops in poorer areas in cans labelled
"Ice White", "Diamond White" or similar*.

* this may or may not be true.

android:
Methanol alcohol

Rod Speed:
Its either methanol or methyl alcohol.

android:
Sure it is. I type fast and don't always proofread this stuff.

Why not? Should we just ignore all your posts then, as potentially
containing crap?

Yup!

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , Tim Streater wrote:

Mort:
That sounds like methyl alcohol, which is toxic. Do not
drink or inhale it.

Mike Tomlinson:
In the UK, it's coloured purple and has an unpleasant taste
added to deter anyone from drinking it.

It's sold in corner shops in poorer areas in cans labelled
"Ice White", "Diamond White" or similar*.

* this may or may not be true.

android:
Methanol alcohol

Rod Speed:
Its either methanol or methyl alcohol.

android:
Sure it is. I type fast and don't always proofread this stuff.

Why not? Should we just ignore all your posts then, as potentially
containing crap?

Yup!

Feel free to take the advice that I gave Tim...
--
teleportation kills

On 26/10/2015 16:45, android wrote:
In article ,
newshound wrote:

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Don't need duplex. (A3 scanning might very occasionally be handy).

TIA

Thanks to all for the helpful comments. Still musing over the options.

comp.periphs.printers might be helpful if you need more input.

I've had HP, a 3845 deskjet, for almost 15 years, and never had a head
dry out with occasional use, including 3 week vacation layovers. Best
thing about HP is the head is in the cartridge, costs a bit more but
very easy replacement.

In article , Peter
wrote:

I've had HP, a 3845 deskjet, for almost 15 years, and never had a head
dry out with occasional use, including 3 week vacation layovers. Best
thing about HP is the head is in the cartridge, costs a bit more but
very easy replacement.

until it comes time to profiling it.

On 26/10/2015 23:10, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-26 22:53:43 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:21:01 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:17:49 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 26/10/2015 14:29, Bob Minchin wrote:
Epsons have fixed print heads and usually are beyond economic repair
when they have problems.

I took mine apart and soaked it in meths. It was OK for a couple of
years. I need to do it again now though.

There is a lot of information out there about cleaning Epson print
heads. All kinds of stuff has been suggested: ammonia, isopropyly
alcohol, and particularly Windex window cleaner. I've never heard of
straight meths though.

What kind of printer is it?

My question would be "Which meth product?". Methylene chloride is a
pretty standard ingredient in cleaning solvents.

http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/house...queryx=75-09-2


I believe the reference was to methyl alcohol (methanol) which is
available in many countries as methylated spirits, better known in the
US as denatured alcohol. Due to consumption abuse the methanol content
has been reduced, and in some countries banned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol

I hadn't realised that we had non-UK readers who wouldn't understand the
reference.

Methylated Spirits is commonly available in the UK (and this is a UK
newsgroup!) where it's methanol mixed with purple dye and a little
pyridine to make it taste even worse.

fx looks up Oh. Two newsgroups. I hadn't noticed the cross-post.

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
On 26/10/2015 23:10, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-26 22:53:43 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:21:01 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:17:49 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 26/10/2015 14:29, Bob Minchin wrote:
Epsons have fixed print heads and usually are beyond economic repair
when they have problems.

I took mine apart and soaked it in meths. It was OK for a couple of
years. I need to do it again now though.

There is a lot of information out there about cleaning Epson print
heads. All kinds of stuff has been suggested: ammonia, isopropyly
alcohol, and particularly Windex window cleaner. I've never heard of
straight meths though.

What kind of printer is it?

My question would be "Which meth product?". Methylene chloride is a
pretty standard ingredient in cleaning solvents.

http://hpd.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/house...queryx=75-09-2


I believe the reference was to methyl alcohol (methanol) which is
available in many countries as methylated spirits, better known in the
US as denatured alcohol. Due to consumption abuse the methanol content
has been reduced, and in some countries banned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol

I hadn't realised that we had non-UK readers who wouldn't understand the
reference.

