Patent Application
20140049580
The invention relates to the field of continuous ink jet (CIJ) printers, and more particularly to a method and a device for regulating or adjusting the stimulation of the ink jet.
It makes it possible to obtain a robust operation and controlled printing quality despite the variability of the implementation conditions, identified by various parameters: environmental conditions (measured in particular by the temperature), deflection amplitude, nature of the ink . . . .
Deflected continuous ink jet printheads comprise functional means that are well known by those skilled in the art.
The functionality of these different means is described below. The ink contained in the drop generator 1 escapes from at least one calibrated nozzle 10, thereby forming at least one ink jet 11. Under the action of a periodic stimulation device placed upstream of the nozzle (not shown), for example made up of a piezoelectric ceramic placed in the ink, the ink jet breaks off at regular temporal intervals, corresponding to the period of the stimulation signal, in a precise location of the jet downstream of the nozzle. This forced fragmentation of the ink jet is usually caused at a so-called “break-off” point 13 of the jet by the periodic vibrations of the stimulation device. The distance between the outlet of the nozzle and the so-called “break-off” point depends on the stimulation energy. Hereinafter, this size will be called the “break-off distance” or “break-off length,” and identified as BL. The stimulation energy is directly related to the amplitude of the electrical signal for controlling the ceramics.
At the location of this break-off point, the continuous jet turns into a line 11 of identical and regularly spaced drops of ink, at a temporal frequency identical to the frequency of the stimulation signal. For a given stimulation energy, any other parameter being stabilized moreover (in particular the viscosity of the ink), there is a precise (constant) phase relationship between the periodic stimulation signal and the break-off moment, which itself is periodic and has the same frequency as the stimulation signal.
This line of drops travels along a trajectory collinear to the ejection axis of the jet, which theoretically joins, by geometric construction, the center of the recovery gutter 20. The charge electrode 4, situated near the break-off point of the jet, is intended to selectively charge each of the drops formed at an electrical charge value that is predetermined for each drop. To that end, the ink being kept at a fixed electric potential in the drop generator, a voltage window with amplitude Vc, predetermined, is applied to the charge electrode. This window is generally different at each drop period. For the drop to be correctly charged, the moment at which the voltage is applied slightly precedes the fractionation of the jet, in order to take advantage of the electrical continuity of the jet and attract a given charge quantity at the end of the jet. The moment at which the charge voltage is applied is therefore synchronized with the method for fractionating the jet. The voltage is then maintained during the fractionation to stabilize the load until electrical insulation of the detached drop. The voltage still remains applied a little after the fractionation to take the hazards of the break-off moment into account.
The charge quantity taken on by the drop follows the relationship:
Q=−K*Vc
where K is a constant for the implementation conditions of the printer, which depends primarily on the permittivity of the medium, the width of the slit, and the volume of the drops. Hereinafter, a drop will be considered to be charged at Vc (e.g. 100 volts) and its charge will be −K*Vc volts (e.g. −K*100 volts).
The two deflection plates 2, 3 are brought to a fixed relative potential with a high value that produces an electrical field Ed substantially perpendicular to the trajectory of the drops. This field is capable of deflecting the electrically charged drops that engage between the plates, by an amplitude depending on the charge and the velocity of these drops. These deflected trajectories 12 escape the gutter 20 to impact the medium to be printed 30. The placement of the drops on the drop impact matrix to be printed on the medium is obtained by combining an individual deflection imparted to the drops of the jet with the relative movement between the head and the medium to be printed. These two deflection plates 2, 3 are generally planar.
The recovery gutter 20 comprises, at its inlet, an opening 21 whereof the cross section is the projection of its inlet surface on a plane perpendicular to the nominal axis of the non-deflected jet, placed just upstream of the contact with the gutter. This plane is called the inlet plane of the gutter. “Nominal axis of the non-deflected jet” refers to the theoretical axis of the jet when all of the subassemblies of the head are manufactured and placed relative to each other nominally once the head is assembled.
It is known that the control of the operation of a continuous jet printhead requires, in addition to the functional means described above, the implementation of a certain number of complementary means making it possible to master, on one hand, the deflection of the drops (which is determined in large part by the electrical charge and the velocity of the drops) and on the other hand, to monitor the proper operation of the recovery of the non-printed drops.
To best master the deflection of the drops for printing, the following conditions should be met.
The break-off process of the jet should be done stably and reliably, at a predetermined distance from the nozzle corresponding to the inside of the charge electrode.
Furthermore, the synchronization of the charge with the break-off moment is adjusted on the proper phase.
Lastly, the velocity of the jet is adjusted to a predetermined value, the best thing being to measure this value and make it subject to an instruction by acting on the pressure of the ink.
To that end, the printheads according to the prior art generally comprise a device for measuring a representative size of the charge taken on by the drops. This measuring device is arranged downstream of the charge electrode.
Thus, document EP 0 362 101 describes a device making it possible to detect the charge phase, measure the jet velocity, and know the distance between the nozzle and the break-off of the jet. It involves a single electrostatic sensor placed between the charge electrode and the deflection plates as well as the processing of the associated signal. The sensitive core of this sensor and the circulation space of the charged drops in front of this sensitive core are protected from electrostatic disruptions by electrostatic shielding. The exploitation of the obtained signal, upon passage of specifically charged drops, called test drops, the presence of which is sensed by their electrostatic influence on the sensitive core of the sensor, makes it possible to take very precise measurements of the charge level of these drops and to define the entry and exit moments from the sensor, so the transit time dT, of these drops in the detection area of the sensor. Knowing the effective length L of the space passed through, it is then possible to deduce the average velocity V=L/dT of the drops passing through the sensor.
Document EP 1 079 974 describes a device made up of two electrostatic sensors arranged in two relatively distant locations, close to and along the nominal trajectory of the jet. The level of the signal on one of the sensors provides information on the quantity of charges taken on by a test drop and the temporal shift between the signals of the two sensors makes it possible to obtain the velocity of the drop.
Document U.S. Pat. No. 4,636,809 describes a detection of the current produced by the flow, at the gutter, of the charges contributed by a succession of test drops. The amplitude of the current provides information on the average charge level of the drops, and the time between the charge of a group of drops at the charge electrode and the detection of the current produced when this group reaches the gutter makes it possible to calculate the velocity of the jet.
Knowing the velocity of the jet via one of the methods described above, it is possible to check the velocity of the jet by periodically measuring that velocity and making its value subject to a sign by acting on the pressure of the ink.
The method usually adopted to choose the synchronization moment of the charge relative to the break-off, and which makes it possible to satisfy the synchronization of the charge with the break-off moment, consists of proceeding with a succession of charge trials with charge moments (also called “phases”) differently distributed over a drop period, and for each phase, measuring the charge level taken on by the drop; this electric charge level being representative of the effectiveness of the charge process of the drops and therefore, the appropriateness of the charge synchronization. Certain phases produce a mediocre or even very poor charge synchronization, but in general, a certain number of phases make it possible to obtain a maximal charge.
The charge phase that will be used during printing will be chosen from the latter.
This technique is taught, for example, in EP 0 362 101. This document also describes a method also making it possible to know the precise moment of the charge of a test drop that corresponds to the break-off moment of the jet (to within a phase) and therefore, knowing the jet velocity Vj determined via one of the methods described above, to be able to deduce the time of flight Tv between the break-off of the test drop and its entry into the sensor.
Knowing, by construction, the distance D between the nozzle and the sensor inlet, the distance BL is deduced between the nozzle and the break-off of the jet: BL=D−Vj×Tv.
To obtain a break-off of the jet that can be used under good conditions, on one hand one verifies that the break-off is within the field of the charge electrode, therefore at a determined distance from the nozzle (break-off position); and on the other hand, one ensures that the break-off of the jet is done stably and reliably (break-off quality: which will be specified below). This is done through an optimal adjustment of the stimulation that occurs practically by acting on the stimulation energy.
