Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0

    MPC6003 CQ ISSUE

    Images being printed have very thin void lines which occur intermittently in feed direction as pictured (SUPER CLOSE UP PICTURE TAKEN)
    Void lines have that pixel thick look to them, and dead straight and even, and can be in any position on the page front to rear, not consistently in one position.

    They come and go throughout a print run, not degrade as the print run continues.

    Where the red solid image border finishes (or starts???) the tiny white void lines become magenta lines to the edge of paper, IF THE VOID LINE happens to occur at that point. As i mentioned before they are not across the whole print in any 1 position.

    - LSU glass has been cleaned obviously, but these void lines are too tiny and pixel perfect for that simple fix.
    - Magenta drum charge roller has been swapped out and no change.
    - Magenta drum cylinder replaced even though radial lines not visible on drum surface.

    Would my next step to look at the magenta drum blade?

    I have had other blades across various brands get tiny tiny nicks in them, and where you would expect a simple blade fail and constant toner line, it results in sporadic charge/discharge on the drum surface, and some very strange copy quality faults to diagnose.

    I doubt a normal client would even notice these void lines, however my client is using data heavy graphics and running postscript high res prints so has a keen eye for any CQ issues unfortunately.

    Input would be appreciated before we spend the money on a whole new magenta process unit for hot swap as a solution!!!
    (Or I can lecture another client on business print vs professional print, not being a cheap ass, and to outsource or buy a professional print machine if he wants that quality - usually results in me being banned from site hahaha)

    MPC6003 2.jpg

    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by blakemac1982; 1 Week Ago at 06:47 AM. Reason: add better image

  2. #2
    Master Of The Obvious 10,000+ Posts


    blackcat4866's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Lapeer, Michigan
    Posts
    14,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    233

    Re: MPC6003 CQ ISSUE

    You did say PRINTS, so I'm assuming that it's prints not copies.

    For thin voids like yours, it's almost always optical. I think I would remove the laser and clean the internal laser optics. I would NOT do any major disassembly of the laser, because there's a very good chance that you could un-focus, un-calibrate your laser by disasssembly. Just remove outer laser covers and clean optical surfaces.

    You can imagine my distress when I read forum posts about persons completely disassembling a laser unit, cleaning all the miniscule components, then wondering why it doesn't work at all anymore. =^..^=

    If you'd like a serious answer to your request:
    1) demonstrate that you've read the manual
    2) demonstrate that you made some attempt to fix it.
    3) if you're going to ask about jams include the jam code.
    4) if you're going to ask about an error code include the error code.


    blackcat: Master Of The Obvious =^..^=

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: MPC6003 CQ ISSUE

    Thanks Blackcat... I'm distressed anything other than a rare failed polygon motor replacement is required for service on LSU's these days.
    'Just pop the LSU open in the carpark next to the building site with concrete dust gusting in the wind and clean the mirrors with your dirty rag' hahaha.

    Industry standard from any manufacture should be "sealed" units. I'll do a hotswap if I can get my hands on an LSU from a graveyard source, and see if that resolves the issue.
    Then attempt one of my epic warranty claims for a replacement unit clearly years out of warranty and not through an authorised agent, basing my claim on lack of "sealage" at manufacture.

    At this stage it looks like alternate brand and machine will be trialed instead - I'm not quite sure for what the client expects in consistency, is going to carry all the way through the supposed yield of the Ricoh consumables. Don't want this machine burning up meter income replacing parts short of their life expectancy, and in the field having fortnightly callouts for this and that/

    Cheers mate.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Get the Android App
click or scan for the Copytechnet Mobile App

-=-=-=-=-=-


IDrive Remote Backup

Lunarpages Internet Solutions

Advertise on Copytechnet

Your Link Here