Archive of the former Yahoo!Groups mailing list: Homebrew PCBs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Young" <mikewhy@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: A $500.00 "UV" non-trivial exposure
box.....


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "derekhawkins" <derekhawkins@...>
>> The prevailing view seems to be that since industry uses photoetching
>> then it's far too expensive and too involved for the home. Either that
>> or "we must do things differently" prevails. Normally, I don't get
>> involved in these TT debates but the insinuation by a poster that one
>> needs a $500.00 exposure box for photoetching was too much to resist.
>
> That's a little too far over the top. From a complexity and startup cost
> point of view, the choice is rather simple:
>
> ∗∗ cost of a UV box, versus cost of a laminator;
> ∗∗ cost of sensitized pre-clad or laminant, versus cost of transfer paper;
> ∗∗ cost and dimensional stability of mylar or acetate, versus short-term
> stability of card stock backed transfer paper.
> ∗∗ cost of developer, versus cost of plain water to remove transfer paper;
> ∗∗ reusability of acetate or mylar, versus one-shot nature of transfer
> paper;
> ∗∗ inkjet or plotter on hand, versus laserjet on hand.
>
> For production runs of many multiples on automated equipment, photo
> exposure
> has some advantages. For production runs of one or very few, the case for
> 100% of "HOMEBREW PCBs", you'll have to explain as though to a young child
> the advantages that offset the cost and complexity of photo exposure.

The process is very reliable, equipment is cheap, dense boards with narrow
tracks and SM parts are easy, and it is quite fast. Most of my boards are
one-offs. The main expense is the resist-coated boards.

Leon

Leon

---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]