In a known manner, the stimulation energy is controlled by the level VS of the periodic voltage signal applied to the stimulation device (piezoelectric).
A break-off is considered stable and reliable (good quality) when it makes it possible to guarantee an optimal charge of the drops in an operating field of the printer characterized in particular by a temperature range (conditioning the viscosity of the ink) for a given ink.
Concretely, just before the break-off, the drop 90 is connected by a tail 91 to the following drop 90′ being formed (see
if it rejoins the following drop 90 (case of a slow satellite) it will transfer, to the following drop 90, charges from the concerned drop 93 and thus disrupt the deflection.
The shape of the break-off, aside from the rheological characteristics of the ink, is related to the stimulation level (excitation intensity). In general, the break-off shape changes, when the excitation increases, to go from a break-off with slow, then infinite, then fast satellites (under-stimulation) to a break-off without satellites whereof the shape of the tail evolves, then the break-off returns to a slow satellite regime (over-stimulation). At the same time, the position of the break evolves following the curve of
When the stimulation excitation increases (from a low value), the nozzle/break-off distance (BL), which starts from a high value (natural break-off of the jet), decreases and goes through a minimum called “turning point” (Pr) corresponding to an excitation voltage VPr and a break-off distance DPr, then elongates again. The shape and the actual position of this curve depend on several parameters, in particular characteristics of the drop generator, the nature of the ink, and the temperature. The printhead is designed so that the functional part of this curve is located, at least in part, in the field of the charge electrode despite the variability of the mentioned parameters. On the other hand, there is a functional zone related to the break-off quality in which the printing is satisfactory (the charge of the drops is correct).
The intersection of the correctly positioned zone and the break-off quality functional zone corresponds to the operational stimulation range, which is characterized by an entry point (Pe) on the left corresponding to a piezoelectric excitation voltage VPe and a break-off distance DPe, and an exit point (Ps) on the right, corresponding to a piezoelectric excitation voltage VPs and a break-off distance DPs as indicated in
In certain techniques of the prior art, the position of the operational stimulation range is estimated relative to the point where the satellites are infinite and/or at the turning point, these two characteristic points being detected indirectly, but the actual range is not known (U.S. Pat. No. 5,196,860, U.S. Pat. No. 4,631,549).
One significant difficulty is determining the optimal operating point (Pf in
The positioning of the optimal operating point Pf is generally done empirically, in the vicinity of the turning point Pr, rather towards its left on the curve or for a slightly lower excitation, which corresponds to a slight under-stimulation.
One of the known methods for determining the optimal operating point involves referring to the curve BL=f (VS) and positioning the operating point relative to the shape of the curve, represented by its drift, near the turning point:
The methods for determining the operating point as described above are not fully satisfactory because the measurements done do not make it possible to characterize the break-off quality and therefore its robustness relative, in particular, to the high charges. Indeed, these measurements are based on the determination of the best charge phase to deduce BL; these measurements being done by very slightly charging the drops used for the test.
Another method for determining the operating point is taught in document EP 0 744 292. It consists, for each excitation level of the stimulation scanning, of emitting, repetitively, sequences of drops comprising a charged test drop, preceded and followed by at least one uncharged drop (guard drops). The test drops are then spatially separated from the guard drops by deflection, to be oriented towards a sensor yielding a size representative of the average charge of the test drops (only). The test drops being charged at a maximum useful value, if the charge process is optimal (case of a break-off exploitable under those conditions), the sensor will detect a quantity of maximum charges on the test drops. If charges are transferred from the test drop towards the following guard drop (due to the presence of satellites having become slow), the sensor will detect a smaller quantity of residual charges on the test drops. At the end of the stimulation scanning one can identify the operational stimulation range that corresponds to the zone where the quantity of charges taken on by the test drops is maximal.
This method improves the preceding one because the positioning of the operating point, placed empirically in that range, takes the break-off quality present under the test conditions into account. Indeed, the test is done under conditions where strong charges are used.
This solution does, however, pose the following problems.
First, the test and guard drops must be separated, as the usable sensors (with a reasonable design complexity and production cost) cannot discriminate, in a same line of drops, between a situation where the charge of the test drop alone is optimal and a situation where the same charge is distributed over two successive drops in the event of a charge transfer, because the average number of charges seen by the sensor remains unchanged in both situations.
Moreover, the test drops must be deflected to be detected, but also recovered and returned to the ink circuit because the test operation is generally done outside printing; it is therefore necessary to implement a second gutter provided with a second sensor. The solution proposed in EP 0 744 292 requires a specific deflection electrode for that function. This entire dual-gutter system and dual-deflection system is complex and costly.
Moreover, during scanning of the stimulation excitation, the break-off goes through states where the risk of the appearance of infinite satellites exists. These charged satellites will be violently deflected by the deflection field due to their low mass and will dirty the elements of the head (in particular the deflection plates, at the risk of making the deflection field generator switch), which will require a maintenance operation.
Moreover, a repetitive sequence of a set of drops whereof a charged drop preceded and followed by an uncharged drop does not represent the worst case of using a CIJ printer where one can find successions of highly charged drops creating electrostatic conditions that are more restrictive regarding the transfer of charges.
The main drawbacks of the prior art can be summarized as follows:
The methods based on the detection of the turning point and/or the point where the satellites are infinite does not take into account the break-off quality, with the result that the operating point can be chosen outside the functional stimulation range.
The stimulation range determined at a low charge voltage and a nominal temperature is not that which guarantees an optimal printing quality at a high charge voltage and in the operating temperature operational range.
The curve BL=f (VS) determined by the methods of the prior art can be only partial, the turning point being outside the operational field of the detecting means used. Choosing the operating point relative to the operating point is then not possible.
In the method measuring the actual charge of the test drops, it is necessary to spatially separate the test and guard drops, which leads to a complex and costly system.
The repetitive sequences of an assembly formed by a charged drop preceded and followed by a guard drop do not take into account the reality where, in certain cases, a succession of drops can all be highly charged and create a more restrictive electrostatic environment than the test situation.
The invention aims to resolve these problems.
The invention, according to one aspect thereof, relates to a method for determining the quality of a break-off of an ink jet of a CIJ printing machine, this method including:
a) generating a first line (or stream or series) of N1 drops (e.g. N1≧10 or 20 or 40), all charged by the charge means, at a same V1, e.g. greater than or equal to 150 V or 200 V or 250 V,
b) then generating at least one drop G1, charged by the charge means, at a second voltage VG1, following by at least one drop G2, not charged or charged by the charge means, at a third voltage VG2, less than V1,
c) then generating a second line (or stream or series) of N2 drops (e.g. N2≧10 or 20 or 40), all charged by the charge means, at a same voltage V2,
d) measuring, via an electrostatic sensor, the charge variation of a jet of non-deflected drops including at least the first line of drops and the second line of drops, separated by the drops G1 and G2, during the passage of that jet in front of said sensor.
In one example |VG1−VG2|>V′, V′ being a minimum value, with V′>100 or 150 V; VG2 is for example less than 50 V; for example V′>160 V or >175 V or >200 V or >225 V.
Such a method may also comprise comparing said charge variation with a threshold value to determine whether a coalescence of the drop G2 and the drop G1 occurs upstream of the detector, or downstream of the inlet thereof, or whether a separation or a tearing of material out from one of the charged drops occurs.
The implementation of the method on a continuous ink jet printhead can be done without any fundamental material alteration of an existing printhead.
In general, this test of the break-off quality is done under the worst implementation conditions (highly charged consecutive drops), which guarantees significant robustness of the method.
Such a method can be managed automatically by a printer.
The test of the break-off quality corresponding to an excitation level of the stimulation is done from one or more drops, at least one of which may be charged or weakly charged, or even uncharged, in a line of drops continuously charged at a high value.
The conditions present in the jet make it so that the weakly charged drop coalesces with the preceding drop before the sensor when the break-off is of good quality and does not coalesce before the sensor when the break-off, of poor quality, causes a charge transfer between the drops.