Methylated Spirits is commonly available in the UK (and this is a UK
newsgroup!)

Only one of them is.

where it's methanol

Nope, its mostly ethanol.

mixed with purple dye and a little pyridine to make it taste even worse.

Methanol is indistinguishable taste
wise from ethanol, that's the problem.

fx looks up Oh. Two newsgroups. I hadn't noticed the cross-post.

On 27/10/2015 21:06, 78lp wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
I hadn't realised that we had non-UK readers who wouldn't understand
the reference.

Methylated Spirits is commonly available in the UK (and this is a UK
newsgroup!)

Only one of them is.

where it's methanol

Nope, its mostly ethanol.

mixed with purple dye and a little pyridine to make it taste even worse.

Methanol is indistinguishable taste
wise from ethanol, that's the problem.

fx looks up Oh. Two newsgroups. I hadn't noticed the cross-post.


I've just gone and looked it up. (this is of course UK specific)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330451/eis0613.pdf

AKA http://tinyurl.com/oqljymo

says that as of July 2013 "The new formulation will be for every 100
parts by volume of alcohol mix 3 parts by volume of isopropyl alcohol, 3
parts by volume of methylethylketone and one gramme of denatonium benzoate."

and also

"The traditional UK formula for CDA (formerly known as methylated
spirits or meths for short) contained a purple dye, provided by the
chemical methyl violet. After much deliberation, it was decided that the
European formula need not contain a dye. UK trade bodies were keen that
this was reflected in UK law. HMRC was persuaded that there is no longer
a pressing need to include a dye, so it will no longer be mandatory.
However as some users of CDA may still expect the purple dye to be
included, the same proportion of methyl violet that was present in the
old formula will be permitted if required."

So it needn't be purple and doesn't contain methanol nor pyridine. I
couldn't have been much more wrong!

Though what they mean by 1gramme of denatonium benzoate per part of
alcohol I don't know.

Andy

"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 27/10/2015 21:06, 78lp wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
I hadn't realised that we had non-UK readers who wouldn't understand
the reference.

Methylated Spirits is commonly available in the UK (and this is a UK
newsgroup!)

Only one of them is.

where it's methanol

Nope, its mostly ethanol.

mixed with purple dye and a little pyridine to make it taste even worse.

Methanol is indistinguishable taste
wise from ethanol, that's the problem.

fx looks up Oh. Two newsgroups. I hadn't noticed the cross-post.


I've just gone and looked it up. (this is of course UK specific)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330451/eis0613.pdf

AKA http://tinyurl.com/oqljymo

says that as of July 2013 "The new formulation will be for every 100 parts
by volume of alcohol

That is mostly ethanol, not methanol.

mix 3 parts by volume of isopropyl alcohol, 3
parts by volume of methylethylketone and one gramme of denatonium
benzoate."

and also

"The traditional UK formula for CDA (formerly known as methylated spirits
or meths for short) contained a purple dye, provided by the chemical
methyl violet. After much deliberation, it was decided that the European
formula need not contain a dye. UK trade bodies were keen that this was
reflected in UK law. HMRC was persuaded that there is no longer a pressing
need to include a dye, so it will no longer be mandatory. However as some
users of CDA may still expect the purple dye to be included, the same
proportion of methyl violet that was present in the old formula will be
permitted if required."

So it needn't be purple and doesn't contain methanol nor pyridine. I
couldn't have been much more wrong!

Though what they mean by 1gramme of denatonium benzoate per part of
alcohol I don't know.

Yeah, its pretty poorly worded, particularly with the use of the word
alcohol.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:28:35 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 27/10/2015 21:06, 78lp wrote:


"Vir Campestris" wrote in message
...
I hadn't realised that we had non-UK readers who wouldn't understand
the reference.

Methylated Spirits is commonly available in the UK (and this is a UK
newsgroup!)

