Yahoo Groups archive

Homebrew_PCBs

Index last updated: 2026-03-31 23:13 UTC

Thread

Re: Toner transfer experiments

Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-07 by Richard

Excellent post Bill....good detailed report.

I'll note only one thing: you're either not accounting
for emissivity in your optical temp-measurements; or
you were measuring a broken household iron.

The temps you reported were at or below the boiling
point of water. The bottom surface of the normal 'iron'
gets far hotter than that. One doesn't need a thermometer
for it even...just crank up an iron for a few minutes, then
turn it over and sprinkle water on it... <g>

When you see the tiny droplets dancing all around like
that, accompanied by a hissing sound, you know it's
far hotter than 212F. Like sprinkling water on top of
a wood cookstove.

I've never measured an iron; but would guesstimate my
wife's at around 350F when running wide open. It gets
HOT. It'll easily melt almost any plastic. But like I said,
the real clue is the way water 'dances' on the surface.
Water doesn't do that unless a surface-temp is well over
212.

Again, excellent detailed report. Thanks very much for
taking the time.

Richard
--
============================
Please do NOT add or "subscribe" my name to ANY lists/databases.

Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-07 by Steve

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Richard <metal@...> wrote:
>
>
> Excellent post Bill....good detailed report.
>
> I'll note only one thing: you're either not accounting
> for emissivity in your optical temp-measurements; or
> you were measuring a broken household iron.

Yes, if a pyrometer is used, then it is almost certainly calibrated
for an 80% black surface. Shiny metal or white will show a false low temp.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> The temps you reported were at or below the boiling
> point of water. The bottom surface of the normal 'iron'
> gets far hotter than that. One doesn't need a thermometer
> for it even...just crank up an iron for a few minutes, then
> turn it over and sprinkle water on it... <g>

I thought he said 200C, 392F.

Steve Greenfield

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-07 by David Frascone

I think he was talking about 200 degrees C, or 392 degrees Farenheit.

-Dave

Richard wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Excellent post Bill....good detailed report.
>
> I'll note only one thing: you're either not accounting
> for emissivity in your optical temp-measurements; or
> you were measuring a broken household iron.
>
> The temps you reported were at or below the boiling
> point of water. The bottom surface of the normal 'iron'
> gets far hotter than that. One doesn't need a thermometer
> for it even...just crank up an iron for a few minutes, then
> turn it over and sprinkle water on it... <g>
>
> When you see the tiny droplets dancing all around like
> that, accompanied by a hissing sound, you know it's
> far hotter than 212F. Like sprinkling water on top of
> a wood cookstove.
>
> I've never measured an iron; but would guesstimate my
> wife's at around 350F when running wide open. It gets
> HOT. It'll easily melt almost any plastic. But like I said,
> the real clue is the way water 'dances' on the surface.
> Water doesn't do that unless a surface-temp is well over
> 212.
>
> Again, excellent detailed report. Thanks very much for
> taking the time.
>
> Richard
> --
> ============================
> Please do NOT add or "subscribe" my name to ANY lists/databases.
>
>
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
> If Files or Photos are running short of space, post them here:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs_Archives/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--

David Frascone

"Energize!" said Picard and the pink bunny appeared...

Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-07 by Steve

Doh! Nevermind... I misremembered what I read, he said it only got to
205F max, and that his irons would not get to the 200C (392F) he
wished them to.

Steve Greenfield

Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-07 by Richard

Dennis, you were likely using Kodak KPR resist in college.

It's an excellent resist; capable of very fine lines.

In fact, it was used for IC processing in the early days
(60's).

I used it in past years, via a dirt-simple dip-coating method
from a VERY thin staintless tank I tig-welded up (it was
70 bucks a -quart- at that time...so I made a THIN tank... <g> )

It -is- a solvent-based chemistry tho; so for those frightened
of anything potentially dangerous in life, it's probably not a
good
one to choose.

Otherwise, it's an excellent resist for our purposes; because
it coats nicely, has a wide process latitude, develops cleanly,
and washes off cleanly. All using solvents of course. <g>

There are aqueous-based liquid resists available also now,
of course. You can find quite a bit of info on the web.

