Jump to content

Talk:Inkjet printing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


what source?


"Inkjet printers cost less than laser printers, but their more expensive ink cartridges means that the ink cost per page is higher. As a result, inkjet printers tend to be more economical in low-volume printing applications, while laser printers tend to be more economical for medium- to high-volume applications.

Inkjet printers are usually preferred in the home or for applications that require photo-realistic reproduction. Laser printers are usually preferred in an office environment with higher printing volume."

I'm going to delete this part. it doesn't have any source and worse then that, IT'S A COMPLETE LIE. you can't compare things like that or make those assumptions. this is wikipedia. FACTUAL information please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in the long run this should be true, though newer inkets may be more competitive, as this article from Tom's Hardware expresses. But which i think is overly optimistic in favor of inkjets, while this article by PC Mech seems more reasonable. Unless one has a printer with cartridges that can be refilled using bulk ink (i get good ink for about 1.50 per ounce, and have refilled my black cart over 20 times, thank God) then the more economical use of inkets would be for small volume color printing.
See also the "Cost of ink, memjet technology..." section below: talk) 01:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epson DuraBrite?


There was a completely useless sentence which stated that some Epson printers use "special" DuraBrite ink. It's a trademarked name and the sentence adds no information to the article. It sounded more like an advertisement (a poorly done advertisement by the way) so I removed it. (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usage in ATMs and Cash Registers


I'm not a huge contributer to Wikipedia so I didn't want to make this edit myself. However, in the "General" heading under this article, it is stated that Inkjet printers find common usage in ATMs and Cash Registers. On the contrary, these devices do not use inkjet printers, but a technology that incorporates thermal paper. The print head is similar to a daisy wheel setup which is heated and "burns" the information onto special paper. You can verify this fact by comparing the feel of most receipts you get, they are slightly smoother and more plastic. You can then hold a heat source (such as a lighter flame) underneath them and they will quickly turn black in response.

--Pianist.envy 02:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will likely change this tonight. Mscudder 00:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History: the HP ThinkJet


How about a bit more on the history, in particular the HP ThinkJet that started the "revolution" away from dot matrix printers once users of microcomputers got their hands on the parallel and serial interface versions? The original ThinkJet had the HPIB (IEEE-488) interface, and was used primarily with test and monitoring equipment.

Print "quality" of the ThinkJet was about as good as draft mode on a 9 pin dot matrix, but the small size (not much wider than a sheet of paper) and lack of noise made it very desirable for low noise environments like hospital rooms.

Canon has used both disposable head and seperate ink tanks and replaceable head technology, sometimes in the same printer where either a high capacity black cartridge with integrated printhead or a replaceable printhead with one tricolor and one black ink tank could be used. Some early Canon inkjets used a fixed head with a hose leading to a very large, black ink tank. (Fixed tanks with hoses to the printheads have been used off and on throughout the history of inkjets.)

Xerox had a short foray into inkjet printers in the early 21st century, marketing a series of low cost printers and multifunction machines with mechanicals made by Sharp. Xerox designed their own outer casings and even customized the firmware to have any instance of "Sharp" replaced with "Xerox". They were decent printers but the advertised 1200DPI printing was only available in Windows 98 and Me. Windows 2000 drivers are available to download but they and the severely limited drivers included with Windows XP limit printing to a maximum of 600DPI. The Xerox inkjets have a bad reliability problem where the color printhead quits printing one of the three colors. (Three out of three for me, one each failing on cyan, magenta and yellow. See also many postings on Usenet.) Otherwise they have good print quality and the ink tanks are very easy to refill by carefully pushing a curved syringe needle through the outlet, past the soft foam.

Epson printers have had a bit of a checkered history with reliability, specifically a tendency for the fixed printheads to clog if the printer wasn't used on a regular basis. Some people have always used Epsons and never had a single head clog, some have gone through several Epsons and had clogs on every one. Epson has also tried to block refilling of their ink tanks through use of microchips.

