lcdpublishing wrote:
> Well, it looks to me like someone with an epson printer that has
> durabrite ink has to give this a go.
>
> The ink is resisting the ferric chloride for a while. Then, it
> starts to breakdown and the etchant starts to eat away at the
> copper. So, it does appear to work for a while.
>
> I certainly can read my name from the previous etch test. However,
> I also drew a box and some lines around my name with a sharpie.
> When I run my finger over the board, I can easily tell the
> difference in thickness of the copper. The areas that were masked
> with the sharpie are much thicker copper than with the ink.
>
> The problem with my tests is that I have no way to consistantly
> control the application thickness (Film thickness) of the ink. So,
> in areas where the ink is thick, it protects good - I suspect. This
> also appears to be the case where I tried another "Flood fill"
> area. Some areas resisted well, others etched through like there
> was nothing there.
>
> So, I really think the next step is for someone to try it on an ink
> jet printer. that will provide consistant thickness of ink and of
> course, something accurate to see after the etching.
>
> that's all I got folks.
Might you try baking the Durabrite in a warm oven or under a lamp for
a while? It might take a while for the ink to cure into a tough solid.