Only one of them is.

where it's methanol

Nope, its mostly ethanol.

mixed with purple dye and a little pyridine to make it taste even worse.

Methanol is indistinguishable taste
wise from ethanol, that's the problem.

fx looks up Oh. Two newsgroups. I hadn't noticed the cross-post.


I've just gone and looked it up. (this is of course UK specific)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330451/eis0613.pdf

AKA http://tinyurl.com/oqljymo

says that as of July 2013 "The new formulation will be for every 100
parts by volume of alcohol mix 3 parts by volume of isopropyl alcohol, 3
parts by volume of methylethylketone and one gramme of denatonium benzoate."

and also

"The traditional UK formula for CDA (formerly known as methylated
spirits or meths for short) contained a purple dye, provided by the
chemical methyl violet. After much deliberation, it was decided that the
European formula need not contain a dye. UK trade bodies were keen that
this was reflected in UK law. HMRC was persuaded that there is no longer
a pressing need to include a dye, so it will no longer be mandatory.
However as some users of CDA may still expect the purple dye to be
included, the same proportion of methyl violet that was present in the
old formula will be permitted if required."

So it needn't be purple and doesn't contain methanol nor pyridine. I
couldn't have been much more wrong!

Occasionally meths drinkers have made the mistake in reverse with
fatal results. It was possible (but extremely unhealthy and unplesant
tasting) to drink methylated spirits prepared with the old formula.
Methanol is metabolised by the body to formaldehyde which is what does
the damage but with meths the ethanol is metabolised to acetaldehyde
in preference.

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Don't need duplex. (A3 scanning might very occasionally be handy).

TIA

In the end I went for the Brother MFC-J6920DW (£170). It was a close
thing between that and the cheaper Epson WF-7610DWF, but the Brother had
a slightly better Amazon review score, also it has two paper trays.

A bit fiddly to set up network printing, but all working now. Text is
slightly less crisp and dark than the laserjet, but fine for printing
engineering drawings. One test photo came out nicely, scanner works
well. Paper trays feel a bit flimsy but it's not going to get heavy use.
It is a fraction of the weight of the Laserjet 8000 that it is
replacing. Using A3, the tray sticks out 15 cm at the front and the
paper is transverse to the scanner, so the footprint is more or less
square. Overall, quite impressed.

On 2015-10-29 23:11:51 +0000, newshound said:

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Don't need duplex. (A3 scanning might very occasionally be handy).

TIA

In the end I went for the Brother MFC-J6920DW (£170). It was a close
thing between that and the cheaper Epson WF-7610DWF, but the Brother
had a slightly better Amazon review score, also it has two paper trays.

A bit fiddly to set up network printing, but all working now. Text is
slightly less crisp and dark than the laserjet, but fine for printing
engineering drawings. One test photo came out nicely, scanner works
well. Paper trays feel a bit flimsy but it's not going to get heavy
use. It is a fraction of the weight of the Laserjet 8000 that it is
replacing. Using A3, the tray sticks out 15 cm at the front and the
paper is transverse to the scanner, so the footprint is more or less
square. Overall, quite impressed.

There should be an option for rotating the scan output 90º in the
driver, so as to retain the orientation of the scanned document. The
relationship of the paper in the tray to the scanner should be
irrelevant and easily rotated using the driver.

It is time to RTFM.
Check page 43 of the manual for paper orientation using "User Defined"
as the Paper size in the printer driver.
http://download.brother.com/welcome/doc003148/mfc6920dw_use_busr_lel566001_a.pdf




--


Regards,

Savageduck

On 29/10/2015 23:40, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-29 23:11:51 +0000, newshound said:

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Don't need duplex. (A3 scanning might very occasionally be handy).

TIA

In the end I went for the Brother MFC-J6920DW (£170). It was a close
thing between that and the cheaper Epson WF-7610DWF, but the Brother
had a slightly better Amazon review score, also it has two paper trays.

