any suggestions for a low power draw... laser printer?

[danny burstein]

I've been helping out with some computing, and associated printing,
in off-grid locations. Generally we've managed by using a couple
of regular 12 V car batteries [a] and modest priced inverters
on a roll-around cart.

The problem is that we have to use a dot matrix printer, since
laser types use a lot of power, and have pretty high, make
that pretty damn high, starting surges.

(They also might be less tolerant of the modified square wave
these inverters generate).

Anyway, we'd much prefer to use a laser printer for the
better quality, performance, and print options.

Anyone have experience with hooking one up in this type
of environment?

(Yes, I know I can use a ridiculously heavy and expensive
commercial grade multi-kw BMFUPS [b]. But that would weigh
more than my car. Ok, I'm exaggerating a bit, but just a little).

Thanks

[a] we're not deep-discharging, so don't have
to get the specialized batteries. In fact, we're
using marginal almost-thrown-our car ones...

[b] The "B" stands for "big".

_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

[Vaughn Simon]

Post by danny burstein
The problem is that we have to use a dot matrix printer, since
laser types use a lot of power, and have pretty high, make
that pretty damn high, starting surges.

Why have you not included ink jet printers in your consideration?

Vaughn
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
Will poofread for food.

[m***@privacy.net]

Post by danny burstein
The problem is that we have to use a dot matrix printer, since
laser types use a lot of power, and have pretty high, make
that pretty damn high, starting surges.

All the off grid types I know use ink jet strictly
cause of low power draw. Can run them off inverter etc.

Some reason you cant use ink jet?

[danny burstein]

Post by m***@privacy.net

Post by danny burstein
The problem is that we have to use a dot matrix printer, since
laser types use a lot of power, and have pretty high, make
that pretty damn high, starting surges.

All the off grid types I know use ink jet strictly
cause of low power draw. Can run them off inverter etc.
Some reason you cant use ink jet?

No particular reason, and that might be
a notch better than dot matrix (maybe...)
but we'd still rather have the faster speed
and much higher quality, including iamges...
that we can get from lasers.

THanks.

[m***@privacy.net]

Post by danny burstein

Post by m***@privacy.net
Some reason you cant use ink jet?

No particular reason, and that might be
a notch better than dot matrix (maybe...)
but we'd still rather have the faster speed
and much higher quality, including iamges...
that we can get from lasers.

OK

Well I don't know exact current draw from an inkjet but
I do know several people who live in their vans and
RV's full time and use ink jet cause it must have very
low power requirement

[Vaughn Simon]

Post by danny burstein

Post by m***@privacy.net
Some reason you cant use ink jet?

No particular reason, and that might be
a notch better than dot matrix (maybe...)

A "notch" better? Your average cheap Ink jet printer is many notches better
than any dot matrix printer I have ever owned, in every respect except for
(possibly) per-page operating cost.

Vaughn
Nothing personal, but if you are posting through Google Groups I may not receive
your message. Google refuses to control the flood of spam messages originating
in their system, so on any given day I may or may not have Google blocked. Try
a real NNTP server & news reader program and you will never go back. All you
need is access to an NNTP server (AKA "news server") and a news reader program.
You probably already have a news reader program in your computer (Hint: Outlook
Express). Assuming that your Usenet needs are modest, use
http://news.aioe.org/ for free and/or http://www.teranews.com/ for a one-time
$3.95 setup fee.
Will poofread for food.

[Neon John]

Post by m***@privacy.net

Post by danny burstein
The problem is that we have to use a dot matrix printer, since
laser types use a lot of power, and have pretty high, make
that pretty damn high, starting surges.

All the off grid types I know use ink jet strictly
cause of low power draw. Can run them off inverter etc.

No doubt an inkjet uses less power - my HP PhotoSmart 1315 only draws 51 watts
max vs my Brother laser printer's almost 1600 [for less than a second] - but I
became curious as to which uses less energy.

Power is an issue only of inverter size but energy affects the whole system.

I used the same 20 page PDF document to test my inkjet printer that I used to
test my laser printer. (see my previous post and blog) I used the same Watts
Up Pro. The results were interesting.

The laser printer took 39 seconds to print the document, including warming the
fuser. It used 7.7 watt-hours. Backing out the warm-up energy, the actual
print job used 5.3 watt-hours.

The inkjet used 3.0 watt-hours to print the same document. The max wattage
during the print cycle was only 44 watts. The difference is the time
involved. The inkjet printer (in draft mode) took many minutes to print the
document. To print at the same quality (normal mode) as the laser printer,
the inkjet printer would take probably twice as long. If the time is indeed
twice the draft speed then the total watt-hours would be 6.

Thus, the laser and inkjet printers are neck and neck on total energy used.
Even more interesting is that the standby power is also close - 5.3 watts with
the LCD backlight on, 4.2 watts with it off. The laser printer uses around
6.5 watts in sleep mode.

So. One can conclude that while the laser printer uses far more POWER
(affecting the size inverter needed) than the inkjet, the ENERGY use is about
the same.

My Brother laser printer will probably work fine on a 1kW inverter with a
decent surge rating. If I get a round tuit, I'll dig out a 1kW inverter and
find out.