Dry-film resists are virtually all aqueous-based processing;
and with quite benign chemicals. Well, I say that as one
who isn't scared of things like that. The developer is simple
washing-soda (sodium carbonate) and the stripper is simple
"lye" (sodium hydroxide). Technically 'lye' is actually
potassium
hydroxide, but everyone calls the sodium version 'lye' as well.

In any case, lye is a strong caustic, and will burn the eye if
splashed into it. However, it is in no way what I consider
a "toxic". I.e., it will -damage- you if you drink it, but it's
not a lethal 'poison' as such.

In a can of crystal "Drano", the white crystals are lye; the
metal chips aluminum. Lye eats aluminum vigorously; which
gives off heat and gas, which helps unclog the drain. And
lye tends to eat organic materials, like hair, skin, etc..also
loosening up the clog. And also a good reason to keep lye
off your skin... <g>

In any case, I was going to suggest lye here for loosening
the paper from the board after ironing; but saw so much
chem-fright when I first joined, that I didn't say anything.

A 10% solution might turn out to be effective at softening the
fibers and the bonding agents. I've never tried it....just a
guess,
based on paper being organic...might work better than soap.

Someone mentioned the shelf-life of dry-film being 6 months.

That may be what the spec says, but I've made boards from
a roll of Dupont Riston (4712 I think) which was 5 YEARS
old when -I- got it, and I used it for another 5-7 years after
that, until it was gone. Never had a lick of trouble with it;
never even had the exposure or development process shift.

Kept it in a 50F basement, sealed in a giant ziploc with the air
sucked out. No special treatment other than that. I would
generally pull it out 2-3 times a year, laminate a bunch of
12x12" panels, and put the roll away. Then use up the panels
over the next 3-6 mos.

I'm not saying that all brands will last so long; but if you have

a chance to pick up some surplus dry-film dirt cheap; it's
well worth taking a small risk on it. It may turn out to be
perfectly usable still, regardless of date-code.

R.
--
============================
Please do NOT add or "subscribe" my name to ANY lists/databases.

Re: Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-07 by Richard

Steve said: ""I thought he said 200C, 392F.""

He said that's where the toner is rated to melt.

He said that the iron he measured was 205F in one
spot, 175F avg. (going from memory here).

R.

--
============================
Please do NOT add or "subscribe" my name to ANY lists/databases.

Re: Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-07 by Richard

Steve: ""Nevermind... I misremembered what I read,""


...or it could be that he misunderestimated the temp... <ggg>

R.

--
============================
Please do NOT add or "subscribe" my name to ANY lists/databases.

Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-07 by wbblair3

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Richard <metal@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Excellent post Bill....good detailed report.
>
> I'll note only one thing: you're either not accounting
> for emissivity in your optical temp-measurements; or
> you were measuring a broken household iron.
>
> The temps you reported were at or below the boiling
> point of water. The bottom surface of the normal 'iron'
> gets far hotter than that. One doesn't need a thermometer
> for it even...just crank up an iron for a few minutes, then
> turn it over and sprinkle water on it... <g>

I had considered the boiling point issue since I know both irons do
produce steam. However, I had assumed (dangerously) that this was due
to higher temps inside the iron because of closer proximity to a
heating element of some kind. I was also aware that surface emmisivity
was a factor since I'd read about it in the instructions (yes, I
actually read instructions... sometimes), but I didn't think (for some
reason) that it would have _that_ much of an effect.

However, now that you've made me consider it, the area of the travel
iron that gave a considerably higher temperature reading was a
darkened area that I assumed (there's that word again) was darker
_because_ the higher temperature at that point on the surface had
discolored it. That very well may have been the case, BUT the
emmisivity was also higher because the surface was darker in that
area! And the lighter surface of the household iron caused even more
of an emmisivity-related error and, thus, lower temperature readings
than the travel iron. Duh! Wake up Bill!

Well, discard that "too-cold iron" theory and tack any problems with
the iron method up to bad technique alone (as someone said earlier).
In the end, the oven method appears to be useful in producing quick
and reliable transfers using a cheap laminators without having to
perfect one's technique in the use of a hand iron.

Bill

Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-07 by wbblair3

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Richard <metal@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Excellent post Bill....good detailed report.
>
> I'll note only one thing: you're either not accounting
> for emissivity in your optical temp-measurements; or
> you were measuring a broken household iron.

