Thank you for commenting on Pulsar. They swear that it simple and
easy and claims 6 mills. What was the size of your board and tell us
more what it meant 'fair'? How dense was the board?
Mike
--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "VaporWings" <dsc@d...> wrote:
> Hi All,
> I just signed up here and have been reading various post. For
years I have been using just a dry transfer
> method of making PCB by printing the image on normal laserjet
paper using a LaserJet5L printer. I then
> using a clothes iron to iron the image onto a scrubbed copper
board. I put water on the paper and mostly
> steam off the paper with the iron. The results are fair so I have
been looking at better ways to do this without
> lots of photo chemicals. In searching I ran across this site which
has a these film transfer sheets.
>
> http://www.pulsar.gs (also www.dynaart.com)
>
> In doing a web search I ran across a web-site that had a really
negative review of these sheets claiming they
> melt in a laser printer.. This would be bad.. Some post here
indicate people here are using them with
> good results..
>
> My couple of questions are :
> 1. Do they really work and how well ? The claim of .006 seems
pretty out there for this type of system.
> I would be happy with .030 results.
>
> 2. Is their "EQUIPMENT" Fab In A Box package system of a laminator,
Break/shear, and a drill press a
> good deal and do they work ? I have been using a Large drill
press for years which seems to work but
> is bulky. I have been using a bandsaw to cut the boards but it
really dulls the blades. A thought on the small
> drill press would be to modify it for CNC down the road.
Their "modified" laminator is $30 more than the
> same one from Officemax (or so it appears). If the "Mod" worth
it ? Does anyone here have web pointers
> to the same type of equipment but cheaper.
>
> I read in a previous post that someone was wanting to build a
better agitator tank.
> I have been using an older version of this agitator tank for
etching the boards.
>
> http://store.yahoo.com/webtronics/lowcosettans.html
>
> It has worked well for me. It looks like the newer version has a
hood and is sealed better
> then the one I have.
>
> Thanks in advanced,
> Tom G :)