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Beware the lollipop of mediocrity. Lick once and you suck forever.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

Post by Neon John
I used the same 20 page PDF document to test my inkjet printer that I used to
test my laser printer. (see my previous post and blog) I used the same Watts
Up Pro. The results were interesting.
The laser printer took 39 seconds to print the document, including warming the
fuser. It used 7.7 watt-hours. Backing out the warm-up energy, the actual
print job used 5.3 watt-hours.
The inkjet used 3.0 watt-hours to print the same document. The max wattage
during the print cycle was only 44 watts. The difference is the time
involved. The inkjet printer (in draft mode) took many minutes to print the
document. To print at the same quality (normal mode) as the laser printer,
the inkjet printer would take probably twice as long. If the time is indeed
twice the draft speed then the total watt-hours would be 6.
Thus, the laser and inkjet printers are neck and neck on total energy used.
Even more interesting is that the standby power is also close - 5.3 watts with
the LCD backlight on, 4.2 watts with it off. The laser printer uses around
6.5 watts in sleep mode.
So. One can conclude that while the laser printer uses far more POWER
(affecting the size inverter needed) than the inkjet, the ENERGY use is about
the same.

That is a lot lower energy consumption than my laser (actually LED) Okidata
color printer. I have a much simpler Watts up? meter with no recording
capability. But eyeballing it shows about 910 watts while the fuser is
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws
about 16 watts.

--ron

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by Neon John
I used the same 20 page PDF document to test my inkjet printer that I used to
test my laser printer. (see my previous post and blog) I used the same Watts
Up Pro. The results were interesting.
The laser printer took 39 seconds to print the document, including warming the
fuser. It used 7.7 watt-hours. Backing out the warm-up energy, the actual
print job used 5.3 watt-hours.
The inkjet used 3.0 watt-hours to print the same document. The max wattage
during the print cycle was only 44 watts. The difference is the time
involved. The inkjet printer (in draft mode) took many minutes to print the
document. To print at the same quality (normal mode) as the laser printer,
the inkjet printer would take probably twice as long. If the time is indeed
twice the draft speed then the total watt-hours would be 6.
Thus, the laser and inkjet printers are neck and neck on total energy used.
Even more interesting is that the standby power is also close - 5.3 watts with
the LCD backlight on, 4.2 watts with it off. The laser printer uses around
6.5 watts in sleep mode.
So. One can conclude that while the laser printer uses far more POWER
(affecting the size inverter needed) than the inkjet, the ENERGY use is about
the same.

That is a lot lower energy consumption than my laser (actually LED) Okidata
color printer. I have a much simpler Watts up? meter with no recording
capability. But eyeballing it shows about 910 watts while the fuser is
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws
about 16 watts.
--ron

Yep, the amateur strikes again. The information is pretty useless with
out knowing how long it took to do the printing.

[stu]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
That is a lot lower energy consumption than my laser (actually LED) Okidata
color printer. I have a much simpler Watts up? meter with no recording
capability. But eyeballing it shows about 910 watts while the fuser is
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws
about 16 watts.
--ron

Yep, the amateur strikes again. The information is pretty useless with
out knowing how long it took to do the printing.

Umm 34 watt-hrs is 34 watt-hr, about 5 times as much energy as NJ's printer
used. Whats the print time got to do with it?.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
That is a lot lower energy consumption than my laser (actually LED)

Okidata

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
color printer. I have a much simpler Watts up? meter with no recording
capability. But eyeballing it shows about 910 watts while the fuser is
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws
about 16 watts.
--ron

Yep, the amateur strikes again. The information is pretty useless with
out knowing how long it took to do the printing.

Umm 34 watt-hrs is 34 watt-hr, about 5 times as much energy as NJ's printer
used. Whats the print time got to do with it?.

Well it is a large difference between 34Wh over the space of an hour
as opposed to 34Wh over the space of 10 minutes.

Time is important.

[w***@citlink.net]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by stu

Post by b***@gmail.com
The information is pretty useless with
out knowing how long it took to do the printing.

Umm 34 watt-hrs is 34 watt-hr, about 5 times as much energy as NJ's printer
used. Whats the print time got to do with it?.

Well it is a large difference between 34Wh over the space of an hour
as opposed to 34Wh over the space of 10 minutes.

Oh sure, readers can hardly blame you for thinking of those 20 page
per hour laser printers. Latest ghinius pearl of wisdumb added to
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm

Post by b***@gmail.com
Time is important.

Not as important as reading comprehension or being smart enough to own
up to a blunder. Ever think of writing "oops" or "d'oh" instead of
another quackish excuse?

Wayne

[Ron Rosenfeld]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
That is a lot lower energy consumption than my laser (actually LED)

Okidata

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
color printer. I have a much simpler Watts up? meter with no recording
capability. But eyeballing it shows about 910 watts while the fuser is
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws
about 16 watts.
--ron

Yep, the amateur strikes again. The information is pretty useless with
out knowing how long it took to do the printing.

Umm 34 watt-hrs is 34 watt-hr, about 5 times as much energy as NJ's printer
used. Whats the print time got to do with it?.

Ah stu,

You have just had a small exposure to the wit and wisdumb of George "the
Troll" Ghio, also known as the "Blunder from Down Under", a self-proclaimed
"solar power consultant" whose postings are a curious mix of ignorance,
insults and piffle. Described nine years ago by Nick Pine as a "PV nitwit"
and an "idiot", he has progressed and more recently been characterized by
Wayne as a "true Renaissance nitwit". His confusion regarding power,
energy, volts, amps and watts is legendary, but extends well beyond these
areas.

Some of the more fascinating properties of his postings:

He will frequently attach sobriquets and epithets (note the word "amateur",
above) in a deluded attempt to impute significance to his farcical
comments.

Once in a great while, a new piece of information takes up residence in his
repertoire. After arrival, it is considered to have been there for
eternity, with no recollection of its source.

