Mike,
I understand ∗exactly∗ how you feel. THAT is why I originally decided to post the message to this group, about the Staples "Picture Paper", even though I was completely new to the group (having just then found out about it). I was hesitant to "barge in", and hesitant about being so enthusiastic about the paper, since I didn't yet know what everyone else was using or what types of results they had been getting.
But I decided to share the information here, anyway, for the very same reason that I originally put up my webpage about making pcbs: I had spent many hundreds of man-hours, and dollars, "on and off" over a period of about six years, tracking down every clue and hint that I could find, on the web and in the newsgroups, about ways to get toner transfer to work, or work better, and experimenting at length with various papers, chemicals, and procedures, etc, and didn't want others with similar needs to have to "re-invent the wheel".
So, when I happened to try the Staples Picture Paper, recently, I was SO amazed at the quality of the results that I thought that they should be disseminated immediately. I do not think that you are, in any way, wrong, for emphasizing it, so strongly. It is STARTLINGLY good. The toner adhesion to the copper is, by far, the best I've ever seen. And it's capable of very finely-detailed traces: A week or two ago, "just for fun", I tried printing a random pattern of lines, using line-widths that varied down to ONE dot wide, at 600 dpi (on my HP LaserJet 4, with HP toner), on the Staple Picture Paper. Even the one-dot-wide lines worked perfectly! Under magnification, the one-dot lines on the paper were ∗solid∗ (not "dots"), even when they were at 45-degree angles (I had the "Resolution Enhancement Technology" set to "off", and darkness set to maximum, and dithering: "None", and graphics mode: "Raster"). And they transferred to the copper perfectly, too! Unfortunately, I haven't had time to try etching that test board, yet.
I, too, have spent a LOT of time, and money, trying many different types of papers and procedures. And since I make PCBs that go into a "commercial" product that I sell (curve tracer kit), a 90% success rate and "pretty good" results were basically the same as total failure, to me. When I have a backlog of customers who have already paid for kits and I'm trying to make the 7 PM deadline before the UPS depot closes, the LAST thing I want to have to worry about is whether or not my PCB-making process is reliable enough, or good enough. Toner flaking off of the board is just NOT an option, for me. EXPERIMENTING with toner transfer techniques is ONE thing. And I enjoy it; maybe too much. But being in "production mode" is ENTIRELY different. At that point, it HAS to be a perfect, no-brainer, idiot-proof, fire-and-forget type of thing. That is, after all, probably the main reason WHY I spent all of the time and money to try to get it to BE that way. The same idea applies when I'm prototyping. In that mode, I'm ONLY interested in quickly getting a prototype board made. If I had to worry about the pcb fabrication process and the quality of the results, it would almost defeat the purpose.
So, for NOW, for "production mode" pcb-making, I ∗finally∗ have no need to worry about making any immediate changes. I use the Staples Picture Paper and have no worries. (But that's not to say that I think everything about my process is perfect. Far from it, actually. But, it's definitely "good enough", for the time being.)
I do still have a couple of areas that could use some further attention and improvement:
1) It takes more time and effort than I want it to take, to get the residue from the paper out of the drill-hole marks. Adding a small amount of liquid dish soap (while soaking to get the paper off) helps. But I'd like to find either some chemicals or a mechanical procedure or device that would make it easier/faster/better. I currently just use a toothbrush, usually moving it in tight circles as it traverses the board (after rubbing most of the paper off with my thumbs). A chemical method seems promising, since the soap does help significantly. But if I can figure out, or find out about, a simple mechanical device that would do it more-or-less unattended, I'd try it. (Whatever works!) Just while sitting here writing this, for example, I envisioned putting a speed control on my orbital sander (to slow it down) and mounting a brush onto it, where the sandpaper normally goes. I could even mount it in a frame that included a base to hold the pcb in the correct position. Of course the pcb size would be limited by the sander's size, that way. But my largest production boards are only 4x6 inches, currently. Any other ideas or hints or tips would be greatly appreciated.