Hewlett Packard has very recently introduced inkjets that use seperate ink tanks and printheads, some with individual tanks for each color. An older line of HP's used four tanks with integrated printheads and had MIO slots for network interfaces and slots for large amounts of RAM as well as the Adobe PostScript printer control language.

In the Canon article they claim that the Bubble Jet was the first inkjet printer introduced in 1985, is this true? More on the histrory please Jaqian (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better explaination required?


I think a small drawing of how the print head works woulnd't do any harm. In fact it would be nice.
i dont think it not sufficet

Yeah I agree. There's a lot of excellent work done here; on inkjet printers in general, the specifics of Thermal and Piezoelectric Inkjets, on the inks themselves and on the design and trade offs of the printing heads. I didn't know it was so complicated but so far it's been written extremely well (just enough detail, clear, doesn't make too many assumptions about previous knowledge). However an image would be extremely useful to put it all into context. Of particular interest to most people would be a diagram of the standard disposable inkjet head. Well done to the all the constructive contributors so far! (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article organization


Being an engineer in the ink jet industry, I'd like to organize this article a bit better, and add information about industrial uses of ink jet. (Much of the information is in the article already, but its organization leaves a bit to be desired.) I'd like to end up with several articles about ink jet in general, ink jet for personal use, ink jet for commercial use, and ink jet for industrial use.

I'm going to start with the Technology section, and create a small page for industrial ink jet applications, specifically material deposition.

Jaeger10 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Ink Jet


The Swedish scientist Prof. Carl Hellmuth Hertz of the University of Lund in Sweden is also named as the inventor of the continous inkjet technology. Is there any sources for the claim from Stanford? Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE1D7173AF93BA25756C0A9669C8B63

References to my edits: Tech Quarterly: Spitting image, The Economist. London: Sep 21, 2002.Vol.364, Iss. 8291; pg. 24 and http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/19/1/4 and "Digital Spin, Green with Envy", John C. Dvorak, Forbes; January 22, 2001

Rune Elmqvist (Sweden, company Elema-Schönander) developed an inkjet printer for EKG printouts in 1948[1] which was patented in 1951 and marketed as the Mingograph. Hertz developed an inkjet printer for sonogram printouts in 1962.[2] Richard Sweet (Stanford) also demonstrated a technique to break up an ink stream into uniform droplets in the early 1960s, based on theoretical work by Lord Rayleigh from 1878.[3][4][5] This article is sorely missing a history section.-- (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dye sublimation


I'm a little confused, because in the section on the types of ink, sublimation dyes are mentioned as a type of inkjet. But then in the discussion on advantages, it mentions dye-sublimation printers as a different thing entirely. Or is this a different type of sublimation than the one mentioned in the inks section? I had added the dye sublimation link, but now I'm second guessing it. --W0lfie 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inkjet and sublimation are different printers! HP positions some of its printers as sublimation ones - but those are inkjets! Sublimation inks are hard inks, not water based. (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Piezo vs. fixed


Why is "piezo" used parenthetically as if it were a synonym of "fixed"? It seems a little misleading/confusing. If I'm missing something, please let me know. Also, 8 companies are listed as using them. Is that really "very few" as stated earlier in the same sentence? --W0lfie 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the companies that use piezo (principally Epson) are also the companies that use a fixed (semipermanantly mounted) print head rather than an in-ink-cartridge print head. But if it's not clear to you, this is Wikipedia so please feel free to be bold and make it better!
Atlant 18:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Atlant, for your ever-present encouragement. It sounds like this might be a jargon issue. If I find a good solution, I'll put it in. --W0lfie 17:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Piezo heads are usually "fixed", because piezo heads are too expensive to treat as disposable with an ink cartridge. Conversely, fixed heads are usually piezo, because piezo heads have better long-term reliability and faster firing rates. -- DavidHopwood 18:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the link to http://www.cheap-ink-now.com got removed, its a site full with resources and articles about ink jet printing. please explain —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

It seems to be a pruely commercial site which adds no new value to the article. --Pmkpmk 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous Stream Ink Jet History


