Talk:Laser printing

Untitled

Several thousand pages per minute! Any examples? Rich Farmbrough

• When the How it works section was 'moved' to Xerography, much of the other pertinent information was deleted. I edited Xerography to reflect the numbered list and returned the other information back to How it works --Ghaberek
• The IBM InfoPrint 4001 does just over 1000 ppm ... but it's not technically a laser, rather a electrophotograhic printer; cannot find any lasers anywhere greater than about 150 ppm. --69.156.88.203 05:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• The IBM Infoprint 4100 does 1220 letter size impressions per minute. Electrophotograhy is a generic term for xerography. Gadget850 19:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Improvement

I believe this article could use some improvements:

• Merge Laser printer and LED printer into Page printer.
• Move How it Works section into Xerography.
• Move Secret marks section to Printer forensics.
• Expand the lead in, create History section, Applications section and Technology section.
• Under Technology, include sub-sections on imaging (LED, laser), fuser types (thermal, flash, etc.), feed types (cassette, MP, tractor]], imager types (belt, drum) and color.

Any other thoughts on this, please? --Gadget850 16:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

                 ahmed mohsen henedak
   
                                    كلية الهندسة بشبرا

I follow your reasoning, but think Laser printer should stay where it is, and the other two should redirect to it, simply because "laser printer" is by far the commonest name. (Yes, LED is strictly speaking not a laser printer, but it is a variant on the same technology and should be noted as such).

I also don't think it would be wise to move the How it works and Secret marks sections entirely to other pages, rather there should be a simple paragraph explaining the basic function with a Main article: link at the top. (Perhaps this is in fact what you mean.)

Yes, the history section needs to be bigger; I wrote much of it a while ago, but while others have improved upon it, it has not been significantly expanded. Pictures of early models might help.

Agree on your suggestion about Technology, but remember that I think the whole article should stay at Laser printer. ProhibitOnions 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Guyz, the definition of laser printing ought to include 'laser beam', as it is a neccersary point. I humbly suggest you not to delete that important point, as the lead section lacks adequate and vital information. MMA rox (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC) MMA rox

See below under "Prior Invention". I agree with Gadget850 that this article should be changed. Since this whole article is so heavily about Xerographic techniques, it really should include both LED printers, and the earlier Zerographic printers. You have a History section that is really only partial. Just because Laser Printer is the most common name, doesn't make it the right name for the article. I too think that Zerographic technology deserves a whole separate article, to which both this article and whatever articles you may have about copying could refer. Why is all the detailed description of Zerography here rather than in the "Xerography" article? The triplication of information in "Xerography", "Photocopier" and here in "Laser Printing" is a waste of effort, and means that the best version of the text and figures cannot be simply updated. Kulath (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

resolution as well as physics

I think the article should say what the dpi resoltion of these printers is

just a few words about the chemicals that make the photoconductive drum function would be super beneficial; I heard the laserwriter I was a Se compound, but that was a while ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.106.254 (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Photoconductor Kit- What its it?

What does the photoconductor kit do? It looks like only Epson printers use/need this.

Ravi

Laser printers and ozone?

I recently bought a home laser printer. And little did I know, the strange smell coming from the printer as pages were spitting out of it was ozone. (my eyes are all red, and the air feels heavy) I think ozone being released from laser printers/copiers should be noted in this entry, because had I known that laser printers release ozone, I would have had second thoughts about picking up a laser printer. And although I am sure that consumer education isn't the direct intent of wikipedia, it's still significant to note because thousands of laser printers/copiers are being employed and used everyday. What do you guys think? comment by Stoppedcode12 on 26 Nov 2006