The sensor measures the influence of the distribution distortion of the charges in a portion of a line of drops containing the test drop(s) in the middle of strongly charged drops.
The distribution distortion of the charges is significant when the test drop coalesces with the preceding drop and weak when the coalescence does not occur.
Preferably, the distance (d) between the break-off point of the drops and the upper part of the sensor is at least equal to 15 mm or 20 mm.
A plurality of voltage values can be applied to the drop generating means and steps a-d can be carried out for each voltage of that plurality of voltages.
According to one particular embodiment, a voltage of the drop generating means is determined for which a tearing out of matter occurs at least for the last drop of the first line of drops, this voltage being considered the exit voltage (Vs) of the functional range of the jet.
Moreover, it is possible to determine a break-off distance of the entry point (Pe) of the functional range of the jet, as a function of the turning distance (Dr).
For example, the break-off distance of the entry point of the functional range of the jet can be given by a formula of the type Dpe=αDr+β.
We also describe a continuous ink jet-type printing machine, this machine including:
a) means for generating:
b) means for measuring the charge variation of a jet of non-deflected drops including at least the first line of drops and the second line of drops, separated by the drops G1 and G2.
Such a device can also comprise means for comparing said charge variation with a threshold value and for determining whether a coalescence of the drop G2 and the drop G1 occurs upstream or downstream of the inlet of the measuring means, or whether a separation or a tearing out of matter from one of said charged drops.
In one example |VG1−VG2|>V′, V′ being a minimum value, with V′>100 or 150 V; VG2 is for example less than 50 V; for example V′>160 V or >175 V or >200 V or 225 V.
Such a machine can include means for applying a plurality of different voltages to the drop generating means, for example a plurality of increasing or decreasing voltage values.
According to one example, such a machine also includes means for determining a break-off distance of the entry point (Pe) of the functional range of the jet, as a function of the turning distance (DPr).
For example, means can be provided for determining the break-off distance of the entry point of the functional range of the jet using a formula of the DPe=αDPr+β type.
In a method or a device as described above, N1 and N2 are preferably such that the first line of drops and the second line of drops have a length greater than the length of the sensitive zone of the means for measuring the charge variation of a jet of drops.
In a method or device according to the invention, various combinations of voltages can be considered, for example:
In a method or device according to the invention, the drop G1 and/or the drop G2 can be charged, by the charge means, with a cyclical ratio of the charge signal comprised between 30%, or 50%, and 100%.
One of the aspects of the invention makes it possible to determine the actual stimulation range (i.e. taking into account the maximum charge of the drops and their most restrictive arrangement in the jet). The knowledge of the actual operating range makes it possible to place the optimal operating point, which will guarantee nominal printing over a large temperature range.
a-2c illustrate various break-off configurations,
FIGS. 44 and 47-54 show the evolution of the signal CKmax as a function of various parameters,
A device for carrying out an example of a method for detecting an operational stimulation range in a printer will be described using
Numerical references identical to those of
This device therefore includes:
The operation of this type of jet has already been described above relative to
Aside from the above means, such a device can also include means for checking and regulating the operation of each of these means considered individually, and the applied voltages. These means are described more precisely below in connection with
Means can also be provided for supplying or bringing the various electrodes 2, 3, 4 to the various desired voltages. These means in particular include voltage sources.
On the trajectory of the jet, arranged downstream of the charge electrode 4 is a measuring device 6, e.g. an electrostatic sensor, which will make it possible to supply a signal of the type explained below.
Such a sensor is for example described in document EP 0 362 101, in which case it is placed between the charge electrode 4 and the deflection plates 2 and 3. It includes a conductive central element, preferably protected from the influence of outside electric charges owing to an insulating thickness and an outer conducting element, called guard electrode, connected to the mass.
It can also be of the type described in application WO2011/012641, in which case the sensor is advantageously positioned near the gutter, under the deflection plate 2 kept at 0 volt, as shown in
The sensor of
The passage of a charged drop 600 near the sensor 6 causes, thereon, a variation of the charge quantity. This charge variation is illustrated on the curve 620 as a function of the relative position of the charged drop in its direction of movement (
The signal produced by the sensor, which is the derivative of curve 620, yields a representative curve 630 (
The dynamics and the level of the signals depend on multiple factors, and in particular the distance between drops and sensor, the velocity of the drop, the width of the insulation, the sensitive zone surface present in the electrostatic influence zone of the drop. This electrostatic influence zone, illustrated in
In the case where several drops of the jet are charged, the sensor adds, at each moment, the influences of all of the charged drops placed in its measuring field (which slightly protrudes on either side of the zone with width Leff identified in
For example, the physical dimensions of the different elements (size of the sensor, drop/sensor distance, . . . ), are such that the sensor integrates the influence of about 10 to 40 consecutive drops of the jet, separated from each other by a distance that can for example be between 150 μm and 500 μm, depending on the velocity of the jet, for example between 19 and 24 m/s, and the frequency of the drops, for example between 50 and 120 kHz. The jet passes at a distance of a few hundred micrometers, for example 700 μm, from the surface 612′ of the sensor that faces the drops. When the high voltage THT of the deflection plates 2, 3 is stopped, the line of drops coming from the nozzle follows the nominal trajectory of the jet, regardless of the charge of the drops. The drops are steered towards the gutter and pass in front of the sensor.
It is known, in electrostatics (mirror charges), that the electric charges placed near a mass plane are attracted by that plane, due to the existence of “image” virtual charges, having a sign opposite that of the electric charges in question. These virtual charges are placed symmetrically to the latter, relative to said plane. This phenomenon occurs for the charged drops passing in front of the grounded deflection plate 2; they therefore undergo a slight deflection (called “Clarion” effect) which, in the practical case, will correspond to about a half-diameter of a drop for charge voltages in the vicinity of 300 V applied to the drops (or about −70 μm for a flight distance opposite the plate at the mass of about mm); these numerical values are provided for information, as they depend on the size of the printhead. While this phenomenon explains the slight trajectory variations of certain drops, it has no influence on the implementation of the described method.
If a single drop charged at a given value, present in a continuous line of uncharged drops, passes in front of the sensor, the latter will provide a signal integrating the effect produced by all of the drops present observed through the influence window of the sensor (measuring field), or a number of drops between 10 and 40. If the same charge as the sole drop of the preceding case is distributed over two consecutive drops of a line of drops, following, for example, a charge transfer, the sensor will integrate the effect of the assembly and it will be observed that the signal produced is practically identical to that of the preceding situation. This system is not capable of discriminating between the two situations and therefore cannot characterize the quality of the break-off, i.e. the presence or absence of a charge transfer.
To test the break-off quality according to one embodiment of the invention, each drop of a line of drops, with a length greater than that of the sensor, is charged at a significant voltage value (voltage of about 300 V, for example, and, more generally, a voltage for example between 200 and 350 V. The electrostatic repulsion forces between drops in flight are then powerful, but it is observed that the coherence of the line of drops is maintained. An equilibrium is established between the inertial, aerodynamic, and electrostatic forces: the appearance of the line of drops in flight is identical irrespective of whether it is charged. These conditions are very restrictive to test the quality of a break-off and its robustness relative to the charge transfer between consecutive drops. Usually, the tests intended to detect the operational stimulation range are done at a much lower voltage or a higher voltage but with isolated charged drops.
After a violent transitional reaction related to the passage of the initial edge of the line of drops charged at 300 V, the electrostatic sensor 6 before which the drops pass returns to equilibrium and provides a zero value, since it no longer detects charge variations (each drop at 300 V leaving the sensor's influence zone is replaced by a drop at 300 V entering the zone).
