Tony,
I have received the message below with each of two messages I sent that were
bounced back to me and the two plus one asking about the bounced messages
which were also bounced back to me.
The original message was received at Mon, 14 May 2001 18:40:03 -0500 (CDT)
from ppp146.champaign.advancenet.net [206.221.224.146]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On>... Host unknown (Name server:
halftone.co.uk]on: host not found)
I do not know why this is happening; do you?
For some reason the following two attached items were bounced back to me
with the enclosed message. Tony are you having problems on your end and
could it be due to the bulk mail notice of an art show directed to the list
with directions for removing which will only result in removing list members
from your mailing list rather than the bulk mailers list.
The messages are as follows:
The original message was received at Mon, 14 May 2001 11:29:17 -0500 (CDT)
from ts1-116.advancenet.net [209.44.30.116]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>... Host unknown (Name server:
punt1.compulink.co.uk.: host not found)
AND
The original message was received at Mon, 14 May 2001 11:21:57 -0500 (CDT)
from ts1-116.advancenet.net [209.44.30.116]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
550 <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>... Host unknown (Name server:
punt1.compulink.co.uk.: host not found)
>So, it is probably
>wise to use a cleaning cart between switching from dye to pigmented
>inks. With the cart based systems, the ink chamber in the head is
>relatively small, so a flush would be very long a process, but with the
>large format printers, all the lines would need to be flushed, which
>could be quite a job.
Art,
You didn't mean to say that if the ink chamber is small a flush would be a
very long process did you? I just want to make sure I am interpreting what
you said correctly and adding for any missing portions of words like the
"n't" in "wouldn't." I was going to ask if the particles and viscosity of
pigmented inks would make a difference in jet sixes; but you answered it by
saying that they accounted for this via changing the pressure.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 4:10 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: A Good Epson Customer Service Story
I think there is a lot of confusion about the way Epson printers work,
in terms of the nozzles and print heads.
I don't think the smaller dots are completely as a result of smaller
nozzles. For instance, the Stylus 900 has the ability to produce the
smallest droplet of any of their printers, at 3 picolitres.
The 900 however, actually produces 6 different droplet sizes, 3, 10, 11,
19, 23 and 29 picolitres. To do this, I'm sure the nozzles were reduced
somewhat in size, but also the dot size relates to the frequency the
quartz crystal vibrates at, and the number of cycles the printer remains
at one exact location on the paper.
As far as I can determine, the nozzle size shouldn't be a big problem
with the newer pigmented inks. In fact, upon questioning Epson about
the differences between the 7000 (dye) and 7500 (pigmented) printers, I
was told the heads were identical, but that the pressure valves were
adjusted due to some differences in viscosity of the inks. Also, at
least in the 7000, the inks are charged opposite. So, it is probably
wise to use a cleaning cart between switching from dye to pigmented
inks. With the cart based systems, the ink chamber in the head is
relatively small, so a flush would be very long a process, but with the
large format printers, all the lines would need to be flushed, which
could be quite a job. I also expect with the smaller printers with the
cart above the heads, the viscosity differences in the ink would be less
of an issue than when there are lots of tubes and the ink has to travel
for feet.
Art
tflash wrote:
> But don't most of the Epson printers that use their archival inks have
> larger droplet print heads than the dye based versions. I don't know if
I'm
> correct about this or not, but if so I'd fear lots of print head clogs.
>
> Todd
>
>
>> Jerry & Steve
>> Thanks for setting me straight - may give this a try. Have either of you
tried
>> this?
>> ô¿ô
>> Mike
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mystic" <Mystic@hawaii.rr.com>
>> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 19:19
>> Subject: Re: filmscanners: A Good Epson Customer Service Story
>>
>>
>> If I remember correctly, the 2000P Color Cart is 3 color vs. 5 for the
1270
>>
>> MIke
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@ampsc.com>
>> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 21:40
>> Subject: Re: filmscanners: A Good Epson Customer Service Story
>>
>>
>> Some of you 1270 owners might be interested in something I picked up at
>> a web site which deals with ink refilling.
>>
>> Apparently, the 1270 and 2000P color cartridge (Don't know about the
>> black) is the same shell. However, when if you normally try to put a
>> 2000P cart into a 1270 it shows up as being empty (via info from the
>> chip). One person claimed that by using the trick to re-write the chip
>> using a brand new Epson cartridge, he was able to trick his 1270 to
>> think it had a 1270 color cart in it, when actually it had the 2000P
>> cart in it. He claims to be happily printing away with the 2000P cart
>> in his 1270.
Rob,
I think you are right and wonder why someone with any sense would send such
a promo to the list unless they were a spammer given the fact that the
sender has apparently used a bulk mail facility.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 1:48 AM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: RE: filmscanners: remove
Robert Wright wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ken Hornbrook
> To: mailto:Undisclosed-Recipient:@harrier.mail.pas.earthlink.net
> If you wish to be removed from my mailing list,
> please reply with the word "Remove" in the subject line.
I think this would have to be done by Tony Sleep, since it has been sent
to the list and replicated from there.
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
