Adjustment L382

[Tisham Candella]

TheEpson L382 is an incredible all-in-one inkjet ideal printer for all types of colour print outs. This printer has Waste Ink Pad which is used for gathering and engrossing waste ink during the printing process and also for the cleaning of print-heads. Epson L382 will stop working properly if its Waste Ink Pads are flooded with ink.

First, you need to download Epson L382 adjustment program tool. You can easily download the Epson L382 Adjustment Program from its official website. Epson L382 adjustment tool and download the resetter. After downloading it, follow the following how to use steps.

The Epson L382 adjustment tool can be used for multiple things, like Adjusting EEPROM Data Copy, PF/EJ adjustment, Bi-D adjustment, Head angular adjustment, Head cleaning, Ink charge, Top margin adjustment, Head ID Input, Initialize PF deterioration offset, etc.

A: Sometimes it catches as a virus, but it is not. This issue can be fixed by disabling your antivirus for even 15 minutes. Here's how you can disable your antivirus temporarily: -to-disable-antivirus-temporarily/

Brother Thansk so much u share the link its work 100%

i m say to thank you again.

you help me wen i have no money to buy this software

i relly thanks to you dear friend.

You help me

I pray for you. Thanks so much

Which zip software are you using: WinZip, WinRAR, 7z? It seems your zip file opener software has gone outdated. I recommend WinRAR. You can download it from here:

If zip file opener software is OK, then make sure you are disabling the antivirus before unziping the resetter file.

See this video for more details: _xPnl16Cc

Greetings and respect to you!

Thank you for this useful and valuable program. Good luck and be successful.

I still recommend to friends and users who use Epson printers to use this Reseter and solve the problem.

1) Make sure the zip software should be installed on the computer like WinRAR, Winzip, 7z. If not installed, then install one of them first.

2) Right-click on the zip file and click on extract files to a folder. All the files will be extracted into the same folder.

hello. i have downloaded a resetter for epson L382 but under the extract of the downloaded resetter isnt opening run as administrator option. please help , ir requires service because the is at its end of service.

hello Techstar ,thanks for the work done there .

i have also got the same problem problem wit ink pad ,and i have tried the adjustment tool several times but still doesnot work. when i download the tool and i try to extract , nothing changes . the thing remains dormant .when i choose extract epson l382 adjustment noting extracts and i have uninstalled all the anti-virus programs..

what could be the problem mr.

Hi the resetter i have tried but i t gives me an error what did i do wrong because i clicked where it is shown there but it shows me password and i inserted after that it gave me the Cannot execute error

We are an independent website and is not associated with any brand unless specified. All brand names, trademarks, images used on this website are for reference only, and they belongs to their respective owners. We disclaim any ownership, rights of such third-party products or copyright material unless otherwise specified. We also do not provide any kind of paid support. If you have any question feel free to contact us. Read our full disclaimer.

All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.

Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.

Dear Authors,

I appreciate all your substantial efforts to improve the paper according to the reviewer's comments and suggestions. In this form, the manuscript has improved considerably. Still, the reviewers raised substantial concerns about statistical analysis. Thus, before proceeding with my decision I would like to ask you to address the comments provided by the two reviewers, in particular reviewer 2, in your revision.

Please give attention to my previous comment no. 3.

In abstract you mentioned that root depth had no effect on liquititin contents, in reply to comment you pointed that root depth had significant influence on liquititin.

1.1. Fig.1. caption shows letters for the post-hoc test but the figure has '*' in the caption. Please address.

1.2. Abbreviating G. uralensis as "W", G. inflata as "D" and G. glabra as "G" is (still) disturbing. In my previous point, I did not argue against using abbreviations, I just meant why not use Gu, Gi, Gg, or something similar? One always has to check again which letter is which species.

2.1. The 2.1. point of my previous comments was not adequately addressed. In particular, I still see no p-value threshold adjustment for doing a high number of statistical tests - Fig. 5. is the same as before, the authors apparently misunderstood my comment, but this is an important issue. Such a high amount of correlation tests requires the adjustment of p-value thresholds to set the hypothesis (or better, study-) level error chance to 0.05. Again, see 10.1007/s11306-006-0037-z.

In particular, in Fig. 5., and in section L296-313, p Dear Authors,

Although the two Reviewers have recognized that your manuscript has merits, they point out a number of critical flaws in the study performed. I agree with their main concerns, which are related to statistical analysis and speculation on results interpretation, being in some situations the conclusions reached by the authors not supported by the data obtained. Therefore, I would be willing to consider a revised version if you are willing to address the comments provided by the two Reviewers.

[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: -rebuttal-letters/ #]

Statistical analysis needs authors attention

Data shown in Figure 1 must be analyzed through one way ANOVA and authors need to mention which posthoc test was applied

Correlation study is misleading. Zero means no correlation

2.1. The applied methods confirm accepted methodologies, with the exception of no p-value threshold adjustment for doing a high number of statistical tests. This is a major issue. Such a high amount of correlation tests requires the adjustment of p-value thresholds to set the hypothesis (or better, study-) level error chance to 0.05. See 10.1007/s11306-006-0037-z. This adjustment will tag many of your current results as false-positives. To cope with the issue, the amount of statistical tests can be reduced by subjecting the dataset to statistical tests after reduction of dimensionality.

2.2. I'd speak of correlations above an absolute value of 0.6 - 0.7. With n = 3 you simply do not have the statistical power to test these relationships successfully. The low values in Table S7 and a fault in experimental design makes the claims in L300-316 unsupported in my opinion. A more prudent discussion of the results is warranted.

2.3. Minor notes:

L177: Please state what was the amount of sequences of plant origin in your raw dataset.

L196: Why is such an old R version used? Did you accidently write the version of a used R package?

2.4. An original primary research within Scope of the journal. No ethical issues. Methods are descrbied in sufficient detail. Research question is well defined and relevant. There is not much information available on the microbiome of this important medicinal plant. I think the investigation of the depth gradient is especially interesting.

3.1. The biggest problem with the experimental design is that each soil type was represented by a single species only that limits the possible conclusions that can be drawn from the findings. The authors are fortunately aware of this limitation, as written in L387-391. But this, unfortunately this prevents drawing conclusions about the effects of the soil type and the plant species, as the interaction term cannot be estimated from these data. The situation is worsened by the low statistical power (n=3). Perhaps this is why we see extreme within-sample variability, as presented in the db-RDA plot in Figure 7. This also questions the usefulness of Table 1. I understand that the answers can be answered only by introducing all test species to all sampling sites, which is not realistic. Therefore, I suggest conversion of the claims regaring the effects of soil parameters and species to speculative sentences, which is accepted by the journal. The undoubtedly well-supported data are limited to the fungal species list in each Glycyrrhiza, and the depth-gradient values. Please revise the study accordingly.

3a8082e126