I regularly cut 100 or so of a board 2" x 1/2" and I use exactly that
kind of paper cutting Guillotine, but it's quite old, maybe 30 years
or so, and the blades can be sharpened with a stone.
I am usually using a paper/resin type board, and the problem with
these is that although the table is flat, the blade is curved, and the
section of board that is under the blade, as opposed to on the table,
gets bent enough to splinter the edge.
I finish the boards on a belt sanding machine, or a sanding disc.
I tried a bench fretsaw type machine, but it wouldn't hold a perfectly
straight line, and was too slow for my liking !
I have a table saw, but I am a bit wary of cutting small boards as my
fingers end up too close to the blade for comfort.
I have thought of trying a tile cutting machine to cut the boards, the
small DIY type machines with an abrasive wheel and a water bath.. I'm
not sure how it would turn out, maybe the blade would clog, but it's
got to be worth a try... Advantages include... it is hard to cut your
fingers on them.. and there would be no dust, as the water bath
takes care of that.
I have one in the workshop, maybe I'll give it a try!
Chris
--- In
Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Codori" <greg_codori@...>
wrote:
>
> I am going to get started on a new project that requires very small
> PCB's. As the subject states - what's the best method of cutting PCB's
> to the size listed here - (3" x .1"). These will be used in a non-
> electronic project.
>
> I will be using single sided PCB's at .062" thick.
>
> I am thinking of using one of those large office paper cutters (the
> ones that look like they have a 3 foot lawn mower blade as a cutter!)
> as the board will be less than 2mm thick.
>
> I understand that PCB's can dull blades quickly, but this cutter is one
> that has been deemed obsolete.
>
> Any thoughts? I read the posts about using scroll saws, routers, etc.
> I was thinking that as my boards would be very thin, my method would
> work. The only catch would be that I would need very straight cuts, no
> wandering edges.
>