One of the drops of the line of drops will be charged at a value lower than that of the other drops. The electrostatic forces will therefore unbalance around the drop with the lower charge and the spatial distribution of the drops will change in the line. In one embodiment, the charge difference between the weakly charged drop and its surrounding drops, which are highly charged, is significant (for example, at least 100 V or 150 V or 175 V or 200 V or 225V or 250 V, as a function of the chosen size of the head); it is then observed that the less charged drop coalesces, or mixes, during flight, with the preceding drop, which is highly charged, for example under a voltage of 300 V.
The set of drops spatially repositions itself along its path to find a new equilibrium; when this new set passes in front of the sensor 6, the latter detects a strong overall charge variation.
It is observed that with the same implementation conditions, if the break-off quality is not sufficient, the tearing out of matter from the tail of the highly charged drop, which precedes the weakly charged drop, causes a transfer of charges towards the latter. Indeed, the new charge of this drop, which is stronger, modifies the forces in play and it is observed that the coalescence does not occur before reaching the sensor. The relative positions of the drops of this set rearrange themselves in the jet to meet a new equilibrium and one sees that the passage of this set in front of the sensor 6 causes a signal that is detectable, but has a low amplitude.
This behavior makes it possible to discriminate between the presence and absence of a charge transfer and therefore to characterize the break-off quality under very restrictive conditions.
The preceding general explanations will be reiterated with an example of a concrete embodiment.
We will first consider a set of adjacent drops charged at 300 V.
As illustrated in
All of the drops take on the same charge quantity Q=−K*300V, so the forces balance out, the drops remaining equidistant from each other with a distance equal to λ (wavelength), with:
F=Q
1
*Q
2/λ2=Q2/λ2
where Q1 represents the charge of a first drop, while Q2 represents the charge of a second drop. An example of a value for λ is about 310 μm, but can assume values between 150 μm and 500 μm depending on the size of the head, which in particular defines the speed of the jet and the frequency of the drops.
As illustrated in
When the initial edge of the set of charged drops passes in front of the sensor 6, the charge quantity caused (the charges are negative here) at the surface thereof increase to stabilize at a constant value, while all of the drops seen by the sensor transport the same charge (−K*300 V), and the equidistance between the drops is respected. Then the charge quantity induced decreases when the final edge of the line crosses the active zone of the sensor. We therefore have a curve of the type shown in
According to the preceding explanations relative to
This drop is preceded by N1 (N1>50) drops charged at 300 V and followed by N2 (N2>50) drops, which are also charged at 300 V.
N1 and N2 are preferably chosen to be substantially greater than the number of drops present, at a given moment, in the field of the sensor, in order to be able to better isolate the useful part of the signal from the transitional parts, which occur during the entry and exit from the sensitive or influence zone of the sensor, of the line of highly charged drops. In one example of a chosen head size, N1 and N2 are substantially greater than 20. Practically, we have used a value of N1=N2=50.
The voltages of
The test drop 600′, even charged at 0 V, despite everything takes on a so-called “historic” charge of about K*30 V. This phenomenon is explained by the fact that the preceding drop, which is highly charged, behaves like a charge electrode relative to this test drop and generates a charge of the test drop corresponding to about 10% of its own charge, and with an inverse polarity, or K*30. The equilibrium of the forces that existed in the line of drops charged at 300 V is broken. The drops, on either side of the weakly charged drop, are pushed back towards the test drop by the other highly charged drops. A spatial imbalance of the drops is initiated.
The further the line of drops gets from the break-off, the more the imbalance increases.
From a certain distance between the break-off of the jet and the test drop (typically 20 mm), the latter coalesces with a highly charged drop, preferably with the one that precedes it, due to aerodynamic effects.
The spatial imbalance is then maximal, because the situation can be likened to the disappearance of a drop in the jet. The distances between drops are therefore no longer equal to the concerned jet portion.
For highly charged drops, under a voltage of 300 V, and a weakly charged drop, under a voltage of 0 V, it was possible to view the progression of the spatial imbalance of the drops when they move away from the break-off; if d is the distance between the break-off and the observed drops:
The coalescence of two drops, under the conditions indicated above (one at about −K*300 V and the other at about K*30 V), appears from about 20 mm under the break-off. If the inlet of the sensor 6 is placed at, for example, 30 mm from the break-off (or, more generally, a distance greater than 20 mm), the coalescence and its detection are ensured.
Under these conditions, it was also possible to see that the spatial imbalance concerns about 7 to 8 drops.
It is also possible to observe the “Clarion” effect, described above, on the charged drops passing near the deflection electrode 2 put at the voltage of 0 V. Before arriving in front of the sensor 6 in the head configuration shown in
It is shown that the coalescence of two drops frees up space in the line of drops, and makes it possible to increase the distance between two successive drops, the repulsion forces balancing out differently.
The spatial imbalance starts with:
the reduction of the distance between G4 and G5, and G5 and G6 (to a value for example substantially between λ−5% and about λ−10%, here λ−11%),
We will now explain, in more detail, the signal observed during the spatial imbalance on 8 drops.
The signal starts with the strong disruption related to the initial edge of the N1 drops having a strong charge taken on at, for example, −K*300 V. This group of drops will be called “Group 1.”
The passage of the initial edge of this “group 1” in the sensor 6 causes a double signal peak, as explained above relative to
When all of the drops seen by the sensor are at −K*300 V, the measured signal becomes null. The sensor only sees drops charged at 300 V with a regular spacing of λ.
The signal remains null as long as the drops, which exit and reenter the sensitive zone of the sensor, are at the same potential and are equidistant.
Indeed, the charges that leave the sensitive zone are replaced by the same charges and at the same speed: there is therefore no signal variation.
As illustrated in
Globally, the 8 drops in the “measuring group” are further from each other than those of group 1, which therefore creates a positive signal peak (the charge density decreases).
In
This type of measurement is obtained when the break-off is of good quality and there is no charge transfer between the drop at 0 V and the one preceding it, charged at 300 V.
We will now explain the signal observed with a break-off favoring the transfer of a charge between two drops, one of which is highly charged, for example at 300 V, and the other of which is weakly charged, for example at 0 V.
The situation is then as illustrated in
When the tearing out of matter occurs (in the case of a poor break-off quality), the highly charged drop 600 transfers a charge quantity to the drop 600′, which is weakly charged, that follows it.
It was estimated that the transferred charge quantity was in the vicinity of K*50 V. Therefore, the drop 600 loses a charge of −K*50 V and the drop 600′ gains a charge of −K*50 V. In this case, the group of 8 drops includes a drop 600 whereof the charge has become −K*250 V and a drop 600′ that has recovered a charge of −K*50 V in addition to the historic charge of about K*30 V, or a resulting charge of −K*20 V.
The electrostatic forces brought into play are no longer of the same order as before and the spatial imbalance is also no longer the same.
At the sensor, the drops do not coalesce anymore. The spatial imbalance still exists, but is very different. It can be observed on the print of
Two parameters cause a variation of the measured signal:
The signal variation, upon passage of the measuring group, is lower than in the presence of a coalescence; it is possible to see a difference of about 40% between the maximum values of the signal.
The transition from the coalescence regime without charge transfer to the non-coalescence regime with charge transfer, both of which are described above, will depend on the quality of the break-off, which itself depends on the voltage applied to the piezoelectric means.
The explanations above therefore clearly show that the response difference between the situation with coalescence and the situation without coalescence of the drops makes it possible to discriminate between the voltage values applied to the piezoelectric means that may or may not lead to a tearing out of matter with charge transfer.
A third type of behavior has been observed corresponding to a break-off favoring the tearing out of matter on all of the drops charged at 300 V in the line of drops.
This new situation, illustrated in
The jet never being perfectly centered in the charge electrode, the particles 600″ resulting from the tearing out of matter undergo an electrostatic force that is low, but sufficient in light of their mass, which deflects them towards the closest face of the charge electrode.
These particles 600″ then dirty one of the deflection plates towards which they are deflected.
The drops, which are initially highly charged, e.g. at 300 V, take on a lower charge quantity, which can be estimated at −K*250 V.