2) Laminating: I posted quite a few messages here, recently, about the large press I was trying to use. I did finally get it to work, ALMOST completely reliably, by using a 1/4" steel plate in it, to press on the patterns' sides of the boards (and by playing with the time and temp). It still needs a little more work, though, before I can use it for production, well enough. I think I need to add a bottom plate for the boards to sit on, instead of plywood, since there are still occasional problems that I THINK are due to some non-uniformity in the applied pressure, i.e. not enough pressure in certain areas, sometimes. (And I need LARGER plates than the small one I bought for testing purposes, and need to mount one of them to the movable lid of the press.)
In the meantime, I haven't had time to play with it much, since I had orders to fill. So, for most of the production pcbs, I reverted to just using the clothes iron. I noticed that you said you couldn't get an iron to work reliably-enough. But I have almost NO problems, using an iron.
Lately, I have found, I ∗think∗, that the only important steps during ironing are: a) preheating the board for at least 20-30 seconds using the highest heat setting, and, b) using the tip of the iron to go over the pattern, getting enough pressure on each part. I have, very rarely, gotten almost TOO much pressure on parts of the pattern, but almost exclusively when I'm doing the component-side artwork (and haven't actually had to re-do any boards). And that was due to accidentally "digging in" too much, or gouging, with either the tip of the tip, of the side/edge of the iron.
I usually start at the far edge of the board and pull the iron backwards, toward me, torquing the iron so most of the contact is in the tip area. I only go a little over halfway down the board with each pass (about 1/4 spacing between passes), and then turn the board around (180 degrees) and start from the opposite edge, the same way. After doing it in two parallel directions, like that, I rotate the board 90 or 270 degress and use a side-to-side motion, still using the tip the same way, and starting at the far edge and working my way toward myself with each pass, until I get a little over halfway down the board. Then I rotate the board 180 degress and do the same thing again. The side-to-side passes are usually not quite a "vigorous" as when I'm pulling the iron backwards. The whole ironing process, after the pre-heating, takes about 30 to 45 seconds, for a 4x6-inch board. Also, I forgot to say: whenever I rotate the board (per above), I usually re-heat the whole board, for 8 to 10 seconds or so.
At any rate, after reading what you have said about the HC200, I will probably buy one. Ironing makes me sweat.
Sorry to blather-on for so long, again. Gotta get back to work...
Regards,
Tom Gootee
http://www.fullnet.com/u/tomg-----------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 00:27:44 -0000
From: "mikezcnc" <
eemikez@...>
Subject: Re: Beginner questions on building a homebrew TT laminator
Dave,
My comments are below, mix in text. Mike
--- In
Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Mucha" <dave_mucha@y...>
wrote:
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "mikezcnc" <eemikez@c...>
wrote:
> > Why is it a wrong statement that HC200 and Gootee paper is not
all
> > there is to TT? You don't have to make any changes to it if doing
> > 0.040 PCBs. And small chenges for 0.060 IAW provided link
> > www.pulsar.gs
>
>
> "all there is " would imply there is no room for improvement.
='all there means that if someone has job for tomorrow and his boss
has no money for a PCB house and the PCB house has a long lead time
and it happens to be a weekend and the job has to be done for monday
at 10:00am, then such a person may rund to Staples and buy HC200, for
$90, 30 sheets of paper by Gootee and be done with the PCB in an hour
because it was his first time. Otherwise he might be done with the
PCB in much less time.
>
> #1) not all people on this list live where they can buy these parts
=True, but there are many that rather pay for $90 for a laminator and
have boards done this evening. I am talking about the guys who work
in R&D at Langley, for example.
>
> #2) not all peple on this list can afford to buy these parts.
==that is a bummer. John Kleinbauer from www.kleinbauer.com once
said, and I paraphrase him with pleasure because he is a terrific guy-
that regretfully this (CNC) hobby does cost money. So does PCB
making. Time is money, and I would suggest taking a job for $5 an
hour and buy a laminator rather than do it and have an unpredictable
result- maybe, with hourly pay maybe 30 cents an hour, a year from
now. Just a thought.