A bit fiddly to set up network printing, but all working now. Text is
slightly less crisp and dark than the laserjet, but fine for printing
engineering drawings. One test photo came out nicely, scanner works
well. Paper trays feel a bit flimsy but it's not going to get heavy
use. It is a fraction of the weight of the Laserjet 8000 that it is
replacing. Using A3, the tray sticks out 15 cm at the front and the
paper is transverse to the scanner, so the footprint is more or less
square. Overall, quite impressed.

There should be an option for rotating the scan output 90º in the
driver, so as to retain the orientation of the scanned document. The
relationship of the paper in the tray to the scanner should be
irrelevant and easily rotated using the driver.

It is time to RTFM.
Check page 43 of the manual for paper orientation using "User Defined"
as the Paper size in the printer driver.
http://download.brother.com/welcome/doc003148/mfc6920dw_use_busr_lel566001_a.pdf





Sorry but you have missed my point. There's no problem fitting images to
the paper, etc, it is that the basic body of the machine is about 55 cm
"wide" and 40 cm "deep", but with the A3 tray deployed it becomes 55 cm
deep. So it takes up a bit more room than you think it is going to,
going by the apparent dimensions. The old laserjet 8000 sat very nicely
on my window-sill (my walls are more than 2 feet thick), but the tray of
the Brother overhangs slightly. (It's not as high as the LJ though, and
is *very* much lighter).

:-)

On 2015-10-30 18:00:35 +0000, newshound said:

On 29/10/2015 23:40, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-29 23:11:51 +0000, newshound said:

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Don't need duplex. (A3 scanning might very occasionally be handy).

TIA

In the end I went for the Brother MFC-J6920DW (£170). It was a close
thing between that and the cheaper Epson WF-7610DWF, but the Brother
had a slightly better Amazon review score, also it has two paper trays.

A bit fiddly to set up network printing, but all working now. Text is
slightly less crisp and dark than the laserjet, but fine for printing
engineering drawings. One test photo came out nicely, scanner works
well. Paper trays feel a bit flimsy but it's not going to get heavy
use. It is a fraction of the weight of the Laserjet 8000 that it is
replacing. Using A3, the tray sticks out 15 cm at the front and the
paper is transverse to the scanner, so the footprint is more or less
square. Overall, quite impressed.

There should be an option for rotating the scan output 90º in the
driver, so as to retain the orientation of the scanned document. The
relationship of the paper in the tray to the scanner should be
irrelevant and easily rotated using the driver.

It is time to RTFM.
Check page 43 of the manual for paper orientation using "User Defined"
as the Paper size in the printer driver.
http://download.brother.com/welcome/doc003148/mfc6920dw_use_busr_lel566001_a.pdf

Sorry

but you have missed my point. There's no problem fitting images to the
paper, etc, it is that the basic body of the machine is about 55 cm
"wide" and 40 cm "deep", but with the A3 tray deployed it becomes 55 cm
deep. So it takes up a bit more room than you think it is going to,
going by the apparent dimensions. The old laserjet 8000 sat very nicely
on my window-sill (my walls are more than 2 feet thick), but the tray
of the Brother overhangs slightly. (It's not as high as the LJ though,
and is *very* much lighter).

:-)

In that case, a sledge hammer should be able to modify the wall to make
everything fit.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 30/10/2015 18:07, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-10-30 18:00:35 +0000, newshound said:



Sorry

but you have missed my point. There's no problem fitting images to the
paper, etc, it is that the basic body of the machine is about 55 cm
"wide" and 40 cm "deep", but with the A3 tray deployed it becomes 55
cm deep. So it takes up a bit more room than you think it is going to,
going by the apparent dimensions. The old laserjet 8000 sat very
nicely on my window-sill (my walls are more than 2 feet thick), but
the tray of the Brother overhangs slightly. (It's not as high as the
LJ though, and is *very* much lighter).

:-)

In that case, a sledge hammer should be able to modify the wall to make
everything fit.