You can be entertained by more of his balderdash here:
http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm
--ron

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
That is a lot lower energy consumption than my laser (actually LED)

Okidata

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
color printer. I have a much simpler Watts up? meter with no recording
capability. But eyeballing it shows about 910 watts while the fuser is
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws
about 16 watts.
--ron

Yep, the amateur strikes again. The information is pretty useless with
out knowing how long it took to do the printing.

Umm 34 watt-hrs is 34 watt-hr, about 5 times as much energy as NJ's printer
used. Whats the print time got to do with it?.

Ok, look at it this way.

200+ pages not 20, so Johns laser might do this in 6.5min while his
inkjet took many minutes lets say 5min to print 20pages (50min for
200P).

Laser - 5.3Wh to print 20 pages - 53Wh to print 200 pages(not
including warm up)

Inkjet - 6Wh to print 20 pages - 60Wh to print 200 pages

To Ron's

Inkjet - 34Wh to print 20 pages - 340Wh to print 200 pages.

Time is important when using Watts.

[daestrom]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by stu

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
That is a lot lower energy consumption than my laser (actually
LED) Okidata color printer. I have a much simpler Watts up? meter
with no recording capability. But eyeballing it shows about 910
watts while the fuser is heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed
b/w and color it used about 34 watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long
that took). In standby mode it draws about 16 watts.
--ron

Yep, the amateur strikes again. The information is pretty useless
with out knowing how long it took to do the printing.

Umm 34 watt-hrs is 34 watt-hr, about 5 times as much energy as NJ's
printer used. Whats the print time got to do with it?.

Ok, look at it this way.
200+ pages not 20, so Johns laser might do this in 6.5min while his
inkjet took many minutes lets say 5min to print 20pages (50min for
200P).
Laser - 5.3Wh to print 20 pages - 53Wh to print 200 pages(not
including warm up)
Inkjet - 6Wh to print 20 pages - 60Wh to print 200 pages
To Ron's
Inkjet - 34Wh to print 20 pages - 340Wh to print 200 pages.
Time is important when using Watts.

Too bad you failed to notice that we're talking Watt-hours, not Watts.

Neon started out by comparing the POWER of the two types of printers with
the ENERGY used to print the same document. Ron pointed out his printer
uses *more energy* to print a 20 page document compared to Neon John's 20
page document.

Learn to look for those little 'h's after the big 'W's

daestrom

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by daestrom

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by stu

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
That is a lot lower energy consumption than my laser (actually
LED) Okidata color printer. I have a much simpler Watts up? meter
with no recording capability. But eyeballing it shows about 910
watts while the fuser is heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed
b/w and color it used about 34 watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long
that took). In standby mode it draws about 16 watts.
--ron

Yep, the amateur strikes again. The information is pretty useless
with out knowing how long it took to do the printing.

Umm 34 watt-hrs is 34 watt-hr, about 5 times as much energy as NJ's
printer used. Whats the print time got to do with it?.

Ok, look at it this way.
200+ pages not 20, so Johns laser might do this in 6.5min while his
inkjet took many minutes lets say 5min to print 20pages (50min for
200P).
Laser - 5.3Wh to print 20 pages - 53Wh to print 200 pages(not
including warm up)
Inkjet - 6Wh to print 20 pages - 60Wh to print 200 pages
To Ron's
Inkjet - 34Wh to print 20 pages - 340Wh to print 200 pages.
Time is important when using Watts.

Too bad you failed to notice that we're talking Watt-hours, not Watts.
Neon started out by comparing the POWER of the two types of printers with
the ENERGY used to print the same document. Ron pointed out his printer
uses *more energy* to print a 20 page document compared to Neon John's 20
page document.
Learn to look for those little 'h's after the big 'W's
daestrom

Ah, that's the whole point though. Watts and time = Whs

The difference between printers is the time to do X number of pages.
There is a point where a laser will use less Watt hours than an
inkjet. That point is measured in, would you believe it, time measured
in minutes or hours.

John gave a number for the laser printer compared to number of pages
and a time frame for the job. He guessed a time frame for the inkjet.

Ron just gave a totally useless figure not related to the time taken
to do the job. His information is not of any use in comparisons
because it is incomplete.

When looking at a job that takes an amount of time to complete and
comparing two types of equipment, the time taken to do the work is
important.

In this case, if printing is a large part of your work, the time taken
to do the job for a given amount of energy can mean a significant
savings in both energy and time by choosing the correct machine.

[stu]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ron just gave a totally useless figure not related to the time taken
to do the job. His information is not of any use in comparisons
because it is incomplete.

No he didn't. He said

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by stu

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ron just gave a totally useless figure not related to the time taken
to do the job. His information is not of any use in comparisons
because it is incomplete.

No he didn't. He said

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws

Stu. How long did it take to use 34 Whs? How many watts does the
printer use?

The information given is incomplete for a comparison with Johns
example.

The only conclusion one can come to is that Ron paid no attention to
the printer's energy use when he bought it.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

Post by stu

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ron just gave a totally useless figure not related to the time taken
to do the job. His information is not of any use in comparisons
because it is incomplete.

No he didn't. He said

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws

Stu,

As you and others have properly noted, John was comparing energy usage by
his different printers, and that is what I addressed.

Among his other limitations, George's current postings demonstrate that he
has no idea how to compare energy usage of different printers.

