Some print apparatus disperse print materials such as coloring agent, for example comprising a dye or colorant, from a printhead. An example printhead includes a set of nozzles and a mechanism for ejecting a selected agent as a fluid, for example a liquid, through a nozzle. In such examples, a drop detector may be used to detect whether drops are being ejected from individual nozzles of a printhead. For example, a drop detector may be used to determine whether any of the nozzles are clogged and would benefit from cleaning or having some other maintenance operation performed thereon.
Examples will now be described with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:
While the term ‘drop detection unit’ is used herein, this may not describe a separate or separable component, and instead may describe a functional pairing. The source 106 and radiation detector 108 of a drop detection unit 104 may therefore considered to be paired, forming an operative rather than structural unit.
As is shown in
In some examples, the radiation sources 106 may comprise at least one light source, for example an LED (Light Emitting Diode), and/or the radiation detectors 108 may comprise at least one photodetector, for example a photodiode.
As is shown in
In the examples of
Light, when emitted from a source or an aperture, tends to spread in an effect termed dispersion. While dispersion is less apparent for certain highly directional radiation sources, such as lasers, these tend to be expensive. The light from one source 106 may be incident not just on the associated radiation detector 108, but also on a region around that radiation detector 108. Therefore, care should be taken in designing a drop detector such that the light from sources of other units 104 incident on a radiation detector of a particular unit is not of a sufficient level that it could cause a false negative. A ‘false negative’ result is seen when the intensity of light at a radiation detector leads to a conclusion that there is no drop when in fact a drop has been ejected: if light of sufficient intensity is received, a drop may be assumed to be absent, even when that light is received from the radiation source of another unit.
If, for example, in an alternative arrangement to that shown in
In some examples, the separation may be reduced by using more sensitive radiation detectors, although this may add costs. In other examples, light barriers may be used to prevent light from reaching radiation detectors 108 of other units 104, which adds to the complexity of the design. In another example, a lens may be provided to correct of the effects of the dispersion of the beam, but this adds costs and complexity to a drop detector.
In the examples of
The printhead 302 comprises a plurality of nozzles 312, the nozzles being arranged in a first column 314 and a second column 316, spaced from the first column 314, wherein the nozzles 312 of the first column 314 are at least substantially parallel to and offset from the nozzles 312 of the second column 316 (i.e. the nozzles 312 are staggered such that, in a first dimension, the nozzles 312 of the first column 314 are interspersed with the nozzles of a second column 316). The columns 314, 316 are also at least substantially parallel to the rows of alternating radiation emitters 308 and receivers 310 arranged on each side of the sampling volume.
Such a distribution of nozzles 312 may be employed in order to improve the smoothness of a printed output. Each unit 306 is associated with one nozzle 312, and may detect the emission (or in some examples, the absence) of a drop from that associated nozzle 312.
It will be noted that each nozzle 312 which is associated with a particular unit 306 is selected from the column 314, 316 which is closer than the other column 314, 316 to the emitter 308. Indeed, in this example, the nozzles 312 are arranged so as to be closer to the emitter 308 of the associated unit 306 than to the receiver 310 of that unit 306.
Due to the effects of dispersion, the cross sectional surface area of a light beam, or a beam of other radiation, leaving the emitter 308 increases with distance from the emitter 308. For some drops, therefore, it may be the case that the drop spans the whole of a beam when the drop falls relatively close to the emitter 308 (i.e. the cross-sectional area of the beam at that point may be smaller than, or comparable to, the size of the drop). However, as the distance from the emitter 308 increases, the whole beam may not be obscured. This means that some light may still reach the receiver 310. Even in examples where the reduction in intensity may be sufficient to determine if a drop is present or not, there may be a reduction in the variability of the intensity detected, and therefore the detection task is harder, more error prone and/or may be implemented by more sensitive detection apparatus.
Moreover, in the manufacture of some LEDs and other light emitters, an excitation pad is arranged in the centre of the emitter. This can create a dark spot in the centre of an emitted beam, which may in some examples become large in the far field. In some examples, such an arrangement of the excitation pad may be provided in an LED which is less directional (and/or less expensive).
