Hi Myc Holmes,
Based on your research chemist background, maybe we can utilize your
experience in that regard.
I have been racking my brain tryng to think of chemicals that may be
suitable as an ink replacement for printing PCB etch resist.
I am thinking that a two part ink similar to an epoxy would be the
best. My C88 printer has 120 black jets and 179 jets for the colours.
Therefore if we can work out a two part ink then the black jets could
lay down PART A with the remaining colour jets laying down the PART B to
set
it.
Naturally these substances would need to have a similar
physical/chemical properties as the inks which the printer is supposed
to use and most likely need to have a fairly neutral pH.
Any ideas?
Cheers,
David
Myc Holmes wrote:
>Hi Voltan,
>
>First of all, I congratulate you on a great idea and the work cleverness
>that have made it work for you.. I agree, a 99% reliability rate is not
>needed, just somewhat equal to Toner Transfer.
>
>As part of my research chemist background, I find it is important to
>identify and document all the details for repeatable results. The key is in
>the details.
>
>I've been following your work and am trying to repeat it. It is frustrating
>when it fails and appears that the process has been duplicated. Until just
>recently, the use of Brake Fluid to reduce surface tension and now the fact
>3 sets of nozzles / cartridges are being used to correct coverage problems
>has been published. It is very normal that some details the you just take
>for granted are especially important and need to be mentioned.
>
>These are the missed details that slow down the progress by others. After
>all, it has been 4 months since your original post and no one yet has
>successfully duplicated your results.
>
>It could be similar to Toner Transfer, where apparently minor variations
>have a major impact.
>
>Again, I apologize if it appears that I am disparaging you efforts, but I am
>trying to get a grasp on all the details to be able to repeat them.
>
>Myc
>
>On 7/24/06, Volkan Sahin <vsahin@...> wrote:
>
>
>> I didn't understand you reliability question, if possible please
>>explain a little bit more, what are your reliability criteria? Do you mean
>>successful repeatability or reliable as TT :)? Please don't ask me to have
>>99% success rate.
>>
>>I could be able print on pcb without any failure, it may be because of the
>>printer that I am using. The main thing is, board needs to be clean, free of
>>finger print, dust, and grease like required in TT process and you need to
>>use as many colors as possible to decrease the effects of clogged nozzle. I
>>am always using 3 colors. I didn't do 100 pcbs with this technique but I can
>>say that, at least for me, success rate is much higher than TT. If someone
>>plans to do double layer PCB with CNC drill or applying solder resist then
>>there is no chance to do it with TT, either he needs to use photo-resist
>>/dry-film or direct inkjet.
>>The curing process is the key for direct printing, you need to cure it
>>until seeing some smoke on pcb, ink color becomes much darker and copper
>>will be oxidized. I think after a few trials you will understand what I
>>mean.
>>Good luck,
>>Volkan
>>
>>....successfully and reliably repeated. We have only heard from Voltan
>>that it is do-able, but nothing about the
>>
>>reliability. From Stefan's posts, his trials show a repeatability problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
>If Files or Photos are running short of space, post them here:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs_Archives/
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ∗∗ ACCEPT: CRM114 PASS Markovian Matcher ∗∗
>CLASSIFY succeeds; success probability: 1.0000 pR: 43.8618
>Best match to file #0 (nonspam.css) prob: 1.0000 pR: 43.8618
>Total features in input file: 6086
>#0 (nonspam.css): features: 1603168, hits: 161233, prob: 1.00e+00, pR: 43.86
>#1 (spam.css): features: 797120, hits: 122054, prob: 1.37e-44, pR: -43.86
>
>-=-Extra Stuff-=-
>
> From sentto-4505361-15314-1153763115-yahoo=dcureton.com@... Tue Jul 25 03:45:23 2006
>Return-path: <sentto-4505361-15314-1153763115-yahoo=dcureton.com@...>
>Envelope-to: yahoo@...
>Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 03:45:23 +1000
>Received: from n24c.bullet.sc5.yahoo.com ([66.163.187.215])
>by whitetail with smtp (Exim 4.62)
>(envelope-from <sentto-4505361-15314-1153763115-yahoo=dcureton.com@...>)
>id 1G54Ud-0007hS-7T
>for yahoo@...; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 03:45:23 +1000
>Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com;
>b=Pt1k+BGHxukS6bww+cmX5khJ1DSOUOXg9NhKvQpCkAMCeo3QyDWhGVA8uc81jn1G1N8SotZxEFAqzfzhAv7WYJLWeUVDFVl2mbFXIDPwEZBf4Y0uM+0nRO9Y9br8THkK;
>Received: from [66.163.187.123] by n24.bullet.sc5.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2006 17:45:15 -0000
>Received: from [66.218.69.3] by t4.bullet.sc5.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2006 17:45:15 -0000
>Received: from [66.218.67.96] by t3.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Jul 2006 17:45:15 -0000
>X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email
>X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 4505361-m15314
>X-Sender: mycroft2152y@...
>X-Apparently-To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
>Received: (qmail 69678 invoked from network); 24 Jul 2006 17:44:21 -0000
>Received: from unknown (66.218.67.33)
> by m39.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Jul 2006 17:44:21 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.182.190)
> by mta7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jul 2006 17:44:20 -0000
>Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id k27so1035398nfc
> for <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: by 10.78.170.17 with SMTP id s17mr1721353hue;
> Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: by 10.78.193.14 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 10:44:19 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-ID: <bd2a1fcc0607241044j5848744ci65256c80440472e2@...>
>To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
>In-Reply-To: <20060724171238.85729.qmail@...>
>References: <bd2a1fcc0607240722l3211afd6gf0923c99c64ace07@...>
> <20060724171238.85729.qmail@...>
>X-Originating-IP: 64.233.182.190
>X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0
> From: "Myc Holmes" <mycroft2152y@...>
>X-Yahoo-Profile: mycroft2152
>Sender: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Mailing-List: list Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com; contact Homebrew_PCBs-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
>List-Id: <Homebrew_PCBs.yahoogroups.com>
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:44:19 -0400
>Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Epson R220 PCB printing Report #1
>Reply-To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Hi Voltan,
>
>First of all, I congratulate you on a great idea and the work cleverness
>that have made it work for you.. I agree, a 99% reliability rate is not
>needed, just somewhat equal to Toner Transfer.
>
>As part of my research chemist background, I find it is important to
>identify and document all the details for repeatable results. The key is in
>the details.
>
>I've been following your work and am trying to repeat it. It is frustrating
>when it fails and appears that the process has been duplicated. Until just
>recently, the use of Brake Fluid to reduce surface tension and now the fact
>3 sets of nozzles / cartridges are being used to correct coverage problems
>has been published. It is very normal that some details the you just take
>for granted are especially important and need to be mentioned.
>
>These are the missed details that slow down the progress by others. After
>all, it has been 4 months since your original post and no one yet has
>successfully duplicated your results.
>
>It could be similar to Toner Transfer, where apparently minor variations
>have a major impact.
>
>Again, I apologize if it appears that I am disparaging you efforts, but I am
>trying to get a grasp on all the detai
>
>
> -0-0-0-
>
>