Perhaps, but you have either a maladjusted unit (and probably reduced image quality as a result) or you have placed it in a room that is not adequately ventilated for the printing rate you are achieving. Pzavon 16:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Most modern laser printers produce very little ozone, since they use a charge roller in lieu of a corona to charge the photoconductor, and use a charged transfer roller in lieu of a corona to transfer the image to the paper. The melting of the (usually) styrene resin in the toner can produce a bit of odor, especially if there is minimal air circulation in the room, and the printed page has a particularly large amount of printed area. The manufacturer's specs will usually divulge the amount of ozone that a particular laser printer produces. LorenzoB 18:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The larger laser printers and photocopiers include an ozone remover across the air cooling exhaust port. It is a block of activated carbon that looks like a mesh screen, but the holes are about a half-inch deep to permit reaction time as the air blows through the block. For smaller printers, ozone is not considered enough of an emission problem to include the carbon block filter, but ozone can still build up if you are printing for a long time in a small poorly ventilated rooom.

Google images of printer/copier ozone filters

DMahalko 21:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Soft plastic drum?

I question the validity of the statement about soft plastic drums and their durability. I believe that all the organic photoconductors in use today (heavy metals are no longer employed) have an image transfer layer. This is the outer coating that actually makes contact with the toner and paper. It serves to protect the actual photoconductor material from wear. It is my belief that from the consumer's standpoint, softness of the drum is irrelevant. The architecture of the developer and the drum cleaning apparatus is more likely to have an effect on the drum's longevity, assuming lack of human 'intervention'. LorenzoB 18:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty smart, but I can't understand this article

Could someone try to translate the "How it Works" section into plainer English for us non-techie types?--Margareta 06:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The total lack of images and illustrations makes understanding how this works difficult. However, since the images would have to be fairly professional I don't know where they could come from except from copyrighted sources.

Perhaps Hewlett Packard would permit inclusion of images from them if their images were properly attributed, though I've no idea how an individual not formally associated with Wikipedia might go about getting such works added to this page. DMahalko 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I see someone has made an SVG version of my corona charging example image. I do wish you luck redoing the drum-writing one as an SVG. I did a lot of very strange things with layering in Microsoft Word to make it look the way it does. :-) I'd redo it an SVG myself, but not if I have to actually *gasp* pay for an SVG drawing editor. I'm doing this all for free, y'know.. DMahalko 07:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling wars

I see one editor changed all instances of "colour" to "color" and more recently another editor changed them all back to "colour". I suggest we remember that Wikipedia participants reside in many locations. Some live where "color" is the correct spelling and other live where "colour" is correct. As this is an international effort, neither spelling is truelly incorrect.

Since the laser printer was invented in a region where "color" is correct, there might be an argument for using US spelling conventions. However, the important thing, in my opinion, is to stop wasting time and effort changing between the two conventions. Pzavon 00:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's sufficient ground. According to WP:MOS we're only really talking about cases when the ties are clear. Cases like for a US movie or an Australian book or a Canadian food or on the Kiwi are cases when it's clear the subject has a clear tie to a region. Although laser printers may have been invented in the US, they're international items now prevalent throughout the world made by a number of companies without any real ties to anywhere. Therefore we should stick with the original substanial usage (& be consistent). The original contributor appears to be an American, and although I didn't notice in particular American usage, I think it's enough IMHO for us to stick with American usage (even if it means we need ugly spellings like color :-P) Nil Einne 18:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

How to deal with so many explanations of the same thing?

The xerography, the photocopying article, and the laser printer article all attempt to describe the same processes three different ways. It would be nice if the technical details could be focused somehow into a single article that all the others refer to, rather than duplicating the same data across so many locations, such as is being done with the LED printer article.

I'm not really sure how this should be done. Generally I think the xerography artcle should be the master discussion of the technical processes, with the laser printer article just referring to the specific details of the exposure step, as is currently being done with the LED printer article. I have no idea how to deal with the photocopying article since it seems to be an almost unnecessary duplication of the xerography article.

As a somewhat new editor on here, I don't really be the one to be making such large changes, moving the guts of the laser printer technical discussion to the xerography article. But something should be done..

(This talk article has been copied into the talk for xerography, photocopying, laser printer, and LED printer. If you want to comment I suggest putting your response in the talk for xerography.)