All I was trying to point out to anyone interested that, if you read the
dimensions quoted on Amazon, but want to use an A3 tray, you will find
that it is actually more than 6 inches / 15 cm larger in one dimension.
When I get around to it, I will make that point in an Amazon review.

In article ,
says...

On 26/10/2015 14:23, newshound wrote:
I occasionally want to print drawings at A3, but my ancient Laserjet
8000 has just died. I swore I would never buy another inkjet, but all
the refurb A3 mono lasers are large, expensive, or both, whereas there
are several smaller, cheaper colour inkjets on the market. I guess I
might use one occasionally for photos or posters but I'm not worried
about exhibition quality. What *really* worries me is print head dryout
because I might only use it once a week.

Does anyone have any views / experience on current Epson / Canon / HP or
other A3 printers?

Don't need duplex. (A3 scanning might very occasionally be handy).

TIA

In the end I went for the Brother MFC-J6920DW (£170). It was a close
thing between that and the cheaper Epson WF-7610DWF, but the Brother had
a slightly better Amazon review score, also it has two paper trays.

A bit fiddly to set up network printing, but all working now. Text is
slightly less crisp and dark than the laserjet, but fine for printing
engineering drawings. One test photo came out nicely, scanner works
well. Paper trays feel a bit flimsy but it's not going to get heavy use.
It is a fraction of the weight of the Laserjet 8000 that it is
replacing. Using A3, the tray sticks out 15 cm at the front and the
paper is transverse to the scanner, so the footprint is more or less
square. Overall, quite impressed.

You probably already know this, but if you're scaling from printout and
the dimensions are all critical, scan and print a piece of commercially-
printed graph paper and check the result--if it's off then you'll have
an idea of what you have to do to compensate.

On 01/11/2015 10:57, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...


You probably already know this, but if you're scaling from printout and
the dimensions are all critical, scan and print a piece of commercially-
printed graph paper and check the result--if it's off then you'll have
an idea of what you have to do to compensate.


You mean because the printer may stretch or squeeze in the "paper feed"
direction compared to the transverse direction. I agree. In my case, I
am typically looking at prints of scans of blueprints so there are
several opportunities for this error, although print borders sometimes
have scales on both axes. In my present exercise, I have mostly been
scaling dimensions which are parallel to a quoted dimension on the
drawing, so this is less of an issue.

In article ,
says...

On 01/11/2015 10:57, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...


You probably already know this, but if you're scaling from printout and
the dimensions are all critical, scan and print a piece of commercially-
printed graph paper and check the result--if it's off then you'll have
an idea of what you have to do to compensate.


You mean because the printer may stretch or squeeze in the "paper feed"
direction compared to the transverse direction. I agree. In my case, I
am typically looking at prints of scans of blueprints so there are
several opportunities for this error, although print borders sometimes
have scales on both axes. In my present exercise, I have mostly been
scaling dimensions which are parallel to a quoted dimension on the
drawing, so this is less of an issue.

Not only that but sometimes the spacing going across the page is not
quite even.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 20:46:51 +0000, newshound
wrote:

On 01/11/2015 10:57, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...


You probably already know this, but if you're scaling from printout and
the dimensions are all critical, scan and print a piece of commercially-
printed graph paper and check the result--if it's off then you'll have
an idea of what you have to do to compensate.


You mean because the printer may stretch or squeeze in the "paper feed"
direction compared to the transverse direction. I agree. In my case, I
am typically looking at prints of scans of blueprints so there are
several opportunities for this error, although print borders sometimes
have scales on both axes. In my present exercise, I have mostly been
scaling dimensions which are parallel to a quoted dimension on the
drawing, so this is less of an issue.

I used to use my Epson 3800 to print CAD generated drawings. I found
the prints were accurate to a fraction of a millimetre anywhere on an
A2 size sheet. The biggest cause of error was the stability of the
paper in that depending on the paper prints could fractionally change
dimensions over night.

I expect this to be the case with most high quality printers.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens