Hi Tom,
I called you 'Gootee' or used your name like in 'Gootee' paper
because I did not know your name but since you are a TV icon then,
there!
Removal of the residue is a problem. I don't think a mechanical
contraption is a solution nor is a toothbrush.
I rather think that there is some kind of enzyme (septic tanks or
used to be a laundry powder with enzymes) that would consume paper.
How about that TSP for cleaning boards? I am not to crazy about
having a potful of hot liquid on my bench but still I am curious what
that would do to paper 'whiskers' sticking out of the toner.
What about sticking the PCB somwhat cleaned out into the etchant in
hopes that it will burn off the paper traces faster than copper and
then go onto copper etching?
You mentioned that you don't have problems with using iron with
Staples paper. Neither do I; I never tried it with that paper. I went
thru enough problems with all kinds of papers that I will not use the
ironing process ever. Besides, my boards are large and detailed
and ... when I read the discussion about conductors I said to myself:
there's got to be an easier method for me. Enter an H200 laminator.
Thanks for commenting, Tom. It was because of you that I decided to
try the TT one more time after having followed every paper that was
ever mentioned on internet. I thought, I know that guy, I saw his
website many times before, he wouldn't be making thsi stuff up. You
should have seen me running around town trying to find Staples with
the stuff I needed. You should have have seen me when I laminated my
first board without even barely cleaning it. You should have seen my
face when I saw that board the first time: my jaw dropped to the
floor. I told my buddy about it over the phone and he said, yeah,
yeah... When I showed to him he just locked up speechless...Enough
advertising because guys will think I work for Staples or GBC.
Let me put it this way: I have a pile of that paper ready.
IMO the quality is comparable to a photgraphic method but the nice
thing is you need hardly anything to make a board using it.
Tom, are you familiar with Ballendo's CNC PCB drilling machine? You
know that an email to him might get you a 50% discount on that
machine and that in turn might prevent you from loosing your
eyesight. I didn't want you to miss that opportunity if you missed it.
Again, this group owes you a big thank you for having posted that
crucial info. Thank you, Tom.
Mike
--- In
Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas P. Gootee" <tomg@f...>
wrote:
> 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@c...>
> 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]