He has demonstrated this confusion before, and attempts to correct him have
uniformly proved futile. I hope you have more success.
--ron

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by stu

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ron just gave a totally useless figure not related to the time taken
to do the job. His information is not of any use in comparisons
because it is incomplete.

No he didn't. He said

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws

Stu,
As you and others have properly noted, John was comparing energy usage by
his different printers, and that is what I addressed.
Among his other limitations, George's current postings demonstrate that he
has no idea how to compare energy usage of different printers.
He has demonstrated this confusion before, and attempts to correct him have
uniformly proved futile. I hope you have more success.
--ron

Lying about numbers. Again.

How long did it take your printer to use 34Whs.

Also, why would you buy a printer with such a energy use, on or off
grid?

[Ron Rosenfeld]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by stu

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ron just gave a totally useless figure not related to the time taken
to do the job. His information is not of any use in comparisons
because it is incomplete.

No he didn't. He said

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws

Stu,
As you and others have properly noted, John was comparing energy usage by
his different printers, and that is what I addressed.
Among his other limitations, George's current postings demonstrate that he
has no idea how to compare energy usage of different printers.
He has demonstrated this confusion before, and attempts to correct him have
uniformly proved futile. I hope you have more success.
--ron

Lying about numbers. Again.

I note the addition of a meaningless insult in a futile attempt to give
some credence to your idiotic posting.

Post by b***@gmail.com
How long did it take your printer to use 34Whs.

Of course, you can't explain why this makes a difference in determining
energy use for a laser printer doing a 20 page job. That's because you are
still confused about energy, as well as power, volts and amps, to name just
a few areas.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Also, why would you buy a printer with such a energy use, on or off
grid?

Irrelevant piffle added on in an attempt to change the subject from that of
his incompetence.

--ron

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by stu

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ron just gave a totally useless figure not related to the time taken
to do the job. His information is not of any use in comparisons
because it is incomplete.

No he didn't. He said

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws

Stu,
As you and others have properly noted, John was comparing energy usage by
his different printers, and that is what I addressed.
Among his other limitations, George's current postings demonstrate that he
has no idea how to compare energy usage of different printers.
He has demonstrated this confusion before, and attempts to correct him have
uniformly proved futile. I hope you have more success.
--ron

Lying about numbers. Again.

I note the addition of a meaningless insult in a futile attempt to give
some credence to your idiotic posting.

Post by b***@gmail.com
How long did it take your printer to use 34Whs.

Of course, you can't explain why this makes a difference in determining
energy use for a laser printer doing a 20 page job. That's because you are
still confused about energy, as well as power, volts and amps, to name just
a few areas.

Lying about numbers again. Of course all print jobs are 20 pages.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com
Also, why would you buy a printer with such a energy use, on or off
grid?

Irrelevant piffle added on in an attempt to change the subject from that of
his incompetence.

No, a direct and to the point of your ability.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
--ron

[Ron Rosenfeld]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by stu

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ron just gave a totally useless figure not related to the time taken
to do the job. His information is not of any use in comparisons
because it is incomplete.

No he didn't. He said

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws

Stu,
As you and others have properly noted, John was comparing energy usage by
his different printers, and that is what I addressed.
Among his other limitations, George's current postings demonstrate that he
has no idea how to compare energy usage of different printers.
He has demonstrated this confusion before, and attempts to correct him have
uniformly proved futile. I hope you have more success.
--ron

Lying about numbers. Again.

I note the addition of a meaningless insult in a futile attempt to give
some credence to your idiotic posting.

Post by b***@gmail.com
How long did it take your printer to use 34Whs.

Of course, you can't explain why this makes a difference in determining
energy use for a laser printer doing a 20 page job. That's because you are
still confused about energy, as well as power, volts and amps, to name just
a few areas.

Lying about numbers again. Of course all print jobs are 20 pages.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com
Also, why would you buy a printer with such a energy use, on or off
grid?

Irrelevant piffle added on in an attempt to change the subject from that of
his incompetence.

No, a direct and to the point of your ability.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
--ron

Note the ongoing crying of insults in attempt to divert attention from his
ignorance and mistakes.

And still no explanation of how energy usage will be different if 34
Watt-hours are consumed in 2 minutes vs 10 minutes.

Written like a true Renaissance nitwit.

What a joke.
--ron

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by stu

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ron just gave a totally useless figure not related to the time taken
to do the job. His information is not of any use in comparisons
because it is incomplete.

No he didn't. He said

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws

Stu,
As you and others have properly noted, John was comparing energy usage by
his different printers, and that is what I addressed.
Among his other limitations, George's current postings demonstrate that he
has no idea how to compare energy usage of different printers.
He has demonstrated this confusion before, and attempts to correct him have
uniformly proved futile. I hope you have more success.
--ron

Lying about numbers. Again.

I note the addition of a meaningless insult in a futile attempt to give
some credence to your idiotic posting.

Post by b***@gmail.com
How long did it take your printer to use 34Whs.

Of course, you can't explain why this makes a difference in determining
energy use for a laser printer doing a 20 page job. That's because you are
still confused about energy, as well as power, volts and amps, to name just
a few areas.

Lying about numbers again. Of course all print jobs are 20 pages.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com
Also, why would you buy a printer with such a energy use, on or off
grid?

Irrelevant piffle added on in an attempt to change the subject from that of
his incompetence.

No, a direct and to the point of your ability.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
--ron

Note the ongoing crying of insults in attempt to divert attention from his
ignorance and mistakes.
And still no explanation of how energy usage will be different if 34
Watt-hours are consumed in 2 minutes vs 10 minutes.