The first letter quality continuous stream ink jet printer, the IBM 46/40 Document Printer was developed by IBM and announced in 1977. A good reference on the technology behind this printer can be found in the IBM Journal of research and development Vol 21, No. 1, 1977. This journal references a patent 3576275 (1971) by R. G. Sweet entitled "Fluid Droplet Recorder". Jetpilot77 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit along these lines, please be careful. Teletype Corporation sold a continuous stream inkjet printer (their "Inktronic" line) before IBM [6], but I don't know if anyone would claim the Teletype model was "letter quality".
Atlant 17:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is well taken. I should have checked my facts. I checked the IBM site and they describe the IBM 46/40 Document Printer as being "correspondence quality" and that it was announced in 1976. Most letters in this time frame were typed on a typewriter. "Correspondence quality" was supposed to be equivalent to a typewriter with a fabric ribbon as opposed to a film ribbon. The printer was mono only, 240 dots per inch. It printed at 7.7 in/sec which gives 77 characters per second at 10 pitch or 92 characters per second at 12 pitch. Jetpilot77 14:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity of this article is extremely questionable


The objectivity of this article is extremely questionable. Sections of this article are bordering on advertising for third party ink manufacturers. The article contains three images showing third party ink solutions which hold no relevance to the subject of "inkjet" technology or to the text they are situated next to.

Recommend sections of this article be re-written and/or deleted. Certainly the third party ink images need to be deleted. Any discussion of third party ink should be directed to a page for 3rd party ink solutions. --Zaphod6502 (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)NOt[reply]

Not just that. There seems to be a lot of name dropping in general. I scratched out the constant Epson name dropping, (and do the major manufacturers need to be listed in the introduction, twice?) but someone needs to take a closer look at the article and see just how deeply embedded it is. klosterdev (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a citation as well for "ease of use" being a reason for claimed and uncited ink jet popularity. Personally I find my laserjet much easier to use than the inkjet that I have as well. It is also faster and quieter, and probably cheaper too coz inkjets guzzle up a lot of ink, so I'm having a bit of a hard time accepting inkjets are really that popular... -- (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh...I come back and the name dropping is back. Epson Epson Canon Epson HP Canon Epson klosterdev (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph ends with this: "In the worldwide consumer market, four manufacturers account for the majority of inkjet printer sales: Canon, HP, Epson, and Brother." No indication who determined that or when. Plain Text (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of ink, memjet technology, popularity, advantages, disadvantages


I see some problems with this article.

First off, no mention of MemJet technology (from Silverbrook), which they claim is supposed to be on the market in 2009.

Inkjets are OBVIOUSLY by far the most common printer for household users due to their cheap cost (average low-end cost is between $100 and $150 for a color inkjet all-in-one, or $60-$100 for a plain color printer; average cost for a basic black and white laser is $150-$200, basic color laser $300-$400, color all-in-one $500+). As a retail worker, we sell maybe three or four laser machines per week and anywhere from 25-60 inkjets per week, at just our store.

Inkjets also have higher resolution for printing (average inkjet resolution 4800x1200, average laser resolution 600x600 or 1/16th average inkjet; high-end consumer resolution i.e. canon pixma mp830, mx850 9600x2400 average color laser quality under $800 1200x600). Go to the store (take an SD card with you that has a really good photo with lots of different colors, good contrast - lights and darks, and some areas with gentle shading). Pretend you are interested in buying a high quality photo printer and have them put their highest grade photo paper into their highest quality machines in both categories - laser (probably will be an HP AIO) and an inkjet (probably will be an MP8xx series or MX8xx series, make sure it has 9600x2400dpi). Have your photo printed on both machines (8.5x11 paper, of course) at the highest quality and compare them side by side.

I see lots of name-dropping, but only one instance of Brother. Why? They're a large seller.

Also, nothing on Dell printers being made by Lexmark.

Or, nothing about lexmark printers being rated consistently last among their competitors (in overall brand ratings, not specific models) and canons usually being rated first (followed by HP). See PC World Magazine's 2008 ratings, they actually have readers rate instead of editors.

