Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenPrinter

opentools.studio

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–299 of 299 posts

Re: OpenPrinter

#291

Post by a96 »

geonineties wrote: post #280
a96 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no reason to sell a dot matrix printer that wasn't compatible with tractor feed. Especially when some of the biggest uses of those printers required that stock. Doesn't mean they required tractor feed paper to operate. A Matrix printer is essentially a typewriter with extra steps and typewriters had been eating any paper for .. a century before?

Are you thinking of Daisy wheel? Dot matrix uses a set of pins arranged in a matrix that they ram forward to press the ribbon against the paper. Daisy wheel uses a raised character glyph and slams it forward into the ribbon. Every typewriter I've used has full glyphs.

I'm thinking of everything working on the principle of smashing an inked ribbon into paper to make markings.

Re: OpenPrinter

#292

Post by a96 »

dotancohen wrote: post #242
a96 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2400 dpi is not the bar for entry, though. Even 240 would qualify as a printer, albeit not a good one (SOTA in 1995 maybe).

I respectfully disagree. For all the use cases shown on the linked page, a 240 DPI printer would not be acceptable.

Yes. There's the obvious difference of "it's a working printer" and desirable and useful product. You don't need to be state of the art to be in the first category was my thought.

Re: OpenPrinter

#293

Post by whyoh »

dymk wrote: post #260
whyoh wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>HP cartridges including the printheads will take a lot of complexity away from the open design. Yes, but it also means it won't be cheaper or more reliable than a regular printer. The print head is what fails most often and you'll still have to buy a new one.

Aftermarket ink cartridges that are HP compatible are quite cheap compared to brand name

Those are made from used HP cartridges, so they have a shorter life span.

Re: OpenPrinter

#294

Post by abustamam »

Gigachad wrote: post #144
abustamam wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I owned a Brother inkjet for some time. I'd print maybe a few times a year. But it seemed like every time I needed to print, the printer was out of ink. Granted I used an ink service (ie not official brother ink) but still where the heck was the ink going? I've since switched to a Brother LaserJet and I'm still on the starter toner after a couple of years.

An inkjet printer has to be used at least monthly if not more often. If you left it plugged in, the printer was likely squirting ink in to a waste tank to prevent the nozzles from drying out and ruining the printer. Laser toner can sit unused without drying out (it's dry powder already).

Oh that's interesting. Yes that is exactly what it did! Didn't think that'd use so much ink though!

Re: OpenPrinter

#295

Post by wuschel »

HelloUsername wrote: post #2

Interesting comment from last time this was posted https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48093670 Inkjet printing requires orders of magnitude more engineering expertise, materials science, industry experience and financial resources than most people imagine. That is the reason, open inkjet printers don't exist despite having been consumer products with the same drawbacks for more than forty years. That is why this is…

I looked into hackable printers 10+ years ago when building a demonstrator prototype of a bioproduced ink dye. The key challenge challenges is that they are an integrated system between mechanical, electronical, and chemical (ink formulation, surface chemistry) domains.

I would believe most relevant patents are now expired and that we should be able to build a printer that at least gives sufficient quality prints. Given sufficient motivation and time investment, that is.

Re: OpenPrinter

#296

Post by szszrk »

rbanffy wrote: post #227
szszrk wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make sense. But at the same time sounds like another way to support the biggest predator in that space, no?

Remanufactured cartridges for these printers are available. They profit from the first use of the cartridge, but make nothing out of the refilled ones (I've been using them for some time now).

You still pay for it to the company that has decades of hostile practices towards their clients. Their mechanisms are so bad that they even disable valid original cartridges sometimes, good luck with getting that refunded.

But maybe I'm emotional, as that company has been taking premium for a broken experience of so many people I know. I didn't expect such project going for their equipment.

Re: OpenPrinter

#297

Post by attila-lendvai »

flexagoon wrote: post #74
attila-lendvai wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Unlike now, where instead of saying your hypothesis you're just letting every reader come up with what they think is a crazy conspiracy theory and ascribe it to you?

at least this way i spent my reputation to show a mirror, instead of shouting pointlessly into the abyss...

Re: OpenPrinter

#298

Post by yencabulator »

ssddanbrown wrote: post #18

> Open Printer is distributed under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. So not open source.

For anyone else looking for the source of that quote, it seems they edited the text slightly:

https://www.crowdsupply.com/open-tools/open-printer

> Open Source

> Open Printer will use the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license for all of its files, including electronics and mechanical design files, firmware code, and the bill of materials.

Calling CC-BY-NC "Open Source" is a blatant lie.

Re: OpenPrinter

#299

Post by happymellon »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #281
happymellon wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say it did. If it is a noncommercial licence then it removes the other option to set up a business selling these pre-built. Not everyone wants to build a printer.

No, it doesn't: I can build a machine described in an All Rights Reserved book. CC BY-SA-NC grants additional permissions on top of that, but it doesn't remove any. You're thinking of patents.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.en

> NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

I mean, the licence says that I can't...

Post reply on HN