• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

HP LaserJet 6P help

The 5L, 6L, and 1100 (basically all of them from that era with vertical paper feed) had issues with separators and rollers. They will try to pull ALL of the paper through. There are updated separators that work a lot better. When I worked for a state community college 20 years ago, they had a hard time throwing away anything with any sort of value still on the books. So when I got there there was an entire store room full of junk and about 10 or so of these printers. I was able to get roller kits for them for like $30 and repaired almost all of them. You had to pretty much disassemble them to get to the rollers. But I was paid a tiny hourly wage and it was cheaper than $300 for a new printer, so they were happy I could fix them.
 
In fact, I did first try buying a "NOS" cartridge on eBay which yielded similar results. Fortunately, I got a full refund on that one. Then I recalled that I had my own "new" sealed cartridge stored away - it was probably 15 years old. That's the one that yielded one good page and then what you see above. I've determined that it is NOT a problem with the fuser.
 
VERAULT said:
If two toner carts do the exact same thing.. You may be wrong about the fuser.
Click to expand...
That's a reasonable assumption, but here's why I think it's not correct. If I do a half-page test by powering off half way through BEFORE it hits the fuser, the defects are already there. Also, keep in mind, both toner cartridges are old, so it's possible they have the same -age related - problem.
 
DPDISXR4Ti said:
both toner cartridges are old, so it's possible they have the same -age related - problem.
Click to expand...
Thats not a thing......

thats like someone going to the doctor over the age of 50 for something serious and the doctor says.. "oh thats age related,, it happens" Without doing his job and diagnosing the illness.



I can confidently pick up a used laserjet ii toner cart from 1987 and if it was stored reasonably well id have no reason to think it wouldn't work.
 
One other data-point... When I pulled the cartridge the green drum is covered in toner. I carefully wipe it off, turning the drum via the gears to get the full 360 degrees cleaned. First print after that is better, but still some ghosting. I pull the cartridge and I can see it's already dirty with toner. I assume it will quickly go downhill with each subsequent printing.
 
I'm finding a lot of cartridges that used foam in their wipers are failing simply because the foam has aged. this unfortunately means that for Canon engine printers at least that NOS cartridges are now a total crapshoot.
 
NeXT said:
I'm finding a lot of cartridges that used foam in their wipers are failing simply because the foam has aged. this unfortunately means that for Canon engine printers at least that NOS cartridges are now a total crapshoot.
Click to expand...
Right, hence my suggestion above that the two NOS cartridges I've recently tried could have the same failure mode; namely, the degradation of the foam wiper. Searching some more, I found these wipers (only) which are supposed to be for my LaserJet 6p...
www.ebay.com

Future Graphhics Kuroki VXWBLADEK wiper blade for use in HP Canon VX *Pkg of 8* | eBay

Future Graphhics Kuroki VXWBLADEK wiper blade for use in HP Canon VX *Pkg of 8* <br> <br>Condition: Open box <br> <br>As Shown | Quick Ship | Rare Find <br> <br>Brand: Future Graphics <br> <br>Type: <br> <br>Thank you for purchasing a quality Evotek product.
www.ebay.com
The vendor selling them indicates that only the little bits on the ends are foam. Does that seem right?
 
That's correct judging form the photo.
The other thing that I can think of but never looked into is the electrostatic roller that "erases" the drum before it goes under the laser again is weak and the drum retains a memory of the last thing that was put on it by the laser.
 
Appreciate the input. Given that I've got spare cartridges now, I should take one apart and see what I find. I'm thinking it's a project for outdoors (or at least the garage), given the chance for toner leakage. I will report back.

So it's all in one place (this thread), I'll paste below some older comments I found on eevblog.com. Sadly, the referenced web-site seems to no longer exist. But the fact that they talk about a "rubber wiper blade" feels like something other than the "wiper blade" I linked above which doesn't seem to have any rubber. Color me confused....
----------------------- Pasted comments below -----------------------
How old is your new old stock toner cartridge? The rubber wiper blade doesn't last forever (particularly if it was stored in a hot environment). I've encountered several bad new old stock cartridges for my LJ 4 which produced dark, streaky prints like yours. Anything over 10 years old is suspect.
Click to expand...

Yup, agree! Wiper blades seem to last only about 2 years if in the cartridge. You can get replacement wipers for a couple $ from fixyourownprinter and they get it working fine again. I have an LJ5, but the wiper problem looks very much like your scan.
 
A major warning is the drum is photosensitive. Blasting it with sunlight may instantly ruin it. Every time I've opened a cartridge it was in a dimly lit room on a surface that I could easily clean up and while wearing gloves.
 
NeXT said:
A major warning is the drum is photosensitive. Blasting it with sunlight may instantly ruin it. Every time I've opened a cartridge it was in a dimly lit room on a surface that I could easily clean up and while wearing gloves.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I didn't realize that.
 
Okay, so back at this. I was able to get a 2019-dated cartridge - much newer than the others, but certainly not new. The first print-out was okay, but not great - tiny bit of ghosting. I immediately pulled the cartridge and the drum is covered in toner (see pic).

Also, in the mean time I tried opening up one of the older cartridges to take a look at the rubber wiper. I never got it all the way open. I cracked a piece on one end and decided I didn't want to be doing this.

Any thoughts?
 

Attachments

  • 20240313_094911.jpg
    20240313_094911.jpg
    339.5 KB · Views: 3
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top