The section on disposable heads, nothing about most all-in-one photo printers having a four, five, or six cartridge system with disposable head, or about all epsons using this system, or no lexmarks (that I know of) using this system, or all kodak's using this system. No mention either of the common ink colors (black, cyan, magenta, yellow, with either a second dye-based black or a light cyan/light magenta combo being common options).

Now to the disadvantages. As far as ink being very expensive, total BS. The numbers about "cost per liter" and "cost per gallon" are useless, because you can get 40 pages per ml of ink (sure, you could buy a gallon of ink with a continuous feed ink system and print 100,000 pages, and it might not cost that much, but who would seriously do that?). I see no mention on here about price depending on the specific cartridge (for example, some HP color ink cartridges can be $20 for 3.5ml of ink, while the HP 88XL Black is usually about $35-$38 for 60ml of ink). In fact, HP's OfficeJet Pro series can has about a 1.5 cent per page cost black (estimated 2,450 pages at $38 retail price). Let's compare to the Brother TN-115 series toner (the high capacity color laser toner for sub-$1000 brother color lasers). The black cartridge prints off 5,000 pages for $93 MSRP - a cost per page of 1.86 cents. Neither of those includes the drum or print head having to be replaced.

As far as lifetime, that largely depends on the paper. Go to the store and look at the back of HP photo paper; you'll see different grades of photo paper, each of which have a different life compared to lab photos (usually listed as longer).

The overall expense section needs redone or removed. It uses biased speech (is costly, expensive replacement, much lower capacity). These are all opinions, not facts, and are generalized.

Also nothing in here about cartridge capacities and yields (only canon currently lists ink amounts in ml on all cartridges, hp is switching to listing page yield and no ml on cartridges, epson brother and lexmark do not have any yield or capacity info on the cartridges, and kodak just lists number of photos - making it impossible to make cost comparisons between manufacturers. Page yield is subjective, only accurate way of comparing cartridge cost is via ml of ink. out of the four that don't list on the cartridges, I know for a fact Kodak doesn't list their cartridge capacity in ml anywhere).

Also, inkjet machines have more features. Average inkjet machine around $200 will have a color screen, multi-cartridge system, card readers, pictbridge support, possibly duplexing and fax, scanning, basic photo editing, and more. Your average $500 AIO color laser will have (for hp, example) a monochrome LCD display, copy/print/scan, and a card reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]



This article contained allot of first hand citations of existing products / processes[7]. Citing first hand is original research (WP:OR) and listing products with links to their commercial pages is turning an article into a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY) and maybe even spamming (WP:SPAM). Statements should be sourced to secondary and tertiary sources WP:PSTS. (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and likely outdated


Currently we have:

In Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., Case No. 03-5400 (6th Cir. Oct. 26, 2004) (Sutton, J.) the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that circumvention of this technique[clarification needed] does not violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The European Commission[citation needed] also ruled this practice anticompetitive: it will disappear in newer models sold in the European Union. [23] While the DMCA case dealt with copyright protection, companies also rely on patent protection to prevent copying and refilling of cartridges.

This is confusing and likely outdated. Firstly it's not quite clear what technique this is referring to since the previous sentence isn't referring to any particularly technique. In fact the only really relevant bit is "Printer companies such as HP, Lexmark, and Epson have used patents and the DMCA to launch lawsuits against 3rd-party vendors" I'm pretty sure it's referring to the use of microchips but this isn't clear. Then article then goes on to say the practice is anticompetitive in the EU. I found a ref which mentions the EU parliament made a law forbidding microchipped catridges and also one mentioning the EU commission is investigation but these are from 2002 and I haven't found any more recent info. I'm pretty sure however that any European Commission finding would have been a while ago so it seems likely "this practice" (whatever that is, is it referring to microchipped catridges? or the general practice of trying to stop third party catridges?) has already stopped in the EU. (I also found some refs where the EU actively recommends people recycle catridges and the EU Parliament or perhaps it was the European Commission are now using recycled catridges themselves). The paragraph then goes on to talk about the use of patents, it's not clear if this is okay in the EU. Also I believe that Epson has had some success with the patent method but this isn't exactly clear from the article. Nil Einne (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look further, I can't find any evidence anything significant was ever done. I was somewhat surprised by the above since I'm pretty sure chipped catridges still exist in the EU since I've seen people discussing them and resetters etc. From what I've read, I'm guessing people either misunderstood the law, or it's changed. It appears it's normal in the EU for catridges to come with a prepaid bag or otherwise be easily returned to the manufacturer to be remanufactured or recycled. I presume this was enough to satisfy the legal requirements even with the chipped catridges. Nil Einne (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally the article doesn't discuss region coding for catridges either Nil Einne (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19th century?


