Conventional wisdom often guides our understanding of technology, but sometimes, revisiting established ideas can reveal new perspectives. A recent discussion has brought to light an intriguing point about Epson printers, specifically challenging how we perceive ink agitation and maintenance. The question arises: is the back-and-forth motion of the print head in Epson printers truly sufficient to prevent ink sedimentation, particularly in models with ink lines and dampers? This is crucial for users seeking the Best Epson Printer performance and longevity.
An insightful comment regarding the Epson 3880 printer highlights this very issue. It notes, “What’s interesting about the 3880 is the back/forth push/pull of the ink during the movement of the head. This works quite well at maintaining agitation in the printer… It seems to agitate much more during the printer process than even the cart-over-head small formats ironically.” This observation suggests that the ink head movement in the 3880, an ink-lines and dampers system, might be more effective at ink agitation than previously assumed, even surpassing some cartridge-on-head designs.
However, this observation seems to contradict earlier best practices. Past recommendations from experts in the field emphasized proactive measures to prevent ink sedimentation, especially when printers are not in regular use. As Jon from a thread in 2015 stated, “BUT – if we let a printer sit for 3 unexpected weeks whether Epson OEM, or ConeColor Pro, or Piezography inks – we do not hesitate to run an INITIAL INK CHARGE or three Power Cleans (on X880 printers). Why? Because of our high standards. That is the best practice.” Furthermore, the advice continued, “With this in mind – you would want to shake your carts every two weeks. You would want to print with a large format printer regularly so that ink does not remain in the ink lines for more than two weeks.”
These earlier statements strongly suggest that print head movement alone might not be enough to fully prevent pigment sedimentation, especially in printers with ink lines and dampers. If head movement was sufficient, the recommendation for regular printing and cartridge shaking might be less critical. The experience of sedimentation in a dormant Photo Black (PK) ink line further supports this point.
This raises a significant question: are we overlooking something crucial in our understanding of ink agitation in Epson printers? Is there a change in perspective needed? While the back-and-forth head movement undoubtedly contributes to ink circulation, is it truly sufficient to maintain optimal ink suspension over extended periods, especially when printers are idle? Understanding the nuances of ink agitation is vital for maintaining the best Epson printer performance and avoiding issues related to sedimentation, which can impact print quality and printer longevity. Further investigation and clarification on this apparent contradiction are warranted to ensure users are equipped with the most accurate and effective maintenance practices for their Epson printers.
