Yep, that could be an advantage of the "one side" method. As far as the aligning is concerned, I'm mostly doing 4-layers here, hence aligning layers is something I have to have under control anyways. I do this using diagonally placed shafts, printing on clear films and using a home made puncher to punch out the shaft holes in the film using magnifier googles. The printed black rings I use to position the hole are just about 1mil bigger than the physical hole in the puncher. I thus simply align the hole so as a very tiny ring of the punchers metal can be seen through the magnifier googles. This gives a very high precision in alignement. I have no personal experience with the toner transfer method but since it relies on lasers I'm not sure if one can achive a reproduceable match on multiple printouts as it would be requiered for the purpose. Don't get this wrong, it very well might be that todays lasers can do that. I just decided on the traditional way long time ago and never had a reason to switch. I'm looking foreward on trying this out anyways and if you are interested will report my results back here. Markus DJ Delorie schrieb: > > > Markus Zingg <homebrew-pcb@... > <mailto:homebrew-pcb%40shdesign.info>> writes: > > I intend to use dryfilm laminate on both sides. The idea is to etch > > from both sides which I think might help keeping the undercuts at > > about half your rate. Just guessing though, and again, I definately > > will try this soon. > > I thought of that. In my case, I couldn't align the toner sheets > accurately enough for that to work with the hole sizes I needed (0.5mm > pitch TQFP). I'm guessing with photoresist that's not a problem. > > Working from one side also gives you a nice trapezoidal hole shape, > which helps release the paste. Big side down, of course ;-) > >
Message
Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Homebrew stencils anyone?
2008-01-07 by Markus Zingg
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.