It says in the lead "The concept of inkjet printing dates back to the 19th century and the technology was first developed in the early 1950s" however this doesn't seem to be explained anywhere. What was the 19th century concept? Richerman (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment under #Continuous Ink Jet. I'm not an expert, this is just the result of a quick web search.-- (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Archival quality" Ink Isn't


I'm not going to add to the article because I can't find anything to cite, but from my own experience: I had a Canon printer with "archival quality" ink and paper, and the color of every single photo I printed turned to complete garbage in less than a year. I'm honestly surprised Google doesn't return any search hits of judgments against Canon (and possibly others) for false marketing claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its basically UV-resistant ink, nothing more. Many third-party inks contain anti UV agents as well. (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Interesting: dictionary.com doesn't define "inkjet" (neither does my Canadian English Firefox spelling dictionary) but it does define "ink jet". I suppose I could go into the next room to find my Longman and get a more sober reference, but it'd also be a 25-year-old one. AngusCA (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem with the closed form here. Merriam-Webster's online (10th or 11th Collegiate) has it hyphenated. This needs to be checked and authenticated with up-to-date, reputable sources, documented as such, and the page brought in line if necessary. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermarket ink


I removed this paragraph:

The type of ink used in the printer can also affect how quickly the printhead nozzles become clogged. Whereas the OEM ink is engineered to match the printer mechanism, generic inks cannot exactly match the composition of the OEM since the ink composition is a trade secret. Generic ink brands may alternately be too volatile to keep the printhead moist during storage, or may be too thick and jellied, leading to frequent printhead channel clogging.

It reads as if written by the OEM manufacturer, with no source given. Upon more careful reading, it turns out that the statements are likely to be true, but utterly useless. Generic ink "cannot exactly match the composition": indeed, but the paragraph doesn't explicitly state that that is a problem in real life. And then "may alternately be too volatile": again no statement that this is in fact a problem. Han-Kwang (t) 18:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with your points. Also, many of alternative-ink producers do not sell generic ink, but very specific for specific printers, so this problem is adressed. (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Whole Category of Inkjet printers


High speed ink jet printers - used by corporations for printing bills and monthly statements.

These puppies are the fastest printers available. The rate that paper moves through them is measured in miles per hour. --02:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Here's a link to a company that provides a printer capable of printing at 200 meters/minute {~= 7 1/2 mph). [8] You can probably find faster models.-- (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Printing costs


