Leaky toner

[PlainName]

Refurbing our HP4650, which is a decent enough printer but is picking up more than one sheet at a time. Anyway, in doing this it turns out half the toner cartridges are leaking toner, one badly enough to leave a streak down every page. Replacement seems to be the fix, but that leaves me with a cartridge with a significant amount of toner in. So...

Has anyone tried using toner as an enamel substitute? Obviously, it won't be very protective but wouldn't it make a nice thin, colourful layer if the toner was heated enough to melt? I was going to suggest PCB mask, but it's electrically conductive so probably not a good idea.

[tooki]

It doesn’t adhere that well. I tried doing toner transfer to aluminum and it scrapes off when you look at it wrong. (I don’t know if it might do better on anodized aluminum, especially the type of anodizing that leaves a matte surface.)

I’ve also tried it as “ghetto silkscreen” on a home-etched PCB. It’s not resistant to many solvents (so cleaning the board may remove it) and it’s certainly not tolerant of soldering temperatures, making it completely useless as solder mask.

FYI, toner streaking is often due to the wiper blade in the toner cartridge drying up over time.

[PlainName]

Apparently this model is notorious for it, particularly with third-party cartridges. Shame, because otherwise it's a quite decent printer (though I haven't dared check the standby power).

I tried doing toner transfer to aluminum and it scrapes off when you look at it wrong

Oh well Although I was thinking more of heating it in situ so it would flow (and presumably lock into imperfections) which the usual toner transfer might not do.

Or I could just spread some on a T-shirt and hot wash for a tie-dye effect (the maintenance manual says clothing will be permanently marked if not cold washed).

[tooki]

I really doubt you’ll get anything even remotely pleasant. You’ll just make a gigantic mess, potentially cause respiratory hazards, and contribute to microplastic pollution.

Just write it off and call it a loss.

[Whales]

I've also tried toner on aluminium foil.  My issue was I was trying to print directly onto it, but it crumpled.

I've also transferred it to use as a silkscreen.  Mostly works, looks pretty, but easy to scratch off.

[james_s]

Are they leaking or is the wiper blade worn out? You could try using the toner powder to refill other cartridges.

[Whales]

Are they leaking or is the wiper blade worn out? You could try using the toner powder to refill other cartridges.

If you go this route:

 - do it inside a very large plastic bin liner bag, very slowly
 - wear a mask
 - water does not cleanup toner, you need alcohol instead

I tried refilling my black once.  Not worth it, print quality was not as good as new afterwards and a surprising amount of toner left my general area and covered the floor around me in a super thin layer.  Moving from cart to card sounds even harder.

[blacksheeplogic]

Are they leaking or is the wiper blade worn out? You could try using the toner powder to refill other cartridges.

a surprising amount of toner left my general area and covered the floor around me in a super thin layer.

I also do not have good memories from having tried this in the past.

[tooki]

And don’t forget that toner is designed to hold a static charge, so it sticks to things, and shouldn’t be vacuumed with a standard vacuum cleaner because of the risk of static discharge causing a dust explosion. (No, really: this is why they sell special toner vacuums, which are anti-static.)

[PlainName]

Are they leaking or is the wiper blade worn out? You could try using the toner powder to refill other cartridges.

One is definitely leaking from what is apparently a lid for a fill hole. Hard to see when it's not leaking - flush fit, almost like a casting mark, but the stuff pours out it. T'other seems to come out of the ends of the drum. I presume that's seals as well. A replacement is £15, which is worth not getting toner all over the place with repeated fix attempts and then getting the replacement anyway 

[Whales]

And don’t forget that toner is designed to hold a static charge, so it sticks to things, and shouldn’t be vacuumed with a standard vacuum cleaner because of the risk of static discharge causing a dust explosion. (No, really: this is why they sell special toner vacuums, which are anti-static.)

I forget this.  Some toner apparently goes through a vacuum cleaner's filters too, covering the motor and your lungs.  Have not tried, cannot confirm, could be a falsehood but I don't want to find out.

EDIT: Interesting claims by this person that claims to be a printer tech.

Canon, Konica and Richo Color tech here (13 years exp.) Fuck Sharp, Konica and Xerox. I can tell you that you CAN and SHOULD use a vacuum and water on your toner spills. Do not touch it until you can vacuum it and then wash in Cold Cold water. I wore white long sleeved shirts the whole time and never once got rid of one because of toner. Grease, ink and tares... Yes. Oh, and I have pics of this kind of thing with pretty colors too. heh

[PlainName]

There seem to be several reasons given for not using a vacuum:

* Static leading to dust explosion

* Creating a breathable cloud of toner

* Getting into the vacuum motor (causing a short)

* Getting into the vacuum motor (causing a jam due to melting into parts)

The service manual seems to be primarily concerned with the latter, which is not to say the others aren't real problems, just that they don't feature as boldly.

For a spill, a cloth to wipe up isn't appropriate (the recommended way of cleaning the printer), and a dustpan and brush is just going to spread it, so vacuum it is. I use a Dyson which isn't static safe but has jolly good filtering - none of the toner made it out of the cyclone to the hepa filters (at least, they stayed pleasingly colour-free).

[tooki]

There seem to be several reasons given for not using a vacuum:

Those are reasons to not use a standard vacuum. A toner vacuum is fine to use. In the context of this discussion, it’s critical to state which type of vacuum you’re referring to, because blanket statements do not apply to both kinds! 

Many household vacuums these days have HEPA filters that will protect the ambient air, but in most vacuums, it’s the exhaust filter (so as to catch dust from the motor brushes). So all the other reasons remain. :/

[PlainName]

Those are reasons to not use a standard vacuum.

That was kind of implied, I thought.

but in most vacuums, it’s the exhaust filter

I thought it was kind of obvious that I wrote about what I had done. I was not recommending anything and even listed the issues, so not really sure what beef you have with this.

Perhaps you'd care to rewrite that post to demonstrate how you think it should have appeared?

[tooki]

Those are reasons to not use a standard vacuum.

That was kind of implied, I thought.

but in most vacuums, it’s the exhaust filter

I thought it was kind of obvious that I wrote about what I had done. I was not recommending anything and even listed the issues, so not really sure what beef you have with this.

Perhaps you'd care to rewrite that post to demonstrate how you think it should have appeared?

“Implied” is exactly what you should not rely on when making statements which, on their surface, are blanket statements. This is literally the point of my comment.

I thought it was kind of obvious that I wrote about what I had done. I was not recommending anything and even listed the issues, so not really sure what beef you have with this.

Perhaps you'd care to rewrite that post to demonstrate how you think it should have appeared?

I already said so: specify standard vacuum.

A standard vacuum is a type of vacuum. A toner vacuum is a type of vacuum. So saying things about vacuums means you’re saying things that apply to both, and that’s incorrect, doubly so now that you are aware of the existence of toner vacuums.

[PlainName]

So, please rewrite it as you think it should have been, then I will have a better idea of what would have wanted to see.

[tooki]

So, please rewrite it as you think it should have been, then I will have a better idea of what would have wanted to see.

Since you can’t seem to piece together 1+1 even after being told it equals 2:

There seem to be several reasons given for not using a standard vacuum:
…

(insertion in bold)

[james_s]

This is getting a bit pedantic but I think "a vacuum" implies a standard vacuum. A toner vacuum is obviously suitable for cleaning up toner or it wouldn't be called what it is. "Don't use a vacuum" means don't use a standard vacuum, the default device with that name. A specialized vacuum for that specific task is obviously ok.