The electrostatic forces are then decreased relative to the situations of
It can be seen that the coalescence of the drops is not necessary to differentiate between the two situations: even without coalescence, the rearrangement of the drops in the jet remains different enough between the two situations to tell them apart; but, in general, the level deviation is low and the detection is delicate to do reliably.
The curve of
Corresponding to each of these situations is one of the zones defined by the range of voltages applied to the piezoelectric means:
It is understood that zone B corresponds to the desired stimulation range.
In the results that will be described below, the notations V1 and V2 are used for the highest voltage applied to the line of drops, and the lowest voltage, which is applied to the drop isolated between two lines of charged drops, respectively. These voltages are shown diagrammatically in
Tests have been carried out with different voltages V1 and V2 in order to identify the value ranges producing a measuring signal that can be used reliably.
It was possible to see that, for the highest charge voltage V1 applied to most of the drops, it is preferable to select a minimum value of 200 V to 250 V, preferably still close to 300 V.
It was also possible to see that the adjustment of the voltage V2 of the isolated drop 600′ makes it possible to best ensure the coalescence of the measuring drops. The tests done to define V2 are explained below:
First, the stimulation voltage is positioned in the good printing zone (zone B) and this situation is verified using printing tests.
Then, the amplitude of the signal peak is measured (in volts at the output of the amplification chain of the sensor) as a function of the voltage deviation between V1 and V2 (in volts), for V1=300 V and V2 varying from 250 V to 0 V.
For each measurement of the signal with the sensor 6, one verifies whether the coalescence of the drops is present.
It can be concluded from this graph that, to best ensure the coalescence, it seems preferable that VD=|V1−V2| or, at minimum, around 250 V.
A value of VD=300 V seems to ensure the maximum spatial imbalance when the break-off is correct.
The coalescence moment of the drops not being a temporally stable and controllable phenomenon, a fluctuation of the amplitude of the signal is seen on successive measurements. Indeed, the spatial rearrangement of the drops from the measuring group is not completely identical upon each measurement, even when the situation is identical. These fluctuations cause the presence on the graph of
The preceding measurements were also done for three piezoelectric excitation voltages (each of them corresponds to a previously defined zone B, C and D, cf.
The measurements obtained are reported in
Still in
If there was no loss of charge on all of the drops in zone D, the two curves I and II would be close. However, this is not the case. This therefore confirms the tearing out of matter, without charge transfer, on all of the drops in zone D.
If we look at the points of the x-axis VD=V1−V2=300 V of
They overlap in part. But, by placing a detection threshold at about 25% below the domain of the signal of zone B, we unambiguously identify zone B (when all of the measurements are above the threshold), zone C (when a significant proportion of the measurements are below the threshold), and zone D (when all of the measurements are below the threshold).
This result can be used to detect the tearing out of matter when a stimulation voltage is tested, because despite the fluctuations on the measurement, the levels of the signal drop significantly to be discriminating.
The graph of
This
To do away with the measurement fluctuation, upon each level measurement of the signal, the new measurement obtained can be compared with the average of the preceding measurements. Once the deviation is above the detection threshold (here 0.3 volt), the tearing out of matter that corresponds to the entry into zone C is detected. The piezoelectric stimulation voltage for which the tearing out is detected for the first time makes it possible to choose the value of VPs.
Preferably, the scanning of VS is stopped once the tearing out is detected, in order to prevent dirtying the head.
The preceding explains the method for detecting the exit point Ps of zone B.
If the treating out of matter test is launched for an excitation voltage value V below VPe (the excitation voltage of the entry point of zone B (i.e. in zone A)), the head may be dirtied. One then seeks to determine the value of VPe, then to perform the tearing out of matter test for various values of the excitation voltage, from the value VPe.
We will now describe a method for determining the entry point Pe. It is understood, for example according to the structure of the curve of
For a given ink and regardless of the temperature, a connection has been shown between the distance DPr of the turning point and the break-off distance DPe of the entry point. One will therefore look experimentally for the law that connects DPr and DPe3 for each ink or group of inks having the same law. To that end, one tries, experimentally, for each ink, and for several test printers (to take the manufacturing dispersion into account), the turning point Pr, and the entry point of the stimulation range Pe for several operating temperatures.
Thus,
It will be noted that the same data can be obtained for jet velocities other than 20 m/s, if the configuration of the printer is different, and in particular if the jet velocity is different from 20 m/s.
A compilation of results obtained at different temperatures with around twenty test printers makes it possible to deduce, by linear regression, the law yielding the break-off distance of Pe (DPe) as a function of the distance of the turning point DPr:
DPe=α*DPr+β.
Certain inks have behaviors close to each other and form a group of inks Ge; their data is then concatenated to establish the law. For information, for the ink examples tested above, we found:
α=0.2,
β=510 D/A pitch
The validity domain of this law stops when the distance DPr becomes higher than the value of DPe evaluated by the law. Beyond this value (obtained via the resolution of DPr=0.2*DPr+510), the calculation of DPe becomes incoherent because DPe<DPr, which is meaningless since Pe is the lowest point of the curve.
This is case shown in
When this situation arises, it has been verified in the different cases encountered that the turning point was systematically in the functional stimulation range (Zone B). In that case, it is not necessary to test the tearing out of matter and the operating piezoelectric excitation voltage VPf is arbitrarily adjusted to a value below VPr making it possible to have a break-off distance defined by:
DPf=DPr+10
The graph of
The determined law (DPe=α*DPr+β), which on one hand includes a slope α and on the other hand a constant β, is obtained by linear regression. This creates a certain imprecision of the point DPe determined using the method relative to its actual value. In practice, DPe is determined with an uncertainty corresponding to an imprecision of +/−30 D/A pitch on VPe. Moreover, it has been noted that when the turning point was functional (no tearing out of matter), then the range defined between the turning point VPr and the excitation voltage corresponding to at least DPr+λ, was also functional. λ is the distance between drops in the jet and is equivalent to about 300 μm, or 30 units on the ordinates of the curves. To define the validity limit of the law: the relationship DPe=α*DPr+β will be used if
(α*DPr+DPr+30 units.
In the contrary case, the operating stimulation voltage VPf will be adjusted to a value below VPr making it possible to have a break-off distance defined by:
DPf=DPr+10.
In the particular case used as an example in
Table I, below, provides, for information, the parameters α (Slope) and β (Constant) established experimentally for different ink groups Gel to Ge4 and 2 jet velocities (20 m/s and 23 m/s).
In other words, above we have described a technique for determining the entry point Pe, implementing, for a given ink, the determination of the turning point and the calculation of the break-off distance DPe of the entry point as a function of the turning point distance (DPr).
Other aspects of a method of the type described above can be mentioned.
First, the deflection voltage (THT) is cut before carrying out such a method.
Thus, such a method does not require the use of a recovery gutter for the charged drops in addition to the usual gutter for recovering non-deflected drops.
Moreover, the charge phase can be determined beforehand using a method of the prior art such as that described in EP 0 362 101.
Initially, this appeared to ensure a correct charge of the weakly charged drop among the highly charged drops.
The charge level of the weakly charged drop can make it possible to adjust the sensitivity of the detection of the stimulation range by acting on the triggering of the coalescence. This level can depend on the ink used, which can be more or less open to coalescence. The principle explained above can be extended to the use of two (or more) test drops instead of a single one; the adjustment of the relative voltages of these drops can make it possible to monitor the coalescence triggering sensitivity.
A sufficient duration of flight favors good coalescence. It has been observed that it can in particular occur at about 30 mm from the nozzle (exit orifice of the ink jet), or 10 mm before the sensor 6 (in the preferred embodiment of the invention). In other words, the coalescence zone can preferably be located up to at least 30 mm from the nozzle, as well as from the sensor 6. It is clear that a printer incorporating a sensor situated higher (i.e. less than 30 mm from the nozzle) would not be able to implement the method described above.