The article states that original ink is very expensive and that the cost per page is significantly higher than for a laser printer. This was true a few years ago, however isn't true any more. For the price comparison I use the best price in Germany derived by geizhals.de. I checked only toner/ink costs, no maintenance kits etc. - which is in favor of laser printers. Price is always based on single cartridge.
A few weeks ago, I bought an HP Officejet Pro 8100 (80,50€), the corresponding All-in-One is the 8600 Plus (188 €), the black/white cardridge costs 21.40 € for 2,300 pages, so 0,93 ct./page. The color cartridge costs 16.36 € for 1,500 pages, so 1.09 ct./page. If I go through the printing costs of Laser printers, it is extremely hard to find one which is cheaper. I found 1 (one) with cheaper color prints, the Xerox Colorqube 8870DN (1,949 €, color 0.38 ct./page, bw 1.06 ct./page), however black and white is already more expensice. The Kyocera FS-C5400DN (1,268 €, color 1.10 ct./page, bw 0.77 ct./page) has similar color costs, however less black and white costs. These are both printers, no All-in-one devices. The cheapest printing costs of these has the Lexmark X792 series (from 4,132 €, color 1.60 ct./page, bw. 0.97 ct./page). Or if you are more interested in black/white the HP Color Laserjet Enterprise CM4540 series (from 3,665 €, color 1.44 ct./page, bw 0.93 ct./page). I do not want to forget to mention that there are inkjet printers with lower printing costs as mine, e.g. the epson B-510DN (490€, color 0.69 ct./page, bw 0.71 ct./page).
There are a few black/white laser printers (especially Kyocera FS-4200/4300DN) with printing costs in the range of 0.5 ct/page and less. However, these are only useful for large amounts of b/w prints (also due to their high printing speed).
So laser printers do not have lower printing costs any more. There are a lot of inkjet printers with lower investment and lower printing costs, so the article has to be revised. Does anyone disagree? --JogyB (talk) 15:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but it is WP:OR Can you find a reliable secondary source that corroborates your claim? Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 15:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is in German and uses list price instead of market price, however should be sufficient. I used a quite high number of pages in order to eliminate the influence of the starter kits (as I want the pure operating costs) and to include the costs of the service kits needed for some laser printers.
Anyway, even if it is OR, the "Operating cost tradeoffs" has no reference at all and the sentence "(Original) ink is often very expensive" uses a 10 year old reference. So if my remarks cannot be included due to being OR, we should at least delete everything stating that inkjet printers have higher printing costs. These are obviously wrong. --JogyB (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Inkjet printing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Inkjet printing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]



Taken from the LED Printers article (which is about electrophotography, not inkjet) for adaptation here:

UV-LED printer technologies refer to a non-impact, inkjet printing technique that instantly cures jetted ink droplets directly onto the printable substrate. The UV-LED lamp that houses the LEDs emit energy onto the specially formulated UV-LED ink, which contains photoinitiators and are reactive to the energy emitted by the UV-LED lamp.[1][2]

UV LED Printers are typically used to print directly onto a hard substrate. Its ability to immediately dry the ink is an advantage in printing on a variety of materials including glass, plastic, plexiglass, etc. UV LED printers are often used in the promotional products industry to print on pens, usb drives and mugs. Current models of commercial LED UV Printers like the Compress iUV600s and iUV1200s are also capable of adding texture to a print.[3][4]

TimothyPilgrim (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Noticed edits by User:James K McMahon re Howtek


This isn't my area of expertise, but a quick search on Google Books reveals several sources citing earlier developments by Steven Zoltan in 1972, including this one and this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, here is the patent https://uspto.report/patent/grant/3683212, I'm not too versed on printing technology but the patent does talk about some form of ink bubbles dropping on command. Mirad1000 (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Zoltan's Patent US3683212A Pulsed Droplet Ejecting System issued on 8/8/1972 and this is an "ON Demand" Drop delivery technology. Any reference to earlier inkjet's refer to Continuous Fluid Flow Systems. Historian and Godfather of Single nozzle inkjets (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion


The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ichiro Endo and Jon Vaught