DMahalko 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree that the master discussion of the technical process should be in the Xerography article.

Also the discussion of its application to printing should be in a xerographic printing article with LED printer and Laser printing either referring to xerographic printing or simply being redirects to it.

(Note that not all xerographic printing uses lasers, some use LED and some earlier ones just incandescent lamps, and not all are page printers as some are roll printers (AIUI)).

Then xerographic printing and Photocopier can refer to Xerography for the technical details of the process.

I appreciate that this is quite a major change. Is there any chance that it could be implemented? Kulath (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Pzavon, I'm annoyed with your color printing parts/wear cite request

Pzavon (Talk | contribs) (→Laser printer maintenance - some imaging components do double duty so color does not imply 4 times more components; request citation for wear rate statements)

Yes, okay, I will admit that color laser printers do in fact only use one power cord and one control panel and one fuser assembly. Sheesh.

But they still typically require four toner tanks, and the transfer belt models use four separate phoconductive imaging drums. Whatever the specific parts, the consumables cost is almost always four times higher than a comparable monochrome printer, often with a price of US$120 per color vs $90 for a black-only printer cartridge, and monochrome printers don't need complex and high-precision US$200 transfer belt assemblies in addition to the four separate toner/drum assemblies.

The imaging system wear rate is a dirty little secret of color laser printers. The imaging drum or belt usually wears out about four times faster when printing in color. You usually can't find this out unless you dig really deep into the specifications and repair parts websites, and in some ways I'm annoyed to have to point this out you this since the manufacturers go out of their way to not talk about it openly. Who are you to be demanding this info, that I have had to dig deeply to discover on my own? Only those in the know are aware of this detail. :)

http://www.superwarehouse.com/HP_Transfer_Kit_for_Color_LaserJet_4500_and_4550_Series/C4196A/p/55639

• HP Transfer Kit for Color LaserJet 4500 and 4550 Series
• Part #: C4196A, US $187
• Page Yield: 100,000 Pages Black or 25,000 Pages Color

http://www.amazon.com/C9704A-Imaging-Drum-Color-LaserJet/dp/B00007FH02

• HP C9704A Imaging Drum for Color LaserJet 1500/2500
• Part #: C9704A, US $153
• Approximate 20,000-page lifetime for black, 5,000-page for color

http://www.myshopping.com.au/PR--12856_HP_Q3964A_Laser_Toner_Imaging_Drum

• HP Q3964A Laser Toner Imaging Drum
• Genuine Hewlett Packard HP Q3964A laser toner imaging drum designed for the HP Color LaserJet 2550 laser toner printers
• (20,000 black/5,000 color yield)

http://downloadcenter.samsung.com/content/UM/200504/20050401101135140_CLP-500Series_English.pdf

• Samsung CLP-500 Product manual, Product Specifications (near end of document)
• Imaging Unit: Approx. 50,000 black pages (12,500 color pages)***
• Transfer Belt: Approx. 50,000 black pages (12,500 color pages)***
• Waste Toner Container: Approx. 12,000 black pages (3,000 color pages)***
• ***May be affected by operating environment, printing interval, media type, media size and color/black.

DMahalko 22:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Who am I do demand this information? (Actually I believe I used the word "request" in my edit summary.) I am an editor participating in the Wikipedia, where assertions of fact are supposed to be supported in the article by citations to published sources. Original research is not supposed to be included.

Shall we try to keep emotions and personalities out of this discussion? Pzavon 01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Toner

Another issue with toner from laser printers may be health concerns [1]. Anyone with time feel free to add Nil Einne 18:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There has been an attempt to address it in the Photocopy article, another element in the duplication among Laser printer, Photocopy, and to a lesser extent Duplicator and several other articles. However, there is an article on Toner and that is where material on health concerns of toner belongs. There have also at times been concerns expressed about ozone emissions and elements rubbed off older photoreceptor drums.