The optimal operating point Pf can be determined relative to Pe and Ps (for example in the middle: 50/50% ratio). It is possible to consider placing the operating point in a ratio between Pe and Ps that depends on the ink, a predicted evolution of the temperature, the difference between the turning point and Ps.
According to one aspect of the invention, Ps is determined by performing an increasing scanning of the stimulation excitation from Pe; and, for each excitation level pitch of the scanning, a break-off quality test is done.
Pe is the first point of the scanning corresponding to a positive test and Ps is the scanning point preceding the first point, from Pe, producing a negative test.
In this figure, step S1 corresponds to the step for developing the curve BL=f (VS) and determining the excitation level of the turning point (VPr).
During the following step S2, one calculates Pe, using the appropriate formula, which yields the break-off distance DPe at point Pe as a function of the turning point distance DPr (this function is substantially an affine function, of the type of formula DPe=α*DPr+β indicated above).
One then determines (S3) whether this value DPe belongs to the validity domain of the law by verifying that DPe>DPr+30:
If this is not the case (DPe DPr+30), one knows that the turning point is functional (no tearing out of matter), one looks (S11) on the curve BL=f (VS) for the excitation voltage corresponding to DPr+10 and this value is allocated to the chosen operating point VPf. This voltage is applied to the piezoelectric means (step S13).
If DPe belongs to the validity domain (DPe>DPr+30), then one initializes (S4) an increasing scanning of the piezoelectric excitation voltage V(i) starting from VPe and incrementing by x (S9) upon each iteration.
For each of these values V(i), a tearing out of matter test is done (step S5).
If this test is positive, it is considered that the last tested value constitutes the value of VPs, and an operating value VPf of the activation voltage can be taken equal to the average of VPe and VPs.
This voltage is applied to the piezoelectric means (step S13).
If the tearing out of matter test is negative, one assesses whether the value of V(i) is equal to the value VPr at the turning point (step S8).
If this is the case, it is considered that the last tested value constitutes the value of VPs.
It is then possible to determine an operating point as a function of Pe and Ps, for example one takes the value of the reference voltage of this operating point is equal to the average of VPe and VPs.
This voltage is applied to the piezoelectric means (step S13).
If this is not the case, the value of V(i) is incremented by a scanning pitch x (step S9), and the test S5 is resumed with V(i+1)=V(i)+x (step S5).
The operational stimulation range is characterized by an entry point Pe that can be evaluated (step S2) by using the method described above or by another method such as, for example, the allocation of a fixed value or a value tabulated as a function of the temperature and/or of the ink type, the tables being established experimentally. The determination of Pe is not completely precise and it is possible for Pe to be determined in zone A (on the edge of zone B) or inside zone B.
In the first case, the first tearing out of matter test (in S5) with a piezoelectric excitation voltage VPe yields a positive result it is then necessary to shift VPe, one or several times, by a positive value sufficient for Pe to be found in zone B and continue the algorithm.
In the second case, the value VPe is used as a starting point for the scanning because the experiments show that a better precision in the determination of the limit between zones A and B does not provide any significant improvement in the determination of VPf.
The means described above relative to
References 410 designate valves making it possible to check the flows of fluids between the head and the ink circuit 7.
The console contains the ink circuit 7 and a checker 110 connected to the head by a cord 15.
The checker 110 includes circuits, which make it possible to send the head the voltages making it possible to steer the latter, and in particular the voltages to be applied to the electrodes 2, 3 and 4 as well as the piezoelectric excitation voltage.
It also receives descending signals, coming from the head, in particular the signals measured using the sensor 6, and can process them and use them to check the head and the ink circuit. In particular, to process the signals coming from the sensor 6, it may comprise analog amplification means for a signal from that sensor, digitization means for that signal (A/D conversion converting the signal into a digital sample list), means for denoising it (for example, one or more digital filters for the samples), means for seeking the maximum thereof (the maximum from the sample list).
The checker 110 communicates with the user interface 120 to inform the user about the state of the printer and the measurements done, in particular of the type described above. It includes storage means for storing the instructions relative to the data processing, for example to perform a process or carry out an algorithm of the type described above.
The checker 110 includes an onboard central unit, which itself comprises a microprocessor, a set of non-volatile memories and RAM, peripheral circuits, all of these elements being coupled to a bus. Data can be stored in the memory zones, in particular data for carrying out a method according to the present invention, for example one of the methods described in the form of an algorithm above.
The means 120 allow a user to interact with a printer according to the invention, for example by configuring the printer to adapt its operation to the constraints of the production line (rhythm, printing speed, . . . ) and more generally of its environment, and/or to prepare it for a production session to determine, in particular, the content of the printing to be done on the products of the production line, and/or by presenting real-time information for monitoring the production (status of consumables, number of products done, . . . ). These means 120 can include viewing means in order to verify, in particular, the evolution of the performance of tests according to the present invention.
It has been observed that the adjustment algorithm described above malfunctions at low temperatures and has reliability problems at ambient temperature for certain inks: this has resulted in a degradation of the printing quality under certain circumstances.
This situation has led to a more in-depth study of the phenomena involved. To that end, the following tests were first developed:
Thus, the experimental, or real, stimulation range can be measured experimentally under the chosen test conditions (for a given ink and temperature). This real stimulation range corresponds to the zone B as previously described. To that end, the stimulation voltage is scanned. For each excitation value, a real printing test is done with a message implementing extreme charge voltages (in this example, a printing height of 32 points, leading to charge voltages in the vicinity of 280 V, each charged drop being followed by at least one guard drop, constitutes an extreme situation). The experimental stimulation range corresponds to the excitation voltage interval for which printing is visually correct (each drop is placed in the right location).
The quality deterioration appears on the most deflected, and therefore most charged drops. These drops take on a lower charge quantity than the normal, they are poorly deflected and undergo translation toward the bottom of the message.
This deterioration is also related, as seen before, to the nature of the break-off, which favors the tearing of material at the tail of the drop in formation at the exit from the proper printing zone and which generates slow satellites at the entry of that zone, due to an under-stimulation. It will be recalled that when a break-off is of poor quality, a charge transfer occurs:
From the preceding, one determines that the suitable printing conditions have been obtained when no charge transfer occurs between a drop G1 charged, at least, at the value producing the greatest desired deflection in the printed patterns and the following drop G2 that is weakly charged. The charge voltage of G1 will therefore depend on the concerned head type and the desired maximum deflection.
To evaluate the charge quantity transferred between two consecutive drops G1 and G2, the measuring method may for example comprise the following steps:
As seen above, the drop G2, even with a charge command at 0 V, is given a charge, called historic charge, related to the electrostatic charge created by the drop G1, which immediately precedes it and which acts as a charge electrode at the break-off moment of G2. This historic charge corresponds to approximately 10% to 12% of the charge of G1 and has the opposite sign from the latter (for the printer configuration used for this study). For example, for G1 charged by the charge electrode at VG1=300 V and G2 at VG2=0 V, G2 will, in spite of everything, be given a charge equivalent to a charge voltage of −33 Volts.
If the deflection field is present, as provided during the evaluation of the transferred charge, G1 will be deflected according to the applied charge voltage, but G2 will also be assigned a deflection in the opposite direction, not according to the applied charge command.
To cancel out this effect in the measurements, a charge voltage is applied for G2 that offsets the historic charge (VG2=+33 V in the example above), and the deflection of G2 will then be nil.
The charge voltage diagram for drops G1 and G2 is illustrated in
Regarding the determination of the charge phase, explained in the introduction of this application, relative to document EP 0 362 101, was the method for determining the charge phase used previously. This method is called “0 V environment phase detection,” as the test drops are emitted in a line of uncharged drops (0 V). The test drops are charged at a low voltage (˜10 V) so that, when the deflection field is present, their deflection always leads them into the gutter. On the other hand, their charge voltage has a sign opposite those provided for the printing, so that their deflection brings them closer to the sensor and improves the signal-to-noise ratio of the signal.