>
> #3) there is little 'home brew' in a store bought unit.
==But there is, Dave. Remember, you still have to know how to use it.
The homebrew might mean 'homebrew laminator' or 'homebrew PCB'. I am
for 'homebrew PCB'.
Then you have to adjust it for thicker boards, instructions available
compliments of www.pulsar.gs, we cannot ask for more. I know that
www.pulsar.gs spent lots of time and money to develop that laminator
and conversion. He is a great guy by the way and we are just
benefiting from his enterprenurial skills. I like learning from
people- I di not come up with this combination, I just verified it
with my highly critical skills and lots of money. Maybe I should have
sold it on ebay?! hint hint.
>
> #4) the HC200 does not handle 3 foot by 4 foot sheets of PBC so
there
> is a gap between the unit size and the maximum board size.
==You are trying hard, Dave. I am looking at phenolic PCBs 8ea,
16"x20' and I am not sure if it was you or someone else who was
looking for them. I'll let you have them for $5 a piece+shipping, if
it was you. I don't recall anybody wanting to build a 3'x4' PCB using
TT. I also don't think that anyone might want to layout PCBs of that
size. And I don't think a Xerox conductor can do it either. I'll stop
here, because I think you meant something else. Also, that's why
people do cut their boards before laminating them.. However, one
thing is for sure, HC200 is for 8.5x11- they also have two other
sizes, they, meaning GBC.
>
> #5) each week, paper changes and each month, someone posts yet
> another 'best paper' Some will hold that magazine paper is best
due
> to cost and availability.
==You are very correct. I tried them, all, spent lots of money on all
kinds of secret papers. I even tried to make my own paper and I tried
to coat it with dextrine. With all the expertise that I have on paper
manufacturing, it didn't help. Then I tried the paper by Gootee, from
Staples. You don't think I am making this stuff up, Dave? Thank you.
Please try that paper once with HC200 and let us know. I tried and I
almost fainted when I saw the result. I showed it to my friend and he
was sceptical before seeing it. I mean he was sceptical. When he saw
it he almost fainted. We've been trying to corral that rabbit for
long time, following every lead on this board, all there is on
internet, everywhere. And the only time it worked is as described by
me. It's that simple. You want PCBs at home and you don't want to
spend time following the false leads on this board that here is the
answer: HC200 and paper by Gootee. Why do you think I am so adamant
about this combination? Because it cost me a lot of money to be so
adamant about it. Mostly due to false leads on this and other boards.
leads are just that- leads: use it at your own risk, your mileage may
vary. But not with the HC200 and Gootee paper. This is it for
homebrewing PCBs. If someone finds a better method, better
combination, please repay the debt to this board, like I am doing and
post the results. I will be glad to try it. Also, it is possible that
by the time one makes to the store the laminators will be gone, more
expensive or redesigned. Paper will be on sale but it will be a
different kind. I have a stash of paper put aside.
>
> But, I would grant that it is HIGHLY RECOMENDED as a one shot
> solution.
==I knew you would agree with me, at least that much. My take on it
is that if one wants to start making PCBs in few hours and be happy
with it, this is what they should do.
Few weeks ago there was an article in Nuts and Volts about making
PCBs. I read that article and the author was rather ill informed, all
copiec from internet. Deception, deception.
>
People, please try that method and then comment on it. When Gootee
first mentioned that paper few months ago, I said yeah, right. I
tried all he suggested before and I had 70% success (once only
approching 90%) ie it di not work like he suggested. Then I tried
that Gootee suggested paper with that HC200 (that was my idea to
combine the two), my, what a change. As I rememebr he was excited
about that paper on his website, too.
Thanks for commenting, Dave. Mike
:)
> just my 2 cents.
>
> Dave
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]