Burt said:
C'mon, Mike, sounds like you've been drinking measekite's koolade!
Aftermarket toner is essentially the same technology as OEM toner.
I'd think that aftermarket isn't essentially the same technology as the
OEM but that it's exactly the same technology. There may be minuscule
differences in ratios and minute differences in particle sizes and
shapes,but not enough to cause problems. The toner has to meet these
characteristics (the ones that I can think of).
- Electrostatic qualities
- Particle size
- Melting, cooling, and adhesive qualities
I've thought about this a bit since someone I knew who worked in a
photocopy shop with the old huge Kodak machines during the 1980s
expressed worry that he was breathing dangerous particles at work. And I
used three Xerography-based printers at home and thought occasionally
about the same issue (all laser-type machines are essentially just Xerox
machines).
I actually think that there's virtually nothing to be worried about,
although it would be good to see a definitive study nonetheless. I think
that it's smart to avoid filling one's own cartridges because it's not
good to breathe clouds of the stuff. I don't trust myself to handle this
material safely.
But what I've noticed is a surprisingly low amount of loose toner inside
these machines, and I've never seen anything remotely like "smoke" or
clouds around machines used in high-volume service. And I've used those
huge fast Kodak copiers on-the-job myself, too. The only things I've
ever smelled have been hot paper fibers and, with the older technology,
ozone.
And with refinement, ozone production has become a non-issue.
My hunch is that the electrostatic system is what keeps this process
safe. It's something like lithography, only done with electrostatic
charges. The toner is attracted to where it's supposed to be on the
drum, and it's held there until it's rolled onto the paper. And it's
then nicely melted into the paper fibers, where it remains.
My HP2 with its HP3 board resides in a plastic bag in the back yard
(with a defect). As anyone who has used these classic printers knows,
the HP2/3s are very robust, easily-cleaned printers that are very cheap
to feed. The print is not cool anymore at 300 dpi. But the killer, for
me, is the machine's strong, stinky ozone production coupled with the
inability to obtain reliable ozone filters for it. I'll be sad when I
scrap the thing.
If I'm wrong about my beliefs, I'd like to be educated.
Richard