As will be seen later, the phase can be influenced by a highly charged environment. To determine the phase under these conditions, the initial method was adopted: the measurement occurs in the absence of the deflection field and the measurement line is made up of a sequence of drops charged at a high voltage, creating the electrostatic environment, in which the test drops charged at a low voltage are inserted. The second method is called “phase detection in a highly charged environment.”
For the study configuration and the type of head used, the charge voltages are determined experimentally:
the environment voltage is in practice in the vicinity of 200 V;
This makes it possible to avoid the tearing out conditions of the material and provide a signal-to-noise ratio and performance equivalent to the 0 V environment phase detection method. The same electronic measurement chain can then be used for both methods.
It is also possible to implement a charge transfer simulation method between any two successive drops G1 and G2, charged with particular voltages. For example, if, for a correct stimulation, G1 is charged at 300 V and G2 at 0 V, the simulation of a charge transfer of 20 V leads to charging G1 at 280 V and G2 at 20 V. However, in order to check the charge, the stimulation reference is placed beforehand in the correct printing zone.
Therefore, in practice, one starts by determining the experimental stimulation range (for example using the method described above), then one places the stimulation reference in the middle of that range; G1 and G2 can then be charged to the desired values: VG1 and VG2 for a situation not involving a charge transfer, and VG1-Xtr and VG2+Xtr for a simulated situation of a charge transfer equivalent to Xtr Volts.
The methods described above will also be implemented hereafter. The value of the different parameters (charge voltages, break-off distances, break-off/coalescence distance, transferred charge quantity, etc.) that have already been given and that will be given hereafter, depend on the type of head used. The type of printing head is characterized by a drop size, a stimulation frequency, a jet speed, a distance between drops in the jet, a nozzle/charge electrode distance, a break-off/entry of the sensor distance, and others. The configuration used for the following experiments will be called “study configuration,” which corresponds to the following primary characteristics:
Furthermore, the above steps are carried out by using, among others, the measurement methods above:
First, it is possible to show the poor choice of the charge phase in a highly charged environment, when the phase is determined in an uncharged environment.
In the first part of the description, the phase was determined in a “0 V” environment, and the sequence of measurement voltages for detecting the tearing out of material (illustrated in
An observation of the break-off was done using video means and synchronized lighting on the piezoelectric frequency. Views of the break-off at a fixed location, in the charge electrode, for several environment voltages (0, 100, 200, and 300 V), show that not only the shape of the break-off, but also the moment of the break-off, are modified as a function of the charge. It is in particular possible to see that the more the voltage increases, the more:
Two consequences can be inferred from these observations:
The effect of the instability of the charge is further increased by the partial duration of the charge window. A charge at 100% of the stimulation period is preferable from this perspective.
It is possible to determine the charge transfer experimentally as a function of the piezoelectric excitation voltage.
As has been seen in the printing tests in
The tests are done with a printer in the study configuration. Three inks are tested, which belonged to 3 of the 4 groups of inks in table I above: EN1 of Gel, EN2 of Ge4, and EN3 of Ge3. The inks of each of groups 1 and 2 having very similar behaviors, group 2 is not represented.
The charge transfer test for an ink at a given temperature consists of establishing the curve of Xtr as a function of the stimulation voltage expressed in steps of the D/A converter, for example for 4 charge voltages of G1: 200, 250, 300 and 330 Volts. This test may be done following the steps below:
Initially, the interest related to the charge transfer at the exit of the stimulation range; the scanning of the stimulation was limited to the vicinity of the exit point Ps. The graph of
The same references CXtri (i=1−4) are used in
In
the appearance of the tearing out for a drop charged at 300 V corresponds to the end of the real printing range determined experimentally. This is consistent with the maximum charge amplitude of the drops of the test message used to determine the stimulation range experimentally. In fact, the 32α position corresponds to a drop charged at approximately 280 V.
The graphs of
During low-temperature tests, it was observed that a charge transfer is present before Pe (entry point into the proper printing range). The presence of slow satellites, just before the entry point into this stimulation range, was mentioned already above; these satellites are capable of transferring charges from one drop to the next. They had not been shown in the first method in the 1st part of the present application, because of a non-optimal charge of the drops, which results from a defective charge phase detection. This behavior of the charge transfer measurement makes it possible to locate the entry point into the stimulation range with the same means as for the range exit point.
The charge transfer at the entry point of the range was studied during the low-temperature test (5° C.) of inks EN1 and EN2. The average transfer (average of the non-zero XTR) at the range entry point was quantified for a voltage of VG1=300 V at 5° C. (
The graphs of
The results of the analysis of the average transfer, in proper printing range exit point, for G1=300 V, are shown in
The analysis of the average transfers at the range exit point for drops charged at 330 V and 250 V (see
The results of the analysis of the average transfer, at the proper printing range entry point, for G1=300 V, only concern two measurements done at 5° C. The average transfer corresponds to 63 Volts for EN1 and 61 Volts for EN2. For G1=250 V, a single measurement is available for ink EN2. The value of the transfer then corresponds to 50 Volts.
One can see that:
If one considers the charge transfer at the range exit point averaged over the three inks and the three temperatures as a function of the voltage of G1, one obtains table II below and the trend curve of
One can see that the evolution is not linear; it is close to an exponential evolution.
To refine the study, the charge transfer was quantified in the case of a drop G1=300 V followed by a drop charged between 33 V and 100 V. This situation corresponds to the case where a drop, highly charged, is followed by a drop also intended to be printed, but more weakly charged.
We therefore studied the charge transfer Xtr for inks EN1, EN2, EN3, for the three temperatures already tested, and for VG1=300 V and VG2 successively assuming the values of 33 V, 50 V, 70 V, 100V. Given the historical charge effect explained above, the actual charge taken on by the drop G2 will then respectively be 0 V, 20 V, 40 V and 70 V, corresponding to the applied charge decreased by the voltage due to the historical effect that is, here, approximately 30 V for a voltage VG1 of 300 V.
The curves of
The following table III brings together the analysis results of the average charge transfer (for three inks, at three temperatures), at the exit point of the proper printing range:
One can see that, when the drop G2 is charged between 50 V and 100 V, the charge transfer is weaker by approximately 5 V than when the drop G2 is charged at 33 V.
The following table IV brings together the analysis results of the average charge transfer (three inks at 5° C.), at the proper printing range entry point.
Here again, one can see that, when the drop G2 is charged between 50 V and 100 V, the charge transfer is weaker; the value here is 7 V.
The above study of the behavior of the charge transfer makes it possible to observe the following points:
Therefore, a method making it possible to discern between the absence of transfer and the presence of a charge transfer corresponding to at least Volts (or 15 V), can be used, to determine the stimulation range that guarantees proper printing. The exact value of the charge transfer also depends on the configuration of the printer.
In the first method explained at the beginning of this document, the phase was determined in a 0 V environment and the charge of the test drops done in a charged environment (300 V) and with a partial duration (50%) of the charge window. We saw above that these conditions could lead to an uncertain mastery of the charge of the test drops. With a determination of the phase in a charged environment and a charge at 100% of the charge window, the correct charge of the test drop is guaranteed, but the signals at the output of the sensor 6 are no longer capable of discriminating between the absence or presence of a tearing out of material, characteristic of the quality of the break-off.
To analyze the problem, we observed the measurement group between the break-off and the gutter, with synchronized video means, and we simulated, using the method explained above, the presence or absence of a charge transfer in the vicinity of 20 Volts, which should appear during a tearing out of material at the stimulation range exit point. Here, the transfer simulation is done under the conditions of the first method, i.e., in an environment charged at 300 V, with N1 drops before G1 and G2 and N2 drops after G1 and G2 all charged at 300 V. As a reminder, the measurement group is the group of drops disrupted by the jet producing a signal on the sensor 6, as explained in the first part of the description.
