Talk:Toner

message: I know that manufacturers provide shipping for spent cartridges to protect the environment. What kind of harm do spent cartridges cause? Louis waweru 22:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental Issues 

message: Does anyone know what the difference is in composition, between toner and waste toner?
:Except that some regulations treat anything declared to be "waste" in a different manner than the virgin material, there is usually no difference in composition between virgin toner and waste toner.  In a color machine, of course, the waste toner will be an unseparable mixture of the various colored toners used in the machine.  There is also the possibility of trace amounts of the photoreceptor surface layers finding their way into the waste toner collector.  Pzavon 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean "paper fines" but there is not going to be much, if any, of that in the waste toner sump, since the toner is applied to the photoreceptor, and cleaned from it into the waste, at locations distant from the paper path.  What you do get in waste toner sumps is toner that has aglomerated, toner fines, carrier particles, and color mixtures (when you have a machine that handles more than one color).  Pzavon 00:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toner Waste 

message: It appears that all the external links listed in this article point to web sites that exist primarily to sell a product or service and are thus "usually to be avoided" in the Wikipedia.  (See External_links)  I invite anyone to show me why these are appropriate links adding to an article on what toner is.  Failing that, I propose to remove those links in about 5 days.  Pzavon 01:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links inappropriate? 

message: I fixed a POV statement . Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My compliments.  Very well done.  Pzavon 01:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The article specifies "pyrol" as a contaminant. However I am not aware of any such compound. Can it be pyrrole instead? --Shaddack 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrol? 

message: Carbon is used as the black pigment what is used for the three colour pigments? --CAJ 14:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Iron oxide is also used for blakc toner, especially when magnetic, machine-readible text is to be produced.  It is my understanding that color toners get their colors from organo-metallic compounds.  But what the specific compounds are is usually proprietary and will not be revealed by their manufacturers.  Pzavon 00:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour 

message: A new section?
* Any old toner is sometimes used to test machines, but the correct toner is needed for ongoing service to avoid the risk of issues that affect print quality
* Waste toner is sometimes filtered and reused
Tabby (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Servicing practices 

message: Since toner is essentially dry ink, should it be included in the Inks category?  Frotz (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think not.  The article on Ink defines ink as a liquid.  Dry ink is therefore something quite different.  Besides, the term "dry ink" seems to have been invented as a marketing device to help people who could not relate to the more correct technical term, "toner."  Oh, and toner is not "essentially dry ink," it is dry ink.  Pzavon (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying that the reference to liquid in the Ink article shouldn't be changed.  Frotz (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am, but that is a conversation for that article.  Pzavon (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted that question to Talk:Ink.  Now to wait for some answers.  Frotz (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There can be, depending on the quality of paper, toner and machinery used.  Pzavon (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ink category 

message: The reference provided for the recently added section titled Availability seems to be improperly structured and I wonder about its relevance, in particular, to the claim that one partucular copnay is the "acknowledged" leader.  Is anyone familiar enough with this source to a) ensure that the structure of the reference is correct, and b) to confirm or refute this addition as being relevant to the assertion?  Pzavon (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Availibility 

message: It appears there are conflicting statements in the clean up section. Toner can or cannot be cleaned/removed from clothing? JPP355 (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of that section is it can be removed if and only if it hasn't been fused to the clothing. Because toner is designed to be fused at relatively low temperatures it is easy to fuse it by accident during cleanup attempts making it nearly impossible to remove. Plugwash (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: Fact is that fine dust can pass filters and enter the motor. But the claim that the "special" electrostatic property of toner will make it charge itself inside vacuum cleaners until arcing causes self-ignition is at least very controversal, if not an urban legend. (Household vacuum cleaners are not strong enough to cause that much friction by air flow.)
Others claim the opposite is true, namely that the carbon black (soot) and iron in toner is electrically conductive. It is only coated with a thin layer of insulating wax or polymer that will melt inside the motor and so short out the commutator. The resulting short circuit may ignite the wax and toner dust and so start a fire. Melting toner may also completely clog the motor filter or jam bearings and so make the motor overheat.
see http://www.dansdata.com/sbs16.htm
The ESD risk is rather that ICs (e.g. of the printer's electonics) may get damaged by touching them with a charged vacuum cleaner nozzle while vacuuming toner spills inside the printer or copier.
85.212.71.195 (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toner kills vacuum cleaners? (not by static charge) 

message: I read somewhere that printing on the other side of the paper is not recommended because it can refuse the earlier printed toner and damage the machinery.
Is that a real risk?
Does it apply to documents printed in different laser printer models or only to documents printed in the same printer model?
--Error (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double-side printing