The resulting beam for such light sources becomes annular in nature. In some drop detectors, a source and emitter may be separated across a sampling volume by a distance on the order of 30-60 mm. A drop breaking an emitted beam at a distance of around 10-25 mm may substantially block the beam. However, a drop passing through the beam at around 30-60 mm may pass through an upper region of the annulus of light, a region of the dark spot and then through the lower region of the annulus. As a result, a detector signal for a relatively distant drop will show a ‘double peak’, where the drop breaks the annulus, but the overall signal will be smaller than for a relatively closer drop.
The alternating configuration of drop detection units in the example of
The print apparatus 300 in this example further comprises a processor 318 to receive data from the receiver 310 and to determine a performance indication for the printhead 302, for example whether print material has been ejected from a selected nozzle 312.
In this example, the processor 318 receives data gathered by the drop detector 304 and uses this data to determine if agent is actually ejected from a selected nozzle 312 as intended, and thereby can determine a performance indication for the printhead 302.
In some examples, a drop detector 304 may be moveably mounted so that it can be repositioned to monitor different nozzles 312.
Although in the illustrated example, four units 306 are shown, there may be more or fewer units 306. In one example, there are twelve units 306.
In some examples, the print apparatus 300 may comprise additional components, such as motors, fluid ejection mechanisms and the like.
In the example above, light intensity is detected. Other examples may use other technologies such as detecting changes in refractive index, inductive electrification, humidification and the like.
The term ‘processor’ is to be interpreted broadly to include a CPU, processing unit, ASIC, logic unit, or programmable gate array etc. The methods and functional modules may all be performed by a single processor or divided amongst several processors.
While the apparatus and related aspects have been described with reference to certain examples, various modifications, changes, omissions, and substitutions can be made without departing from the spirit of the present disclosure. It should be noted that the above-mentioned examples illustrate rather than limit what is described herein, and that those skilled in the art will be able to design many alternative implementations without departing from the scope of the appended claims.
The word “comprising” does not exclude the presence of elements other than those listed in a claim, “a” or “an” does not exclude a plurality, and a single processor or other unit may fulfil the functions of several units recited in the claims.
Features discussed in relation to one example may replace, or be replaced by, features from another example.
The features of any dependent claim may be combined with the features of any of the independent claims or other dependent claims.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/EP2015/065126 | 7/2/2015 | WO | 00 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2017/001021 | 1/5/2017 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4315147 | Harmer et al. | Feb 1982 | A |
4754289 | Kudo | Jun 1988 | A |
5350929 | Meyer et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5430306 | Ix | Jul 1995 | A |
6350006 | Muller et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6513900 | Endo et al. | Feb 2003 | B2 |
6648444 | Valero et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
7815280 | Hayashi et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
8419159 | Govyadinov et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8449068 | Govyadinov | May 2013 | B2 |
8529011 | Govyadinov | Sep 2013 | B2 |
9056465 | Massen | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9268023 | Garay et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9931839 | Bravo de Vega | Apr 2018 | B1 |
20040119779 | Elgee | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20070024658 | Diol et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20130293625 | Massen | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20140078213 | Govyadinov et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
102653179 | Sep 2012 | CN |
103459158 | Dec 2013 | CN |
WO-2014092678 | Jun 2014 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Searching Authority. ISA/EP. International Search Report. Application No. EP/2015/065126, dated Mar. 29, 2016. 4 pages. |
Thurow, K. et al., “An Optical Approach for the Determination of Droplet Volumes in Nanodispensing”, Feb. 10, 2009. Journal of Automated Methods and Management in Chemistry, vol. 2009, Article ID 198732, 10 pages. |
Trondle, J. et al., “Non-contact Optical Sensor to Detect Free Flying Droplets in the Nanolitre Range”, Feb. 11, 2010. Available online at: https://www.imtek.de/data/lehrstuehle/app/dokumente/publikationen/publpdf2010/troendle-non-contact-optical-sensor.pdf. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20180111367 A1 | Apr 2018 | US |