Best copier for dirty environment?

[chuckt528]

Have a Sharp SF2540 in a very dirty steel plant. We've tried to replace it several times, but the place is so dirty that a digital machine can't stay tuned. As it is, we have to clean the 2540 once a month. I'm thinking an LED unit might work (Oki?), especially if it uses a CIS too.
They just need basic copying, 25+cpm. Anybody been down this street, any ideas?
Thanks gang.

[Mopar Freak]

Our company has a large # of Ricohs ranging from 4 to 13 years old at a california desert military base. VERY DUSTY! Plus the fact that probably hundreds of different people have pounded on them over the years. They do quite well.

[chuckt528]

Thanks for the reply "Freak" My question now is were they analog or digital? We put a couple diff digitals in and the dirt had us adjusting them constantly. Digitals were too sensitive. Any current models you could recommend? Thanks again.

[10871087]

I have some Kyocera and copiers in really bad environments and they run OK. The optics look like crap and the machine is full of dust but they still pump out pages. I have seen the KM3035-5035 do great in some pretty dirty places. Always adjust your service prices up for dirty environments and installs with poor machine access.

Analog + Dust = Crap

[Mopar Freak]

Sorry I didn't get back quicker. They are all older digital 1022, 1027, 1035 and 1045. Also some AC 205's. What amazes me is the optics stay pretty clean and even if they get dirty don't show it on the copies. The older sharps seemed to have issues with a little dust on the optics.

[Rudi]

I can recomend a konica minolta bizhub 210 , reason being if the optics get dirty the quality gets slightly lighter but still vissible other than that the mach is light so if you feel like it, you can take it to the shop for a clean with no hassle also the fuser is very reliable and replaces as a whole ,the laser is very easely accessable and the feed roller can be cleaned by the customer as it is fixed on the drawer. Standard usb 21ppm.

[TonerMunkeh]

	Quote:			Originally Posted by Mopar Freak
	Sorry I didn't get back quicker. They are all older digital 1022, 1027, 1035 and 1045. Also some AC 205's. What amazes me is the optics stay pretty clean and even if they get dirty don't show it on the copies. The older sharps seemed to have issues with a little dust on the optics.

I'll agree with the 1027, we have a few customers who have machines at concrete batching plants and the level of dust these machines end up ingesting is horrendous. The only time it causes them a problem is when the DF registration sensor ends up thick with it. Dust can get all through the machine and they never miss a beat.

[blackcat4866]

The most important factor here is the type of exposure lamp the machine uses.

This goes back a few years, but the Canon NP6016 was the first machine I came across with a fluorescent exposure lamp. Since Fluorescent & Xenon lamps produce very little heat, the optical cavity can be sealed. No fans to cool the blazing hot Halogen lamp. Most fluorescents even have a little heater to warm the lamp so that it can start quicker, especially in cooler temperatures.

With no fans blowing air (and dust) throughout the optics, this means that the optics can go much longer between cleanings.

Even though the NP6016 was a piece of crap, it was a vast improvement over a Mita DC142 or a Mita DC152, which had a squirrel cage fan directly over the mirror array, and had to be cleaned constantly.

I had one of these NP6016's in a lumber yard, and I went from two visits a month to 1 every six months. And before the optics were dirty enough to notice the scanner would start to slam into the end of the cavity (the home position switch would become blocked).

So I guess the theme here is that any machine with a fluorescent or Xenon lamp will outperform any other machine with a halogen lamp in a dirty environment. =^..^=

[wagon]

Just for the giggles, what about a Minolta Di183?

[chuckt528]

Not giggling. Pretty sure that's one of the first ones we tried!