Just for the heck of it, I'm going to try turning the irons upside
down and placing a black-anodized 80486 low-profile heat sink along
with some silcon heatsink compound in the center of their "hot sides"
to try and get a better idea of their _actual_ temperatures without
having it so skewed by emissivity error. If I don't reach 392F there,
I'll move the heatsink to the hottest portion of the iron(s) and try
again.

Bill

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-08 by Stefan Trethan

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:29:53 +0100, wbblair3 <wbblair3@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Just for the heck of it, I'm going to try turning the irons upside
>
> down and placing a black-anodized 80486 low-profile heat sink along
>
> with some silcon heatsink compound in the center of their "hot sides"
>
> to try and get a better idea of their _actual_ temperatures without
>
> having it so skewed by emissivity error. If I don't reach 392F there,
>
> I'll move the heatsink to the hottest portion of the iron(s) and try
>
> again.
>
>
> Bill
>

Please go and get a _simple_ thermocouple thermometer. It's even cheaper
than the optical ones. You will be much happier with something that
actually reads the temperature and not a random number.

Accept it, optical thermometers are just another useless but popular thing
to sell to "the silly sheep" and no good for measuring a wide variety of
surfaces.

ST

Re: Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-08 by Richard

Bill, I'll be interested to hear the difference you get
in readings using the heatsink. I like the optical thermo's,
but one has to be careful to -understand- how they
work; and use them accordingly.

We've used them up to 2,000F or so, in checking
induction-heat cycles for heat-treating of parts. But
one has to have a good quality emissivity chart for the
materials, and temps, actually being measured; in order
to get meaningful results. Our in-house lab did a series
of tests in order to make the E-chart that's used on the
floor.

Your idea to -preheat- the board in the oven was an
excellent one. It is no surprise that it helped your
results enormously. Considering the residence-time
under the rollers of any particular spot of the board,
it would take rollers with pretty good thermal-mass
to heat the copper to 400F in that very short time.

Probably why the $500 laminators work well; and the
$29 lams do not... <g>

re: Typewriter rollers: I wouldn't even try it. Not any
black-rubber rollers. The rollers in laminators and copier
/ laser-print fusers are -silicone- rubber...good to around
450F. Totally different kind of material than black rubber.

R.
--
============================
Please do NOT add or "subscribe" my name to ANY lists/databases.

Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-08 by wbblair3

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Trethan"
<stefan_trethan@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:29:53 +0100, wbblair3 <wbblair3@...> wrote:
> > Just for the heck of it, I'm going to try turning the irons upside
> > down and placing a black-anodized 80486 low-profile heat sink
> > along with some silcon heatsink compound in the center of their
> >"hot sides" to try and get a better idea of their _actual_
> > temperatures without having it so skewed by emissivity error.
> >
> > Bill
> >

> Please go and get a _simple_ thermocouple thermometer. It's even
> cheaper than the optical ones. You will be much happier with
> something that actually reads the temperature and not a random
> number.

I originally purchased the Raytek MiniTemp to measure the temperature
of RC aircraft and car engines. I have compared it with a
thermocouple reading of the temperature of a gas RC engine and found
it to be within 5F. It seems to be pretty accurate when used to
measure something _designed_ to radiate heat like an anodized RC
engine cylinder or an electric motor with a heat sink. It evens gets
my home oven temperature correct if I aim it at the enamel surface and
it measured the copper surface of the PCBs in my oven at 390F, the
setting on my oven's digital temperature setting display. Irons with
bright aluminum bottoms... not so accurate. ;-)

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Accept it, optical thermometers are just another useless but popular
> thing to sell to "the silly sheep" and no good for measuring a wide
> variety of surfaces.
>
> ST

I agree on its inability to measure temperature accurately on shiny
surfaces in particular, but that's not what I originally bought it
for, just what I later misused it for.

Bill

Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-08 by wbblair3

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Richard <metal@...> wrote:
>
> Bill, I'll be interested to hear the difference you get
> in readings using the heatsink. I like the optical thermo's,
> but one has to be careful to -understand- how they
> work; and use them accordingly.

On the iron on which I originally measured a temperature of 205F as
the maximum now measures at 296F using the black-anodized heat sink.
However, with what I know now, I still don't trust that reading. As I
mentioned in a another post, this thermo was accurate when compared
with a thermocouple reading of the temperature of an RC engine and
gave a reading of very close to 390F from the surface of the PCB in my
oven set to 390F.