A first test with ink EN1 and at ambient temperature yields the following results:
In both cases, the coalescence occurs well before the sensor, which is situated approximately 30 mm from the break-off, and the signal coming from the sensor remains reliable (as in
A second test consisted of gradually increasing Xtr (with the same simulation method) and measuring the break-off-coalescence distance. The results are shown in the curve of
A verification was done for the three inks at the three temperatures already tested. The following table V gives the coalescence distance for two transfer cases (0 V and 20 V), then the transfer Xtr making it possible to move the coalescence after the entry point of the sensor.
The data in this table confirms the above observations.
The preceding makes it possible to understand the reasons why the charge transfer detection, described in the first part of the document, was not optimal in all circumstances: the determination error of the charge phase was leading to an erroneous charge of the test drop that was not at 0 V, as was assumed, but probably approximately 100 V. The coalescence was then positioned in the vicinity of the sensor and the charge transfer of 20 V, caused by the tearing out of material, was then allowing it to move toward the sensor while causing an attenuation of the signal and therefore the detection of a charge transfer.
The preceding considerations lead to proposing a new configuration for a line of measuring drops making it possible to optimize the positioning of the coalescence relative to the sensor. This configuration is illustrated in
In fact, it appears that the tearing out of material phenomenon is primarily influenced by the two drops involved in the transfer: one highly charged drop G1 followed by a weakly charged drop G2. The other highly charged drops create a electrostatic environment making it possible to detect the charge transfer.
This configuration comprises, in the following order:
The values of N1 and N2 can be determined as in the first method described in this application. N1 and N2 here are equivalent to 50 in this study configuration.
In the configuration illustrated in
However, for another type of situation where one is interested in weaker maximum charge voltages, it is possible to have other relative values of the voltages, for example in the case of the configuration like that illustrated in
The second test of the preceding experiment shows that the break-off-coalescence distance increases when the charge voltage difference between G1 and G2 decreases, as mentioned in
Several aspects can be inferred from this that may be used hereafter, individually or in combination, and implementing a line of measuring drops as in
the line of measuring drops can be configured to simulate an operation without charge transfer: with N1 and N2 environment drops charged at V1, VG1 is set by the desired maximum deflection, VG2 is a variable parameter;
The value of Xtr=20 V is, as determined experimentally above, that of a transfer at the exit point of the stimulation range; other values can be used as a function of the behavior of particular inks.
A charge transfer with a more significant value will be better detected with the same adjustment of VG2. Therefore, the charge transfer greater than the equivalent of 50 V, which is created by the slow satellite at the entry point of the stimulation range, can be detected using the same method and the same adjustments as for the exit point of the range.
By creating substantial electrostatic forces between the drops of the jet, the charge level of the N1 drops of the downstream environment and N2 drops of the upstream environment participate in the rearrangement of the drops in the measuring group (drops on either side of G1 and G2 in the jet) and in the formation of the coalescence. As already indicated above, the charge levels of the drops of the upstream and downstream environments can be different, without changing the principle of the invention. In general, they are taken here to be identical, with value V1.
Tests of the influence of V1 on the break-off/coalescence distance have been performed. Three configurations were tested:
These signals are processed by appropriate means, for example means for amplifying a signal coming from the sensor 6, means for digitizing that signal, means for denoising it by digital filtering, means for looking for the maximum thereof among the digital samples resulting from the previous filtering. It is therefore possible to obtain a value representing the maximum amplitude of the signal (height of the current peaks). The output from the processing means gives a value called CKmax, comprised between 0 and 1000 representing a peak height comprised between 0 and a value chosen to best meet all of the situations encountered in the implementation of the method.
In
One can also see that for an environment of 150 V (
Tests have shown that the preceding observations are valid for all three inks (EN1, EN2, EN3) and all three temperatures (ambient, 15° C., 5° C.)
One can see from the preceding that it is possible to determine, for the amplitude of the signal or what is equivalent, for CKmax, a compromise value CKc satisfying all of the constraints expressed above:
Since the maximum level of the signal or CKmax also depends on the charge of G1 and G2, as seen above, one can say that a preferred value of V1 makes it possible to have a value of CKmax equal to or approaching the compromise CK, once VG1 and VG2 are determined.
But the values of V1 and VG2 are interdependent. Tests have been conducted to evaluate the optimal values of the voltages V1 and VG2: these tests consist of situating oneself experimentally in the operational stimulation range, freezing V1 in the line of measuring drops, and establishing the curve giving CKmax as a function of VG2. One example of such a curve is provided in
It emerges from this that, for the study configuration of the printer selected the tests, the optimal value for the voltage V1 is situated in the vicinity of 200 V. The value of VG2x was determined as explained above for the three inks EN1, EN2, EN3 at the three temperatures: ambient, 15° C. and 5° C. Table VI provides the results:
The results of the tests show that, when the voltage of the environment drops V1 is set, VG2x is relatively insensitive to the nature of the inks and the working temperature. This observation makes it possible to define a line of measuring drops with a predetermined pair V1, VG2 (for example, 200 V and 65 V here), usable irrespective of the inks and the temperature, in a method for determining the stimulation range by scanning.
Such a method is similar to that described in the first part of the document; it comprises:
The stimulation range will correspond to the references where CKmax has a high value.
The above method makes it possible to frame the stimulation range approximately and may fail in difficult situations where the stimulation range is very narrow. One then seeks the optimal values of V1 and VG2, making it possible to adjust the detection method of the charge transfer so as to guarantee the reliability of that detection.
Based on the studies and experiments done above, a method for determining the stimulation range allowing proper printing is proposed. It may comprise the following steps shown diagrammatically in
The following paragraphs detail aspects of the above steps. The explanation will be based on a processed example (
First, to carry out step S100 (search for VPx), it is possible to link the following sub-steps S101-S104 (shown diagrammatically in
Step S200 (auto-adaptation of V1), illustrated by
Step S300 (auto-adaptation of VG2 and the detection threshold for a charge transfer) may repeat aspects already described above and for example comprises the steps diagrammatically illustrated in
S303: The optimal value of VG2 is determined as being, for example, the median value between VG2a and VG2b (65 V in
S304: The detection threshold CKtr for a charge transfer can be chosen from this data; it is, for example, the median value between the sensor signal levels of the data A and B for the optimal value of VG2. This value is CKtr=498 in
Step S400: Determination of Pe and Ps: The charge of the line of measuring drops is now determined optimally: for the study configuration and for the ink/temperature pair concerned by the auto-adaptation of V1 and VG2. It will be applied for the rest of the method.
S402: scanning is done of the stimulation level, in the increasing direction, from VPx (S402-1), until, at most, the voltage of the turning point VPr. The stimulation value is gradually incremented (S402-3): at each stimulation value, one emits a line of measuring drops and compares the results of the sensor measurement with the threshold CKtr (S402-2, S402-3). The signal goes below the threshold when the charge transfers produced by the tearing out of materials appear. Ps will then be positioned just at the moment where the threshold is exceeded (S402-4). In the case where VPR is reached without the threshold being exceeded, the scanning stops and Ps will be likened to Pr (the turning point).
Step S500: Adjustment of the stimulation: The stimulation voltage Vstim is adjusted between the values VPe and VPs found above, for example at the median value (211 in the processed example).
With this new method, Pe is determined with the same means as for the determination of Ps; the linear laws, which were explained above to determine VPe, are no longer necessary.
The methods described above can be implemented using a device like that of
Some of the examples provided above relate to a case where one implements a so-called “large character” head, which leads to a certain given sizing of the different parameters (break-off/sensor entry distance, intervals for V1, VG1, VG2, etc.).
It is also possible to work with a smaller head, called “small character,” which uses the same stimulation range detection technology. There are other parameter values in that case, however.
Table VII indicates the typical values for each of these heads.
| Number | Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11 51143 | Feb 2011 | FR | national |
| 11 61825 | Dec 2011 | FR | national |
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/EP2012/052319 | 2/10/2012 | WO | 00 | 10/23/2013 |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61475150 | Apr 2011 | US |