The particular reference given above is not really about toner, however. It talks about ultrafine particles. They are emitted from copiers, but are as much or more paper dust and the like than toner particles. And ultrafines are also emitted by a great many other sources in our technological civilization, as well as from low tech sources such as camp fires and the like. So this really belongs in an article on ultrafine particles or nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are intentional constructs. Ultrafines are particles in the same nano-size range, but created unintentionally as part of some other process. Pzavon 01:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The primary article may indeed be ultrafine particles, but this still needs to be mentioned in THIS article since it was a specific concern raised re: laser printers. Note it doesn't seem to be such a problem with photocopiers, at least the ones tested, see [2]. Also, it toner particles definitely appear to make up at least some proportion of the ultrafine particles as the page density and age of the toner catridge affects the emission level Nil Einne 12:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Any reference in THIS article ought to be a one sentence referal to the Toner article, or to an article on ultrafine particles.

As far as toner is concerned, there is no difference between a laser printer and a photocopier. The parts handling toner and paper are identical. In fact, the same machine can be sold, with different marketing names, as either type of machine. It is just a matter of whether a scanner is present and whether input from an outside source to the Raster Output Scanner is provided. Pzavon 01:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Currently, the article says these two things:

• "The laser beam neutralizes (or reverses) the charge on the white parts of the image, leaving a static electric negative image on the photoreceptor surface to lift the toner particles.", and
• "The charged toner particles are given a negative charge, and are electrostatically attracted to the photoreceptor where the laser wrote the latent image. Because like charges repel, the negatively charged toner will not touch the drum where light has not removed the negative charge."

...am I being dumb here (I am tired...) or is that self-contradictory? Surely if the laser beam reverses the (negative) charge on the _white_ parts of the image, then those are the bits that are going to be left white, but if the toner is attracted to the photoreceptor "where the laser wrote the latent image", then surely those bits will end up _black_? I think the problem may be in the last edit -- it make sense to me that the laser beam would leave the black ("write") parts of the image and that the image is a mirror image, rather than a negative -- but I came here to learn about laser printers, unfortunately; I'm no expert! gothick 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The last edit used the "other" meaning of negative (as in photographic negative). These instances need to be simplified and corrected as a laser printer can be designed, as I understand it, that works with either positive or negative charging of the photoreceptor. Therefore, charge, but not the type of charge, should be mentioned in this process summary. It's too late and I'm too tired to attempt that now. Pzavon 04:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I know what it's like trying to write when you're tired :) If I could make a suggestion, how about writing it as if the photoreceptor is negatively charged, and the laser clears the charge to make a positive (in the photographic sense) image. That would make the text go along with the helpful diagrams, which I think would really help.

Then maybe mention separately, later, that you could use either a negatively- or positively-charged photoreceptor. (Of course, the photoreceptor would need a mirror image either way, otherwise it would come out backwards when it was rolled onto the paper...) It's hard to get people's heads around the concept unless you take a concrete example and stick to it without trying to explain all the ways it could be done as part of the explanation, I'd say. gothick 12:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Think about it like a Xerographic copier, which works on the same basic principle. The drum is initially charged (assume negative). A narrow strip of the original is illuminated, progressively moving along. The drum is rotating with its surface moving at the same rotational speed as the scan. The scan focused onto the drum. Areas of white (the background on white paper) are illuminated and the charges neutralized, while areas of color (text) are kept in the dark and maintain their negative charge. The toner itself has an opposite (positive) charge as the initial charge of the drum, and is thus attracted to the discharged portions. The drum then transfers its charge to the paper (which is either given a negative charge stronger than that of the drum, or is pressed against the drum by another cylinder with a stronger negative charge. The drum is then exposed to a lamp to discharge any residual charges before the process begins again.Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pa 1977 9700-medium.jpg

Image:Pa 1977 9700-medium.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Cost versus inkjet

Can someone add a bit on how laser is less costly and a better value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A "better value", in the "personal preference" sense, is inherently not verifiable. However, we can state the difference between long- and short-run costs, with a strong citation.Bettering the Wiki 04:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodone121 (talk • contribs)

