On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:42:42 +0200, mycroft2152 <
mycroft2152y@...>
wrote:
> Len,
> Hmmm, interesting technical discussion, but how about something
> practical and positive that will move along the direct to pcb printing?
> Voltan's creativity in problem solving, is a lot more impressive than
> your technical writing expertise or googling ability. How about some
> "back to the bench" results.
> Seriously, finding a simple reliable method to "prepare" the copper is
> needed.
> If a "product" is needed, then it must be something that is generic
> and not brand specific. Look at the headaches the variations in
> "toner" created.
> The fact is that inkjet pcb printing hasn't reached the stage of
> practicality, it just barely repeatable after 3 months of discussion.
> Has anyone collected the $50 prize offered?
> Myc
I agree with you for once, much more work is needed here.
The strange thing is - while for me it doesn't seem to work whenever i try
the test PCB every now any then i get a result that is just so stunning
that makes me certain this must work. I also tried just "going for it" and
etched a real PCB. It had wide traces, and some definition was lost around
the edges, but electrically it only had one break and this was plainly
visible after printing and could have been corrected.
So this would have been as good as a poor TT. And this was before the
brake fluid thing with lotsa puddling.
It's like sometimes i get glimpses of how it should be, when i do things
"just right", but most of the time i do something wrong. Usually this is a
puddling problem. The thing i feared that nozzles would constanty clog and
cause breaks in the traces does not seem to happen, they seem to stay in
quite good order even with the vacuum pump disabled.
It's just a matter of time, i'm sure..
I didn't remember you offered a $50 prize, what were the conditions again?
;-)
ST