Didn't say it would. But John had the decency to include the run times
which make it possible to do forward projections for energy use
comparisons for different job size run times. Handy to have that info
when you are looking at a new printer.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
Written like a true Renaissance nitwit.
What a joke.
--ron

[Ron Rosenfeld]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
And still no explanation of how energy usage will be different if 34
Watt-hours are consumed in 2 minutes vs 10 minutes.

Didn't say it would.

Oh, I see. That's why when, in a discussion about energy usage of laser vs
ink-jet printers, I posted indicating that for a 20 page job (same size as
Neon John's job), my printer used 34 watt-hours, you posted the following

Post by b***@gmail.com
The information is pretty useless with
out knowing how long it took to do the printing.
Well it is a large difference between 34Wh over the space of an hour
as opposed to 34Wh over the space of 10 minutes.
Time is important.
Time is important when using Watts.
... information is not of any use in comparisons because it is incomplete.

Now you've switched gears and are claiming you are interested in projecting

Post by b***@gmail.com
But John had the decency to include the run times
which make it possible to do forward projections for energy use
comparisons for different job size run times. Handy to have that info
when you are looking at a new printer.

You don't need run time information to project energy use for different job
sizes. All you need is energy use per page printed, which you can obtain
by simple division from what I posted (20 pages; 34 watt-hours).

If you are interested now (which was NOT the point of Neon John's posting,
even though he included it) in print job run times, with a color laser
printer, that is going to vary depending on the mix of color and black &
white on the page, and the amount of print on the page, the resolution
used, etc. I don't know of any good way to predict this in advance. The
mfg ratings are probably overly optimistic in this regard ("up to" 16 ppm
in full color; "up to" 24 ppm in B&W).

--ron

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
And still no explanation of how energy usage will be different if 34
Watt-hours are consumed in 2 minutes vs 10 minutes.

Didn't say it would.

Oh, I see. That's why when, in a discussion about energy usage of laser vs
ink-jet printers, I posted indicating that for a 20 page job (same size as
Neon John's job), my printer used 34 watt-hours, you posted the following

Post by b***@gmail.com
The information is pretty useless with
out knowing how long it took to do the printing.
Well it is a large difference between 34Wh over the space of an hour
as opposed to 34Wh over the space of 10 minutes.
Time is important.
Time is important when using Watts.
... information is not of any use in comparisons because it is incomplete.

Because it is.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
Now you've switched gears and are claiming you are interested in projecting

That is not a switch at all. Printers are used for all size jobs. I
regularly print 200+ pages. Knowing how long it take to print 20 pages
and the and the energy used one can project energy use for longer
times. With out the time it took your printer to do the job no
comparison is possible other than your printer was bought for looks/
price with no regard to energy use.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com
But John had the decency to include the run times
which make it possible to do forward projections for energy use
comparisons for different job size run times. Handy to have that info
when you are looking at a new printer.

You don't need run time information to project energy use for different job
sizes. All you need is energy use per page printed, which you can obtain
by simple division from what I posted (20 pages; 34 watt-hours).

Not true, in fact it is just lying about numbers, Again.

200+ pages not 20, so Johns laser might do this in 6.5min while his
inkjet took many minutes lets say 5min to print 20pages (50min for
200P).

Laser - 5.3Wh to print 20 pages - 53Wh to print 200 pages(not
including warm up)

Inkjet - 6Wh to print 20 pages - 60Wh to print 200 pages

The time taken to do the job can mean that a 1000W laser is a better
choice for energy use than a 200W inkjet.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
If you are interested now (which was NOT the point of Neon John's posting,
even though he included it) in print job run times, with a color laser
printer, that is going to vary depending on the mix of color and black &
white on the page, and the amount of print on the page, the resolution
used, etc. I don't know of any good way to predict this in advance. The
mfg ratings are probably overly optimistic in this regard ("up to" 16 ppm
in full color; "up to" 24 ppm in B&W).

Yes, it has been noted that you are unable to do many things.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
And still no explanation of how energy usage will be different if 34
Watt-hours are consumed in 2 minutes vs 10 minutes.

Didn't say it would.

Oh, I see. That's why when, in a discussion about energy usage of laser vs
ink-jet printers, I posted indicating that for a 20 page job (same size as
Neon John's job), my printer used 34 watt-hours, you posted the following

Post by b***@gmail.com
The information is pretty useless with
out knowing how long it took to do the printing.
Well it is a large difference between 34Wh over the space of an hour
as opposed to 34Wh over the space of 10 minutes.

Well, tell us what the "large difference" in energy usage is "between 34Wh
over the space of an hour as opposed to 34Wh over the space of 10 minutes."

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
Now you've switched gears and are claiming you are interested in projecting

That is not a switch at all. Printers are used for all size jobs. I
regularly print 200+ pages. Knowing how long it take to print 20 pages
and the and the energy used one can project energy use for longer
times. With out the time it took your printer to do the job no
comparison is possible other than your printer was bought for looks/
price with no regard to energy use.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
You don't need run time information to project energy use for different job
sizes. All you need is energy use per page printed, which you can obtain
by simple division from what I posted (20 pages; 34 watt-hours).

Not true, in fact it is just lying about numbers, Again.

There you go with insults again, trying to lend credence to your piffle,
when it is clear you are unable to express yourself clearly.

But if you answer the previous question about the large difference in
energy usage "between 34Wh over the space of an hour as opposed to 34Wh
over the space of 10 minutes", maybe something will get jarred loose.

