Slashdot Mirror
New Inkjet Technology 5 To 10 Times Faster
sarahbau writes "Silverbrook's new Memjet technology can print 60 full-color pages per minute. Instead of having a print head that moves side to side like current inkjets, the print head spans the full width of the page, containing 70,400 nozzles in the A4 version. They also have a large-format printer (51") that prints 6" to 1 foot per second. Products are expected to start shipping in late 2007: first a photo/label printer, then a home/office printer for less than $300 in 2008." The video is amazing. If it's for real, the technology would be disruptive at half the speed and twice the price.
The videos are nice looking, but we never see blank paper sucked out of a paper tray. For all we know, those are mock-ups spitting out pre-printed pages.
If, on the other hand, they are real, then it's impressive how unreal the technology looks!
Too many nozzles ! Many nozzles = many chances something goes wrong.
One dead (or dirty) nozzle, and your document has a "vertical white line" all the way long. Awfull.
Many dead (or dirty) nozzles, and you must change the whole (and costy ?) printer head.
(When the head gets dirty, the "clean head" function will eat so much ink that nobody wants to use it !).
-- Rastignac was here.
I just wonder how prone this will be to clogs, and how expensive it will be to replace when (not if) it inevitably occurs. I'm sure that's not how "disruptive" was meant this context, but that's all I can imagine.
So no more banding?
I own and run VIPMinistry.com, a church print co-operative. We used color laser printers for the first few months and they were slow and painful to watch. Then we discovered Xerox's Phaser LED printers -- basically a laser, but with a "full width" of LEDs spanning the width of the page. Now they crank out double-sided sheets about 6 times faster than single-sided sheets (full color). With just 4 of these printers, we have replaced 12 lasers, and likely could replace 24 of them. They're mega-fast.
Inkjet printers are still my favorite if not for the high cost of ink and the inability to work with a wide variety of paper. LEDs/Lasers are very maintenance heavy (drums, toner, a billion rollers, LED/Lasers over time, waste cartridges, etc, etc). I love the idea of a full-width printhead, though.
The biggest problem with inkjets is ink technology. I'd love to find a solvent-based printer or something closer to an Indigo. Instead of working on faster printers (which help business more than the home), I think they should be working on newer printhead+ink technology.
Am I the only one who thinks this reads like advert in an attempt to get more capital?
Every other sentence was "Analysts think...". Which can be loosely translated into English as "At a wild guess, we reckon...."
They don't give a concrete release date for the product or any price more detailed than "less than $300". There's no point in producing this piece right now for the benefit of potential customers because all a potential customer can do is gawp at the video. They can't buy the product, they can't even see it for themselves at a local computer store. Similarly, seeing as there's obviously an intent to commercialise the product, there's no sense in this piece existing purely for the benefit of researchers (and besides, it hardly looks like a research paper).
I think someone's venture capital is running out.
It's been about 8 months since I gave up on inkjet as a technology. We'd been through about 6 printers over the past 6 years, some lasting longer than others, and would usually get one that was cheap-ish, but inevitably they would clog. Why? Because we didn't print every day. The last one was actually 2 printers as Canon replaced it for free. But if you went more than 2 weeks without printing anything, you were headed to clogsville.
Given that it would eat up a rather large portion of an ink cartridge to attempt to clean a clogged head, and inevitably we would pick up another set of ink cartridges in an attempt to fix it, that was $60 down the drain WAY too frequently.
We've since picked up a color laser printer, which plugs into our network with no fuss, and has printed about 5 times the number of pages at a fraction of the toner/ink use. Toner costs more, but if it lasts for years and years with no clogs and no loss in quality, we'll happily accept that charge. They're not as nice for photos, but that's what Shutterfly is for.
... then compartmentalize the print heads into, say, half-inch spans. When the streaks start coming, replace the appropriate head. I'm sure they have thought this through...
Yes, it's called reality. This company can't create ink significantly cheaper than Epson, so once they get their foot in the door it's inevitable that they will try to maximize shareholder value and will jack up ink prices to the same general cost as other market participant.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Exactly why I bought a laserjet 2605dn. Bonus: I get postscript, built-in networking, duplexing, and a printer that works perfectly with cups after downloading the custom ppd.
If you want to print some pictures, just upload them to wal-mart or something. I don't know about everyone else, but pictures are not something I print a lot of, and many things I do print would quickly exhaust ink cartridges. And as the parent stated: clogged cartridges suck. Who as a home user uses their printer frequently enough to keep that from happening? This is not a problem with laserjet toner.
So, they're patent whores for one. According to Silverbrook's website, they were founded in 1994. If you can't bring a product to market after filing over 1400 patents over 13 years, something's not adding up right. How does the business survive for 13 years without a product at market?
So, HP, a huge corporation that's been in business for 68 years, resources and research labs that make you drool, can't figure out how to make an inkjet printer that prints a photo every two seconds, then a tiny little David-of-a-company, who's never ever made a single product before in their company history, is able to smack the giant down at their own game.