While working at Canon in Japan, Ichiro Endo suggested the idea for a "Bubble jet" printer, while around the same time Jon Vaught at HP was developing a similar idea The article almost opens with this "fact" but it would be nice if another source was provided, we don't have a year, it feels like it's claiming both of them came with the idea at the same time (but Ichiro Endo taking precedence?) and both are related to two big companies. IMO The source doesn't specify much and it feels like it's based mostly on what they claimed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirad1000 (talkcontribs) 01:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also to expand, after reading this article (that might be wrong) Bubble jet printing wich is what Endo and Vaught came up with is just a tipe of inkjet printing that uses bit of heat to drop the ink, I think that while bubble jet printing is the most famous form of inkjet printing the distinction should be made more apparent.
IBM, if we go by earlier patent applications, was to me the most probably pioneer of this kind of technology. The name of the inventor is James H Eaton.
LINK: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3878519A/en?q=bubble+print&oq=bubble+print&sort=old Mirad1000 (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two types of inkjet. One is Continuous fluid flow through a nozzle. In this case the fluid stream must be broken into drops by an exterior force. The Continuous flow is from a constant pressure on the fluid at the rear of the nozzle. This cannot be caused by a Bubble because bubbles will expand and contract, causing nozzle fluid expansion with expelled drop and then bubble retraction of the fluid volume to cut off the expelled drop ligament. Continuous Inkjet is never called Bubble Jet.
The second type of ink jet is called "On demand". It was not invented until 8/8/1972 by Steven Zoltan. On Demand Inkjet uses piezoelectric device to cause a drop to be expelled. Each Piezo action gives one drop. Steven Zoltan was the first to invent On Demand Inkjet. Historian and Godfather of Single nozzle inkjets (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UK legislation claim


The article currently has the following (italics at the end extracted from an HTML comment)

In the UK, a printer manufacturer cannot lawfully impose such conditions as part of its warranty (Regina Vs Ford Motor Company refers) although many attempt to do so illegally. As long as the product used was sold as being for the printer it was used in, then the sale of goods act applies, and anything so sold must be "of merchandisable quality and fit for purpose". Moreover, under UK law, it is the retailer and not the manufacturer that is legally liable, for two years on electrically operated items specifically, and as such the retailer is where one would seek redress.[1]<!--Covers both claims for UK-->


  1. ^ Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Act 1999 (as amended by Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2005)

I'm going to remove this entire section, as there are a lot of problems here, I think salvaging this usefully will require more research time than I can provide right now, and I think as-written the text is sufficiently problematic to be harmful. I've documented the issues below:

  • The citations all look authoritative, but are useless:
    • I think "Regina Vs Ford Motor Company" is referring to R v Ford Motor Co Ltd, [1974] 1 WLR 1220[1] but there's no evidence that a court case from 1974 would have relevance to current warranty terms, given the many changes in consumer law since then.
    • The Sale of Goods Act is largely irrelevant: for most purposes it was repealed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.[2] It might be relevant in the context of the history of these printers, but I'm dubious it'd actually be worth mentioning explicitly even if this article had an explicit history section; it's definitely not useful in text purporting to provide current information.
    • Neither the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Act 1999 nor the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2005 appear to exist.[3][4] In either case, I'm pretty sure the legislation this is intending to refer to would also have been superseded by the Consumer Rights Act.
  • Claims about what is and isn't lawful or legal really need secondary sources, or at the least very clear primary sources, to avoid improper synthesis, particularly given that the practical effects of legislation in common law jurisdictions like the UK are often not obvious.
  • "Many attempt to do so illegally" breaks WP:WEASEL and needs a citation.
  • The statement "the retailer is where one would seek redress" is unclear; presumably this is referring to redress for a failed printer after using non-OEM ink, but I don't think this follows from any of the earlier text without a lot more justification (that would also need to have sources to avoid original research): why would the manufacturer not be liable for the terms of a warranty they had made? A consumer could seek redress from the retailer, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily would, or even that doing so would be the best course of action.


  1. ^ Swarbrick, David (6 May 2022). "Regina v Ford Motor Company Limited: QBD 1974". swarb.co.uk. Retrieved 7 December 2022. Note the citation in this source is to 1 WLR 1221, not 1220 per the linked ICLR case report; I assume this is a transcription error.
  2. ^ "Sale of Goods Act". Which?. The Consumers' Association. 4 August 2022.
  3. ^ "Search results for "Sale" in 1999". Legislation.gov.uk. The National Archives.
  4. ^ "Search results for "Sale" in 2005". Legislation.gov.uk. The National Archives.

me_and 16:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC) (updated to improve citations, 10:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC))[reply]