> Your idea to -preheat- the board in the oven was an
> excellent one. It is no surprise that it helped your
> results enormously. Considering the residence-time
> under the rollers of any particular spot of the board,
> it would take rollers with pretty good thermal-mass
> to heat the copper to 400F in that very short time.

Thanks, that was really the point of my original post as indicated by
the original subject title. The iron temp data was only incidental to
the path to the oven-based method used to rescue my under-temp
laminator, a problem I'd seen others mention here.

> Probably why the $500 laminators work well; and the
> $29 lams do not... <g>

If I'd known about the used Ibico laminators available on eBay, this
might never have come up in the first place. However, since my cheap
Royal PL2100 now works perfectly with the assistance of an oven, I'm
happy. I'll type up a How-To and post it in the files section for
others with the same problem. I'll also put a (bad) rating for the
Royal PL2100 in the database section. For $30, I am impressed with
the quality of its construction (having been inside it, too), just not
with its unassisted heating abilities.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> re: Typewriter rollers: I wouldn't even try it. Not any
> black-rubber rollers. The rollers in laminators and copier
> / laser-print fusers are -silicone- rubber...good to around
> 450F. Totally different kind of material than black rubber.

I'm happy with what I have now, so I won't be destroying any typewriters.

Bill

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-08 by Wayne Topa

wbblair3(wbblair3@...) is reported to have said:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Richard <metal@...> wrote:
> >
> > Excellent post Bill....good detailed report.
> >
> > I'll note only one thing: you're either not accounting
> > for emissivity in your optical temp-measurements; or
> > you were measuring a broken household iron.
>
> Just for the heck of it, I'm going to try turning the irons upside
> down and placing a black-anodized 80486 low-profile heat sink along
> with some silcon heatsink compound in the center of their "hot sides"
> to try and get a better idea of their _actual_ temperatures without
> having it so skewed by emissivity error. If I don't reach 392F there,
> I'll move the heatsink to the hottest portion of the iron(s) and try
> again.
>

Have you considered heating the pcb's on that inverted iron instead of
the oven? Might not make the kitchen warm but should accomplish the
same thing.

Thanks for that detailed report, Bill. Very well done.

Wayne

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-08 by Stefan Trethan

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 02:15:41 +0100, wbblair3 <wbblair3@...> wrote:

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I agree on its inability to measure temperature accurately on shiny
>
> surfaces in particular, but that's not what I originally bought it
>
> for, just what I later misused it for.
>
>
> Bill
>


Yes, but can you really trust it?
I mean not everything that's black has the same emissivity.

It's maybe good if you need to measure the same thing often, you know if
it works for that, and better meters can even be adjusted to the constants
of the surface you are looking at.

But for a general purpose quick check meter it doesn't seem good - since
you can never be quite sure if it isn't a lot off on this surface.

ST

Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-08 by Dave

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Richard <metal@...> wrote:
>
> Dennis, you were likely using Kodak KPR resist in college.

I remember that KPR photoresist from back in the mid-1970s. It
did a reasonably good job, if used with care. I seem to remember
that it disappeared from the market shortly thereafter, although
I don't remember why. Didn't Kodak spin off it's chemicals
division? Or, was it due to environmental problems?

> It's an excellent resist; capable of very fine lines.

Yes, I was very pleased with it.

> In fact, it was used for IC processing in the early days
> (60's).
>
> I used it in past years, via a dirt-simple dip-coating method
> from a VERY thin staintless tank I tig-welded up (it was
> 70 bucks a -quart- at that time...so I made a THIN tank... <g> )

Well, it was expensive, but you didn't use very much per board.

> It -is- a solvent-based chemistry tho; so for those frightened
> of anything potentially dangerous in life, it's probably not a
> good one to choose.

If I remember correctly, the developer was based on Xylene, which
was a suspected carcinogen.

> Otherwise, it's an excellent resist for our purposes; because
> it coats nicely, has a wide process latitude, develops cleanly,
> and washes off cleanly. All using solvents of course. <g>

Is it still available?!?

> There are aqueous-based liquid resists available also now,
> of course. You can find quite a bit of info on the web.

Pointers, please. I did a bit of research 8-10 years ago when
I was thinking about starting up my wet-lab again, and it looked
like the technology had changed completely. Or, was I just not
looking in the correct place?