Can't we just say it's "generally accepted" that laserjets present a significantly lower cost per page over inkjets in terms of toner/ink use respectively; however, laserjets cost more to purchase than inkjets? I have no doubt in my experience that a laserjet is well worth it's cost given I only need to replace the toner every 2000 pages vs. every 500 pages for an inkjet.150.135.245.202 (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I know this discussion is old, but I want to help put it to rest. It isn't necessarily true that laser printers provide lower cost per page over inkjet printers. It depends a great deal on usage and technology. Go to your nearest mass merchandising store (I won't mention the name), and have some files printed. The prices are very low, yet they make a profit, and they are very likely using ink printers. This article would have to be quite subjective to make claims about the low cost per page of laser versus ink. It some cases, it costs, less, and, in some cases, it costs more. See the Edgeline printing" article (which should be expanded) Dweber.intracon (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Printing Steps

Shouldn't cleaning be the first stage? I've always been taught that way. Also, I think it should be mentioned that "Writing" is another common name for the "exposing" stage. I am just not quite confident enough to make either change, but it seemed worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.6.113 (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning in the last step in the process.

Since these machines evolved from photocopiers, where the teminology came from photography, the term "exposure" is older and thus, perhaps more authoritative. The term "writing" came into use with the advent of the controlable laser to "write" and image on the photoreceptor. The main question I would have for anyone planning to go into the two terms in the article is, where are your citations? I would also caution against making a relatively simple description of the xerographic process more complicated by including all sorts of terminology variants. Pzavon (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of books with different orders of steps, different terms, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

LASER PRINTERS RULE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.41.204.4 (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Pictures in this article

It seems to me that having 2 HP printer pictures at the top of this article is inappropriate. It would seem wiser or more encyclopedic to have a xerox 8010 or an IBM 3800 instead. Other possible pictures could be of the internals of a modern laser printer, as the brand, logo and plastic shell aren't what matters in this article. 80.4.75.175 (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Apple Laserwriter and the history section

It seems that the introduction of the Apple Laserwriter in 1985 should be mentioned as an event. The combination of Adobe Postscript with laser printer technology launched desktop publishing. This seems like a fairly serious omission. --Paul (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

At a book manufacturer, I wrote document print programs to support IBM 6670 and Xerox 3700 laser printer and the driver program for a composition system using the VideoComp 830 typesetter (I was painfully aware that every laser printer and typesetting device had incompatible proprietary write control languages). Then came PostScript. Most users of laser printers probably would not appreciate such "under the hood" details but the introduction of an industry standard write control language for output devices was a revolution. Naaman Brown (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Health issues content from another article

The following content was taken from the printer (computing) article. I do not know if it is of any use here, as there is already a section on respiratory health risks in the article. If you use it, please indicate the article it came from to preserve attribution.

Recent research has also indicated that laser printers emit potentially dangerous ultrafine particles, possibly causing health problems associated with respiration [3] and cause pollution equivalent to cigarettes. The degree of particle emissions varies with age, model and design of each printer but is generally proportional to the amount of toner required. Furthermore, a well ventilated workspace would allow such ultrafine particles to disperse thus reducing the health side effects.

-- Kjkolb (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Prior invention

While not, strictly speaking , a laser printer, an experimental xerographic printing device was demonstrated by Keith Huntley of the Central Research Laboratories of Rank Precision Industries Ltd, UK (part of Rank-Xerox Ltd) in March 1958. A prototype Xeronic printer was exhibited at the Electronic Computer Exhibition in London in November-December 1958. It seems that by at least 1962, the device was fully developed. By 1964, a printer was in use on the Leo computer. It printed at 2,888 lines per minute. The printer used a combination of a CRT to generated characters and a lamp and photographic film to generate forms information.

(Information from LEO:the first Business computer by Peter Bird ISBN 0-9521651-0-4).

