This was an interesting issue

[Mdkoh]

Thought I would pass this along but please remember this has not been resolved as of yet. MP C3504 with a SR3130 internal finisher installed with less than 400 copies on it. When running copies the customer experiences a jam in location J113. Upon clearing the jam and trying to finish the copy run you get SC724-38. I had difficulty deciphering the literary confusion in Ricohs documentation but with a little help discovered that the bailing motor was not always cycling with regularity. At first I thought maybe the bailing fingers were binding or hanging up but quickly dismissed it. In all likelihood its either a bad stepper motor or maybe a harness problem. Curious if anyone has seen this or may have further speculation on the issue.

[Brianneoe]

Re: This was an interesting issue

I'm seeing posts about this finisher and different SC\jams codes. The stapler harness D6905403 on some units seems to be stiffer than the replacement part.

Good luck

[slimslob]

Re: This was an interesting issue

Anytime you get a jam in a finisher followed immediately by a Service Code, the SC is the what you need to trouble shoot. So SC 724-038 is a paper press motor error.

From the service manual(you do have and know how to use the service manual, right?)
When the paper press HP sensor is ON and the paper press motor is driven for specified time (msec.), the HP sensor does not switch OFF (1st time is jam notification, 2nd time is SC notification).

When the paper press HP sensor is OFF and the paper press motor is driven for specified time (msec.), the HP sensor does not switch ON (1st time is jam notification, 2nd time is SC notification).

[Mdkoh]

Re: This was an interesting issue

I do have the manual and have been using them since late 1979. Then manual for the finisher itself uses different terminology when describing components. visual observation is the motor is hesitating or not rotating completely. It does not happen everytime but at least once every 4 copies. When in SP mode you can test run this motor and it will fail during test runs. I'm inclined to think the motor, or maybe the harness has an issue. I have both on order and a set of sensors waiting. Just odd to see a failure like this with such few copies on the unit. Will report on the resolution when I get there on Wednesday.

[mrwho]

Re: This was an interesting issue

Hello there.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I'm having the exact same symptoms on a mpc3003 with an sr3130. I can't identify the press motor because every motor on the finisher manual has a different name than that.

Did you ever find out what caused it?

Thanks.

[mikadonovan]

Re: This was an interesting issue

Then manual for the finisher itself uses different terminology when describing components.

I can't identify the press motor because every motor on the finisher manual has a different name than that.

Thanks, Ricoh. WTF?

[mrwho]

Re: This was an interesting issue

Thanks, Ricoh. WTF?

I know, right?

So far I've resorted to lubricate every shaft on the finisher. The SMC shows 5 instances of that error, starting in April 2017, sometimes with several months of interval between them, but nevertheless I'd like to hear from someone else who had that problem.

Have a nice weekend!

[slimslob]

Re: This was an interesting issue

To my knowledge, the SR3130 ,internal finisher, does not have a press motor because does not do booklets.

[Mdkoh]

Re: This was an interesting issue

Hello there.

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I'm having the exact same symptoms on a mpc3003 with an sr3130. I can't identify the press motor because every motor on the finisher manual has a different name than that.

Did you ever find out what caused it?

Thanks.

Yes the fix was replacing the harness I don't remember the part # but apparently there was a bad connection somewhere and it let the machine wig out with that error.

[sturmtrooper]

Re: This was an interesting issue

Thanks, Ricoh. WTF?

It gets even better when you get to the parts manuals where motors, gears, clutches and many other parts are described based on their voltage, wattage, and tooth count BUT NOT WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO. Thank you ricoh, may I have another.

[slimslob]

Re: This was an interesting issue

It gets even better when you get to the parts manuals where motors, gears, clutches and many other parts are described based on their voltage, wattage, and tooth count BUT NOT WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO. Thank you ricoh, may I have another.

What they do can usually be found on the point-to-point pdf.

[Lagonda]

Re: This was an interesting issue

Ah Ricoh! The company that can call a part by one name in the service manual, another name in the parts manual and a third name in the training manual, and I wonder why my hair has disappeared!
Also keep in mind that finishers are quite dumb and don't often express themselves clearly to the copier so the copier makes an educated guess about what the finisher is unhappy about but some times gets it wrong.

[Maher]

Re: This was an interesting issue

Last year ,I got the same finisher out of the box and it was acting funny . It worked only for 50 or 60 pages then it start giving me all kind of Error codes . We ended up replacing the Finisher Board under warranty . I think this one is not made by Ricoh , That`s why the manual is different .

[Oze]

Re: This was an interesting issue

Had the SC724-38 fault this week and fixed it.
The manual dribbles on about a Press motor but it's not that.
It turned out to be the two sensors for the paper exit arms.
A previous tech had been trying to resolve the SC724-86 error and in resolving THAT he caused the SC724-38.
He removed the sensors and when he replaced them he reversed the order they came out in :/
See attachment for the sensor location.
finisher fault.jpg

[ricoheng]

Re: This was an interesting issue

Had the SC724-38 fault this week and fixed it.
The manual dribbles on about a Press motor but it's not that.
It turned out to be the two sensors for the paper exit arms.
A previous tech had been trying to resolve the SC724-86 error and in resolving THAT he caused the SC724-38.
He removed the sensors and when he replaced them he reversed the order they came out in :/
See attachment for the sensor location.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]38572[/ATTACH]

also if one of those is dislodged by and end user one of the springs can get the wrong side of arm it's hard to spot at first, you get the sc724-38 code also.