monocomponent toner or separate better

[randiman]

As recently as 2008, Jonathan was an instructor in Boca on the 5160, his prior job was as a customer trainer out of Arlington after the service gig. He regaled us with stories from his biker days since I rented a bike while there.I met Abram again down there during training - he had left the company and restarted, now in the commercial div, before a year was up. His wife was sick and due to expenses he needed to move down near the college his daughter was attending near UVA. Neil lives up the street from me. I talked to him last week, he said its official, Oce' is now Canon. I surprised him by sayin I start with Canon Business Solutions on this Thursday. Itd be cool to get a gig training together, hes taking the cbt's. Dont know how much longer he can last bein 65 now. I hope to make this my last job. Ill mention your name to him. Happy ny!

[monarke4]

Re: monocomponent toner or separate better

Resurrecting this old thread.....

I know the Xerox Analog 5000 series (5016, 5018, 5028, 5034, 5328, 5334) etc. had developer mixed in with the toner so a little more was added to replenish as time went on. The developer waste would be sifted out into a dump container. To me the waste developer appeared to be a bit rusty looking.

Don Resor

Maybe this has changed, but as far as I know Canon holds the patent for mono-component toner. Which is why only Canon or their affiliates like Selex (or possibly HP?) use mono-component toner.

I might be biased but I love the mono-toner. I work on Canon and Ricoh and Canon's are so clean inside and Ricoh, well I'll just mention part #B2969640.

I agree the dual made a better black a while back but honestly I don't see much difference between Canon and Ricoh B/W anymore. Sharp is the only one that really stands out for making a nice solid black.

[monarke4]

Re: monocomponent toner or separate better

The little personal Xerox 1020 Marathon copier (not XC series) recycled the toner back into the sump. When it was time to replace the developer, it was all so contaminated by then, you just dumped it all. The developer was listed as a carcinogen too!

Don't know about Oce, but old Mita's would recycle toner. The drum blade would drop unused toner onto an auger spring that would move it back into the toner hopper.

I'm a newer tech, only seen a few. I can't imagine it was a good idea.

[monarke4]

Re: monocomponent toner or separate better

The Xerox 3100 created an embossed look to it's copies also. It had no fuser rollers. However it was a high-temperature toner and the machine was supplied with a fire extinguisher too! If there was a jam at the fuser it was possible that the paper would catch fire.

Don Resor

[monarke4]

Re: monocomponent toner or separate better

Back then I think Xerox was still referring to it on all their packaging as "Dry Ink". The Xerox 8200 (2 1/2 generation technology) also had incredibly solid blacks when the Kodak duplicators with their image belt was grainy most of the time.

Now many years ago, one of the few Xerox's I really liked, the 1090. That one did good solid blacks. Toner or something was different than today b/c it wasn't as shiny or waxy I guess and could scratch off a little easier. But the printing looked pitch black, about like toner looks on a page on any of today's machines before it reaches the fuser.