I suspect that Gary Starkweather's invention was simply a matter of parallel independent invention.

Just as an LED printer is widely regarded as the same technology as a laser printer, the Xeronic printer can also be regarded as the same technology.

It would be better to merge this article with the LED printer article into a single Xerographic printer article. (Note that it would not be appropriate to merge this into Page Printer, because dot matrix and impact printers can also be page printers. Note that the Xeronic printer printed onto continuous stationary.).

It would probably be better to have laser printer (and LED printer) redirect to Xerographic printer, since I agree that laser printer it the common name, even though LED printer is not strictly speaking a laser printer. If the Laser printer page is retained, then the introduction should make it clear that (most of) the page is talking about Xerographic printers, and there are different types, namely laser, LED and CRT/film light.

[[[User:Kulath|Kulath]] (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)]

Toner clean-up question about "electrically conductive hose": Should that say "electrically non-conductive hose"?

Under the Toner clean-up section (great section, btw, Thanks!), it says "If toner spills into the laser printer, a special type of vacuum cleaner with an electrically conductive hose and a high efficiency (HEPA) filter may be needed for effective cleaning."

Should that say "electrically non-conductive hose"?

Thanks!

Misty MH (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't say either without a source. So I looked for one and found this 2009 book that says exactly what this article said since 2007. And they claim copyright of this material copied from wikipedia! Dicklyon (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Should ink-jet printers be cited in this article?

In the first paragraph of this article, there is the sentence:

with digital photocopiers and multifunction/all-in-one inkjet printers, laser printers employ a xerographic printing process.

Does anyone know of an ink-jet device that uses a xerographic process? All of these devices use raster imaging, while "analog" devices don't; is that perhaps what the writer was trying to express? --MichaelMJ (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No, that's an obvious error introduced by this edit on 11 October 2014. It wasn't caught at the time because 50% of the edits made in that same edit were valid. Actually, the more I look at this, I'm beginning to realize half the edits made in that edit were invalid, which means it appears to be vandalism. I propose to countermand all edits made by that user and to revert back to the last good version. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Laser printing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101124224933/http://www.papergear.com:80/xerox-news/facts-about-laser-printing.html to http://www.papergear.com/xerox-news/facts-about-laser-printing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Laser printing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101124224933/http://www.papergear.com:80/xerox-news/facts-about-laser-printing.html to http://www.papergear.com/xerox-news/facts-about-laser-printing.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

First on the block

Didn't the Xerox 1200 come out before the IBM 3800 and the Xerox 9700? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

yes. https://digitalprinting.blogs.xerox.com/2012/09/28/flashback-friday-the-xerox-1200-computer-printing-system Pi314m (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Move "smart chips in toner cartridges" section ( Split and merging proposal)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for adding content to Toner cartridge, no consensus whether to remove it from here. I thus copied the content to Toner cartridge while leaving it here for now, with no prejudice for adapting/trimming/removing the content at either place as part of the normal editing process,. Felix QW (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose that sections Smart chips in toner cartridges be moved to Toner cartridge. This section is more related to the topic of Toner cartridge. This section discusses a component of the cartridge, not of the laser printer. Ziounclesi (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Agree seams more logical to have it there. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 13:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment Laser cartridges historically were not sold on the give-away-razor-handle/charge-for-blade model, whereas that was the way inkjets were sold. There is similarity, and certain sentences may be needed in both articles, but this is where it seems to belong: make use of the laser printer to print, and anything that cuts down on the life of the cartridge is a printing topic. In fact, this topic can be made part of articles in areas such as law, economics, consumer-matters, etc. (I'm leaning to leave it here) Pi314m (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lead paragraph has a gibberish sentence

"However, laser printing differs from analog photocopiers in that the image is produced by the direct scanning of the medium across the printer's photoreceptor." What does this gibberish mean? I am going to take out this sentence unless someone clarifies this or puts in a citation soon. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fixing this. I specialized in the history of computer science in college and I can't make heads or tails of this nonsense. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)