Magically, two "anonymous" commenters write in reply:
Interesting thought. But if they can do what they have done do you not think they have already thought of that solution. To spend what they must have spent to develop this, they would not release it only to be blocked by such a simple question as will the ink dry up. Come on world let's embrace the new thinkers and get a positive attitude,
and, "Thats a good point. If i had to guess, I'd say they'll probably do what the newer HPs do, which is run ink from the cartridges quickly through the print head, then suck it back into the cartridge. On the other hand, clearly this company has a few tricks up their sleeves that HP can't touch, and I wouldn't be surprised if they had some new impressive technology that eliminates that problem, though that seems improbable."
Amazingly positive for a pair of anonymous cowards. My apologies to both for not "embracing the new thinkers."
Here's one reason to believe it's wrong: it's already happened before. Repeatedly. So it's not even some guess, it's just having a working memory.
Let's even assume that this company is genuinely honest and believes in that model. Tough luck, HP isn't. HP is at this time little more than an overpriced ink and paper company, and the printers are sold under price to get you hooked on buying their ink. So what happens is:
1. Company X hits the market with a great new printer that costs $200 and ink costing $0.4 per ml. (Which is what $20 per 50ml cartridge means.)
2. HP makes a clone that costs $100 and gouges you for a hefty $4 per ml for ink.
Watch lemmings flock to get HP's version because it's cheaper.
Better yet, HP is teh big brand name and has seemingly endless advertising money, while Company X is the new kid on the block and noone's heard of them. Let's buy a HP for mom's photos, they're probably better, right? Or for that matter, let's buy a whole bunch of HPs for the office, because they're such a big company, while Company X could go bankrupt by tomorrow. And nothing scares the pants off management more than dealing with a small company that could be gone overnight.
And if Company X is not gone overnight, eventually it gets tired of having its sales undercut by HP crap, so it pulls the same stunt. Or it gets bought by HP. Or it goes big enough to go public, and Wall Street starts screaming for blood because the shares aren't growing as fast as they'd like. Or whatever. Cue new Deluxe model which costs $100 for the printer and $4 for the ink. And the old one is silently phased out, to make room for the new models.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
That is what I tried to imply. But with my communications skills being so great, I tried to speak with a tongue in cheek and ended up mangling the tongue. Well, par for the course for me.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
That's still extremely expensive for such a small amount of in. You're looking at 40 cents per millilitre. Gas is only $1.00 per liter, and that's way more complex a substance than ink. They act like they are doing you a favour, but in reality are still ripping you off.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Trees are farmed, as opposed to cutting natural forests (although that still occurs, it's usually part of the process of expanding tree farming) That means trees are replanted. Moreover, they are usually replanted faster than they are cut down because they take years to grow, and they need to be prepared for future demand.
The net result is that North America is actually getting greener. 0.12% annually through the 90s and 0.05% annually since 2000.
=Smidge=
Here's the problem with that statement; if you can find an inkjet without a banding problem, it often has output as good as or even superior to a high-end laser printer. The best computer photo prints I've seen have all come from inkjet printers, not laser printers.
In fact, just behind me and a bit to the left is a Laserjet 5550. This is a five thousand dollar printer, give or take a grand, if you load it up with RAM. The cost to replace all the toner? You might be able to get it cheaper elsewhere, but buying HP carts from CDW, which is what we do, costs literally $1300 for a full set. The cost per page is something like 26 cents if you're printing an average sheet with something like 20% coverage.
If you get a Canon inkjet with a continuous inker and just buy ink refills, then you can probably beat that quite handily. And you can probably get the printer for under $300 for the whole schmeer. Problem is, it's slow as hell compared to the big fat laser. But if you had an inkjet with a full-width head, you could solve that problem, too. And in the bargain you'd get rid of the high-powered electronics, the carcinogenic toner and fumes (which they very much are, especially from colored toners) and the gigantic printer.
The head clogging is a problem. Unless they have that solved, this printer is a non-starter. But I don't think it's an insoluble problem. In fact, maybe the answer is a cleaning solution (nyuk nyuk) and an embedded ultrasonic transducer. Recycled inkjet cartridge nozzles are cleaned with some kind of detergent or something, I don't even know what, but they're done with an ultrasonic washer to break up the bits of ink without touching the nozzles, which are of course very very small.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Problem with tree farms is that most of them are wonderfully homogeneous. Having a monoculture forest planted in rows for easy retrieval of wood is nice, but it can't fill the ecological role of a natural forest. More trees is nice I guess but 1) not all trees are the same and 2) natural wilderness areas contain more than trees which is crucial to maintaining a healthy ecosystem.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
That ink has to have a seriously fast wet-to-dry time.. It it spews pages out that fast, how can you keep the ink on the page intact if the next page shooting out of the printer on top of the previous one is going to make contact in just a few seconds?
Yeah, but the problem is that US money is the only one that can feasibly be counterfeited with a printer. All the other countries have far more advanced anti-counterfeiting technologies, such as different colors, plastic windows, holograms, etc. The US sticks a lousy watermark on their bills and thinks that's enough.