Post by b***@gmail.com
200+ pages not 20, so Johns laser might do this in 6.5min while his
inkjet took many minutes lets say 5min to print 20pages (50min for
200P).
Laser - 5.3Wh to print 20 pages - 53Wh to print 200 pages(not
including warm up)
Inkjet - 6Wh to print 20 pages - 60Wh to print 200 pages
The time taken to do the job can mean that a 1000W laser is a better
choice for energy use than a 200W inkjet.

Show how that works, given that we already know the energy usage.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
If you are interested now (which was NOT the point of Neon John's posting,
even though he included it) in print job run times, with a color laser
printer, that is going to vary depending on the mix of color and black &
white on the page, and the amount of print on the page, the resolution
used, etc. I don't know of any good way to predict this in advance. The
mfg ratings are probably overly optimistic in this regard ("up to" 16 ppm
in full color; "up to" 24 ppm in B&W).

Yes, it has been noted that you are unable to do many things.

It has been noted many times that you are a true Renaissance nitwit.

And there are many things you are clearly unable to do, as noted here:

http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm


--ron

[w***@citlink.net]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:36:34 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld

Post by Ron Rosenfeld

Post by b***@gmail.com
His information is not of any use in comparisons
because it is incomplete.

Of course, you can't explain why this makes a difference in determining
energy use for a laser printer doing a 20 page job. That's because you are
still confused about energy, as well as power, volts and amps, to name just
a few areas.

How *does* a "power consultant", who believes that appliance labels
can be used to estimate energy consumption, measure the energy use of
a laser printer? He seems to be implying that if he knew the time, he
could deduce average power from a Wh number, which he would then
erroneously apply to a different print job. Which begs the question -
why not simply divide the 34Wh by the number of pages, and estimate
larger jobs using a crude per-page figure? I wonder if this nitwit has
ever calculated *anything* useful. Such as, how many hundreds of
KillaWatts he could have purchased if he'd invested his time flipping
burgers instead of wasting it on Usenet futilely arguing against the
concept of energy meters.

Wayne

[w***@citlink.net]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by daestrom

Post by b***@gmail.com
Time is important when using Watts.

Too bad you failed to notice that we're talking Watt-hours, not Watts.

Ron just gave a totally useless figure not related to the time taken
to do the job.
His information is not of any use in comparisons because it is incomplete.

BS. He gave the two most important numbers needed - total energy and
peak power. Besides, considering the context (a 20 page run on a laser
printer), the time variation couldn't be more than a few minutes, not
the ridiculous hour you argued. The facts are:

1. You failed to comprehend the energy number, same old same-old.
2. You won't admit the error, and instead penned one of your classic
moronic excuses: 10X1=10.
3. You don't have an energy meter, have argued against their use and
purpose, and therefore can't properly measure or discuss the energy
consumption of any variable-power appliance such as a laser printer.
4. You can't contribute anything useful to this or any other thread
because you're too busy pigheadedly pretending to be something you're
not.

http://www.citlink.net/~wmbjk/tbfduwisdumb.htm
http://www.lowexpecations.com/

Wayne

[Neon John]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
That is a lot lower energy consumption than my laser (actually LED) Okidata
color printer. I have a much simpler Watts up? meter with no recording
capability. But eyeballing it shows about 910 watts while the fuser is
heating; and to print 20 pages of mixed b/w and color it used about 34
watt-hrs. (I didn't time how long that took). In standby mode it draws
about 16 watts.

Sounds like you need to trade in that pig for something newer! Or get you a
separate printer for B/W. This Brother was less than $200 out the door of
Staples. An impulse buy. Sort of. One of my clients bought one and I liked
it so well that I bought one for myself.

You can go to my blog and download the raw data if you want to see how the
printer actually performed. The free software to play with the data is
available from the Watts Up company. The data is also included in an Excel
spreadsheet.

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources -Albert Einstein

[Ron Rosenfeld]

Post by Neon John
Sounds like you need to trade in that pig for something newer! Or get you a
separate printer for B/W. This Brother was less than $200 out the door of
Staples. An impulse buy. Sort of. One of my clients bought one and I liked
it so well that I bought one for myself.
You can go to my blog and download the raw data if you want to see how the
printer actually performed. The free software to play with the data is
available from the Watts Up company. The data is also included in an Excel
spreadsheet.

The printer is a few years old. And I do like the color output. It sure
would be nice if mfg's would provide actual electricity consumption values,
so we could do these kinds of comparisons without having to actually set
one up and run it.

And yes, I had looked at the data at your web site after you posted it
before. Thanks for having posted that. It is quite interesting.
--ron

[Neon John]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
The printer is a few years old. And I do like the color output.

That was a little tongue in cheek :-) The dinosaur quip, I mean. I use my
ink jet for color output because I need photo quality most of the time but I'd
love to have a color laser too.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
It sure
would be nice if mfg's would provide actual electricity consumption values,
so we could do these kinds of comparisons without having to actually set
one up and run it.

I'm not sure how they'd present the data, short of a graph like I presented.
The peak power draw would be useful for inverter sizing but that's not nearly
the whole story. The fuser reheat cycle will vary fairly widely, depending on
the room temperature. I see that happening here, as the CF lamp plugged into
the same outlet strobes a little every time the fuser heater fires. I like my
house very cool in the winter. When it's in the low 60s, the fuser heater
fires every few seconds.

Since the fuser heater dominates the power consumption, even an average value
would have to be presented as a table of consumption vs ambient. Since for
the most part, only off-gridders and mobile users even care, I can see why the
mfrs don't go to the trouble of collecting and publishing this kind of data.