> Dry-film resists are virtually all aqueous-based processing;
> and with quite benign chemicals. Well, I say that as one
> who isn't scared of things like that. The developer is simple
> washing-soda (sodium carbonate) and the stripper is simple
> "lye" (sodium hydroxide). Technically 'lye' is actually
> potassium hydroxide, but everyone calls the sodium version 'lye'
> as well.

My grandmother used to make soap with it (Well, ok, so a bad batch
would take your skin off.).

> In any case, lye is a strong caustic, and will burn the eye if
> splashed into it. However, it is in no way what I consider
> a "toxic". I.e., it will -damage- you if you drink it, but it's
> not a lethal 'poison' as such.

Common sense isn't common anymore.

> In a can of crystal "Drano", the white crystals are lye; the
> metal chips aluminum. Lye eats aluminum vigorously; which
> gives off heat and gas, which helps unclog the drain. And
> lye tends to eat organic materials, like hair, skin, etc..also
> loosening up the clog. And also a good reason to keep lye
> off your skin... <g>

And to stay away from poorly made lye soap. :-)

There are other drain openers which don't have the Aluminum chips
in it, so you don't have to experience the joy of picking out the
chips.

> In any case, I was going to suggest lye here for loosening
> the paper from the board after ironing; but saw so much
> chem-fright when I first joined, that I didn't say anything.

That might work. The problem is that paper is based on celluose
fibers, and those are pretty tough to chew up, at least without
the right chemicals. I'm not sure if lye would do it or not.
Obviously, termites have solved the problem of digesting celluose
fibers, but I don't think that turning a bunch of termites loose
on your thermal toner transfer boards would be a good (or quick)
idea.

> A 10% solution might turn out to be effective at softening the
> fibers and the bonding agents. I've never tried it....just a
> guess,
> based on paper being organic...might work better than soap.

Well, unless you're using some of that poorly made lye-soap. :*)
An enzyme based approach might be useful, too, if we could come
up with a cheap, readily available enzyme. Maybe.

> Someone mentioned the shelf-life of dry-film being 6 months.
>
> That may be what the spec says, but I've made boards from
> a roll of Dupont Riston (4712 I think) which was 5 YEARS
> old when -I- got it, and I used it for another 5-7 years after
> that, until it was gone. Never had a lick of trouble with it;
> never even had the exposure or development process shift.
>
> Kept it in a 50F basement, sealed in a giant ziploc with the air
> sucked out. No special treatment other than that. I would
> generally pull it out 2-3 times a year, laminate a bunch of
> 12x12" panels, and put the roll away. Then use up the panels
> over the next 3-6 mos.

A lot depends on the storage method. And, of course, it's good
to test old material out in a small sample before starting a major
production run.

> I'm not saying that all brands will last so long; but if you have

And, different batches may have different storage characteristics,
even for the same brand.

> a chance to pick up some surplus dry-film dirt cheap; it's
> well worth taking a small risk on it. It may turn out to be
> perfectly usable still, regardless of date-code.

Just test it out first.

Show quoted textHide quoted text
> R.

Dave

Re: Toner transfer experiments

2006-02-08 by wbblair3

> Have you considered heating the pcb's on that inverted iron instead of
> the oven? Might not make the kitchen warm but should accomplish the
> same thing.
>
> Thanks for that detailed report, Bill. Very well done.
>
> Wayne

I hadn't though of that and it's a clever idea, but the oven route
isn't much of a hassle at all (for me, anyway) and I at least know its
temperature of operation accurately. The temperature reading on the
optical thermo I use is within 5-10F of the indication on my oven's
digital temperature indicator when it's pointed at pre-heated objects
in the oven (objects that don't have shiny aluminum surfaces, that is).

For someone like a college dorm resident whose only access to an oven
might be down the hall in a community kitchen area, the iron route may
be the way to go. Through experimentation they could determine what
setting to use on their particular iron.

However, my need for pre-heated PCBs in the first place was the result
of my taking a chance and buying a new and undocumenetd model from of
a line of laminators previously documentd as "very good" in this
forums database and finding that the new model was "not very good" for
toner transfer use. I'll be documenting this in the database and I
encourage everyone else here to document their experiences with other
laminator models.

Thanks,
Bill