I can foresee another problem, at least in this screwed up litigious country.
Once they publish official specs, they're open to legal action if they change
them, disclaimers in the fine print notwithstanding.

Some chucklehead filing a suit against Brother because they changed their
fuser heater algorithm and the printer doesn't conform to specs they might
publish would surely lose but in the process Brother would pay out lots o
bucks to their lawyers. I work occasionally as an expert witness so I've seen
some doozies.

The lawyers and "consumerists" are ruining things in ways too numerous to
count.

John

--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
The profligate use of energy is the sign of a healthy, expanding civilization.
Conservation is a leap backward toward the caves.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

Post by Neon John
I'm not sure how they'd present the data, short of a graph like I presented.

That would be OK by me.

Post by Neon John
The peak power draw would be useful for inverter sizing but that's not nearly
the whole story. The fuser reheat cycle will vary fairly widely, depending on
the room temperature. I see that happening here, as the CF lamp plugged into
the same outlet strobes a little every time the fuser heater fires. I like my
house very cool in the winter. When it's in the low 60s, the fuser heater
fires every few seconds.
Since the fuser heater dominates the power consumption, even an average value
would have to be presented as a table of consumption vs ambient. Since for
the most part, only off-gridders and mobile users even care, I can see why the
mfrs don't go to the trouble of collecting and publishing this kind of data.

My use pattern is different. My printer spends most of its time in
"stand-by" or, as OKI calls it "power-saving" mode. The fact that the
delay until entering this mode is programmable (down to 5 minutes, if I
recall correctly), is a plus. But the fact that it consumes 16 watts in
that mode makes it a major consumer also (over the course of the day).

So I turn the printer off when not using it, instead of letting it loaf
<shrug>.

Post by Neon John
I can foresee another problem, at least in this screwed up litigious country.
Once they publish official specs, they're open to legal action if they change
them, disclaimers in the fine print notwithstanding.
Some chucklehead filing a suit against Brother because they changed their
fuser heater algorithm and the printer doesn't conform to specs they might
publish would surely lose but in the process Brother would pay out lots o
bucks to their lawyers. I work occasionally as an expert witness so I've seen
some doozies.
The lawyers and "consumerists" are ruining things in ways too numerous to
count.

Don't get me started!
--ron

[Solar Flare]

Some of the new colour laser printers incorporate a waxy heat thermal ink
and do a much better job at analogue graphics like photos.

On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 06:18:47 -0400, Ron Rosenfeld

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
The printer is a few years old. And I do like the color output.

That was a little tongue in cheek :-) The dinosaur quip, I mean. I use my
ink jet for color output because I need photo quality most of the time but I'd
love to have a color laser too.

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
It sure
would be nice if mfg's would provide actual electricity consumption values,
so we could do these kinds of comparisons without having to actually set
one up and run it.

I'm not sure how they'd present the data, short of a graph like I presented.
The peak power draw would be useful for inverter sizing but that's not nearly
the whole story. The fuser reheat cycle will vary fairly widely, depending on
the room temperature. I see that happening here, as the CF lamp plugged into
the same outlet strobes a little every time the fuser heater fires. I like my
house very cool in the winter. When it's in the low 60s, the fuser heater
fires every few seconds.
Since the fuser heater dominates the power consumption, even an average value
would have to be presented as a table of consumption vs ambient. Since for
the most part, only off-gridders and mobile users even care, I can see why the
mfrs don't go to the trouble of collecting and publishing this kind of data.
I can foresee another problem, at least in this screwed up litigious country.
Once they publish official specs, they're open to legal action if they change
them, disclaimers in the fine print notwithstanding.
Some chucklehead filing a suit against Brother because they changed their
fuser heater algorithm and the printer doesn't conform to specs they might
publish would surely lose but in the process Brother would pay out lots o
bucks to their lawyers. I work occasionally as an expert witness so I've seen
some doozies.
The lawyers and "consumerists" are ruining things in ways too numerous to
count.
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
The profligate use of energy is the sign of a healthy, expanding civilization.
Conservation is a leap backward toward the caves.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:32:40 -0400, "Solar Flare"

Post by Solar Flare
Some of the new colour laser printers incorporate a waxy heat thermal ink
and do a much better job at analogue graphics like photos.

Do you have any make/model info? I'm always looking for a better color
laser printer. And if it also used less power than the one I have, that
would be a plus.
--ron

[Neon John]

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:32:40 -0400, "Solar Flare"

Post by Solar Flare
Some of the new colour laser printers incorporate a waxy heat thermal ink
and do a much better job at analogue graphics like photos.

Do you have any make/model info? I'm always looking for a better color
laser printer. And if it also used less power than the one I have, that
would be a plus.

Solar farts again. Those were the old Tektronix printers that some other
company (xerox?) bought out. I used to have one. The "ink" comes in a waxy
stick, one for each color. Tek used to give away the black ink to encourage
more use.

Photo reproduction is not in the same league with inkjets or even modern laser
printers. Each color wax had a different sheen. Unless looking directly at a
sheet of output, the image looked three dimensional, with each color having a
different "height".

They're great for multi-color such as multi-color text, pie charts and stuff
like that but not so good for 4 color process.

The very best 4 color process (photographs) output is still the dye transfer
printer. Even the one we had in our office 20 years ago printed photos that
were indistinguishable from the real thing, even under a magnifying glass.
There is no raster, no halftone and no dots. Just continuously variable
color. They're also very expensive to operate.

Nowadays, the commercial-quality inkjets designed for production output (the
big Epsons and HPs) are on par. One probably couldn't tell the difference
unless the two were side by side and you were looking through a microscope.

John

--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
I love cats ... they taste just like chicken.

[Ron Rosenfeld]

Post by Neon John

Post by Ron Rosenfeld
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:32:40 -0400, "Solar Flare"

Post by Solar Flare
Some of the new colour laser printers incorporate a waxy heat thermal ink
and do a much better job at analogue graphics like photos.

Do you have any make/model info? I'm always looking for a better color
laser printer. And if it also used less power than the one I have, that
would be a plus.

Solar farts again. Those were the old Tektronix printers that some other
company (xerox?) bought out. I used to have one. The "ink" comes in a waxy
stick, one for each color. Tek used to give away the black ink to encourage
more use.
The very best 4 color process (photographs) output is still the dye transfer
printer. Even the one we had in our office 20 years ago printed photos that
were indistinguishable from the real thing, even under a magnifying glass.
There is no raster, no halftone and no dots. Just continuously variable
color. They're also very expensive to operate.
Nowadays, the commercial-quality inkjets designed for production output (the
big Epsons and HPs) are on par. One probably couldn't tell the difference
unless the two were side by side and you were looking through a microscope.
John

Oh, I knew about the old "wax" printers. But he mentioned "new" and
"laser" so I thought there might be something new out there.

The dye transfer and commercial-quality inkjets are way out of my league.

My wife's Canon S9000 does a reasonable job on photos (for amateur work,
definitely not pro quality), and my interest is in multicolor documents.
--ron

[Neon John]

Post by danny burstein
I've been helping out with some computing, and associated printing,
in off-grid locations. Generally we've managed by using a couple
of regular 12 V car batteries [a] and modest priced inverters
on a roll-around cart.
The problem is that we have to use a dot matrix printer, since
laser types use a lot of power, and have pretty high, make
that pretty damn high, starting surges.
(They also might be less tolerant of the modified square wave
these inverters generate).
Anyway, we'd much prefer to use a laser printer for the
better quality, performance, and print options.
Anyone have experience with hooking one up in this type
of environment?

Yes, quite a bit, as a matter of fact. There are more bullsh*t rumors about
laser printers and inverters than I can count.

I first started running an HP LaserJet II on a pure square wave inverter about
20 years ago. Not a pseudo-sine inverter but a brute-force square wave,
produced by a "baseband" (60hz) Tripp-lite inverter. This thing was a simple
transformer-based blocking oscillator that ran at 60 hz, more or less.

The LaserJet ran just fine, as did my office's computers on another identical
inverter. These two inverters, a large bank of batteries and a 250 amp, 14
volt analog power supply from a Univac mainframe constituted my full-time UPS.

Fast-forward to the present. My current laser printer is a Brother HL-5250DN,
a sweet little printer that they practically give away. Supplies are fairly
inexpensive, far less expensive than HP crap.

I've just completed two runs with this printer and a Watts-Up ProES Plus power
logger. One run was using line power to demonstrate the characteristics of
the printer. The second run was via a long extension cord out to my
motorhome, connected to the 1500 watt Power-On-Board pseudo-sine inverter that
powers the rig. Needless to say, the printer worked just fine. I carry the
printer along with me on the road when I travel so this is old news.

You can read the details and download the data files on my blog,

http://www.johndearmond.com

John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Hell is truth seen too late. -Hobbs

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Neon John

Post by danny burstein
I've been helping out with some computing, and associated printing,
in off-grid locations. Generally we've managed by using a couple
of regular 12 V car batteries [a] and modest priced inverters
on a roll-around cart.
The problem is that we have to use a dot matrix printer, since
laser types use a lot of power, and have pretty high, make
that pretty damn high, starting surges.
(They also might be less tolerant of the modified square wave
these inverters generate).
Anyway, we'd much prefer to use a laser printer for the
better quality, performance, and print options.
Anyone have experience with hooking one up in this type
of environment?

Yes, quite a bit, as a matter of fact. There are more bullsh*t rumors about
laser printers and inverters than I can count.
I first started running an HP LaserJet II on a pure square wave inverter about
20 years ago. Not a pseudo-sine inverter but a brute-force square wave,
produced by a "baseband" (60hz) Tripp-lite inverter. This thing was a simple
transformer-based blocking oscillator that ran at 60 hz, more or less.
The LaserJet ran just fine, as did my office's computers on another identical
inverter. These two inverters, a large bank of batteries and a 250 amp, 14
volt analog power supply from a Univac mainframe constituted my full-time UPS.
Fast-forward to the present. My current laser printer is a Brother HL-5250DN,
a sweet little printer that they practically give away. Supplies are fairly
inexpensive, far less expensive than HP crap.
I've just completed two runs with this printer and a Watts-Up ProES Plus power
logger. One run was using line power to demonstrate the characteristics of
the printer. The second run was via a long extension cord out to my
motorhome, connected to the 1500 watt Power-On-Board pseudo-sine inverter that
powers the rig. Needless to say, the printer worked just fine. I carry the
printer along with me on the road when I travel so this is old news.
You can read the details and download the data files on my blog,
http://www.johndearmond.com
John
--
John De Armond
See my website for my current email addresshttp://www.neon-john.comhttp://www.johndearmond.com<-- best little blog on the net!
Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
Hell is truth seen too late. -Hobbs

John, you have left out the main concern of the OP. What is the
Wattage of your laser printer?