Yahoo Groups archive

Homebrew_PCBs

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

Thread

UV LED box

UV LED box

2008-06-11 by DJ Delorie

Just finished wiring mine up...

http://www.delorie.com/pcb/uvled/

I layered the LEDs between two sheets of plywood hoping they'd keep
things aligned, but not quite good enough I suppose. Time to fiddle I
suppose.

I happen to have a lab-grade timer to run it with, too.

Re: UV LED box

2008-06-11 by warrenbrayshaw

I note that your LEDs are laid out with overlap in one axis but none
in the other. I suggest that you need to have all neighbouring LEDs
overlap the same amount to obtain a more even coverage. With your
'offset row' layout each LED has 6 neighbours to overlap with.(4 on
the edges)

All the best with the fine tuning.



DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>
> Just finished wiring mine up...
>
> http://www.delorie.com/pcb/uvled/
>
> I layered the LEDs between two sheets of plywood hoping they'd keep
> things aligned, but not quite good enough I suppose. Time to fiddle I
> suppose.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-11 by Adam Seychell

DJ Delorie wrote:
> Just finished wiring mine up...
>
> http://www.delorie.com/pcb/uvled/
>
> I layered the LEDs between two sheets of plywood hoping they'd keep
> things aligned, but not quite good enough I suppose. Time to fiddle I
> suppose.
>
> I happen to have a lab-grade timer to run it with, too.
>

Nice work

Whats the grid pitch ?
Whats the LED brand/model ?

I'm interested in your exposure times. I get 60 seconds with negative
dry film, grid density 0.28 LEDs/cm^2, BestHongKong 390nm UV LEDs at
20mA, about 100mm PCB to LED gap, measured with inkjet transparency +
5mm window glass in light path.

Adam

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-11 by DJ Delorie

Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
> Whats the grid pitch ?

About 1.2 inches. Just enough to solder the leads together :-) That
means 99 LEDs in a 9x12 inch area, or 11 strings of 9 for the power
supply.

The density is about 0.2 leds/cm2.

> Whats the LED brand/model ?

The 395nm UV from BestHongKong. I got 100, and 100 of them worked -
perfect score! I built up a current regulator on a breadboard and
checked each one before inserting it into the board.

> I'm interested in your exposure times. I get 60 seconds with
> negative dry film, grid density 0.28 LEDs/cm^2, BestHongKong 390nm
> UV LEDs at 20mA, about 100mm PCB to LED gap, measured with inkjet
> transparency + 5mm window glass in light path.

I picked up a Stouffer step gauge (from stouffer.com - just call them,
they can ship direct, not expensive) so I'll know for sure. The
distance to board is about 5 inches, the current 20 mA. I calculated
about 30 seconds initial exposure based on the "math" of the setup,
but I'm sure reality will correct my assumptions there :-)

The next step is to laminate some resist and cut it into test strips.
I don't get a lot of free time for these, so stuff happens as I find
time to do it. I've got some photolith paper but it's not JetStar
(they sent the wrong brand but they're working on getting the right
stuff) and some glass of dubious UV qualities (cheap hardware store
glass). We'll see how it goes.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: UV LED box

2008-06-11 by DJ Delorie

"warrenbrayshaw" <warrenbrayshaw@...> writes:
> I note that your LEDs are laid out with overlap in one axis but none
> in the other.

Not by much, and that was to spread them out to fit the 9x12 area I
wanted to cover. The problem isn't the pattern (although a triangular
grid is much more consistent than a square grid), it's that the LEDs
aren't all perpendicular to the board. It's a much more significant
variable.

> I suggest that you need to have all neighbouring LEDs overlap the
> same amount to obtain a more even coverage.

That's why I'm trying a triangular grid instead of a square grid.
IIRC this was discussed a few weeks ago here.

> All the best with the fine tuning.

Thanks. I think what I'll do is use the test supply to run each LED
one at a time and see where it hits on a third printout where the
board goes. It may just be a few LEDs that are way off. I don't
think I can do better than that with plywood; I'd need a real PCB to
hold them steady enough to be more tweakable, but it would be
expensive to fab out and I'm not yet up to that point with the home
fab.

RE: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: UV LED box

2008-06-11 by Bertho Boman

Maybe you want to try a sheet of plastic, PVC, about 5-6mm thick and drill
5mm holes. The LEDs should line up just about perfectly if you use a drill
press for the holes. A PCB will not align them but of course make the
connections easier.



Bertho



From: Delorie Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 11:58



I'll do is use the test supply to run each LED
one at a time and see where it hits on a third printout where the
board goes. It may just be a few LEDs that are way off. I don't
think I can do better than that with plywood; I'd need a real PCB to
hold them steady enough to be more tweakable, but it would be
expensive to fab out and I'm not yet up to that point with the home





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: UV LED box

2008-06-11 by DJ Delorie

"Bertho Boman" <boman01@...> writes:
> Maybe you want to try a sheet of plastic, PVC, about 5-6mm thick and
> drill 5mm holes. The LEDs should line up just about perfectly if
> you use a drill press for the holes. A PCB will not align them but
> of course make the connections easier.

Yeah, I thought of that but didn't have any handy, and had to use an
inch drill so it's not exactly the right size. I still have the
option of doing a PCB with some alternate materials; I didn't cut the
leads on any of the LEDs so I can just remove them and put them in
something new later.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-11 by Adam Seychell

DJ Deloraine wrote:
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
>> Whats the grid pitch ?
>
> About 1.2 inches. Just enough to solder the leads together :-) That
> means 99 LEDs in a 9x12 inch area, or 11 strings of 9 for the power
> supply.
>
> The density is about 0.2 leds/cm2.
>
>> Whats the LED brand/model ?
>
> The 395nm UV from BestHongKong. I got 100, and 100 of them worked -
> perfect score! I built up a current regulator on a breadboard and
> checked each one before inserting it into the board.
>
>> I'm interested in your exposure times. I get 60 seconds with
>> negative dry film, grid density 0.28 LEDs/cm^2, BestHongKong 390nm
>> UV LEDs at 20mA, about 100mm PCB to LED gap, measured with inkjet
>> transparency + 5mm window glass in light path.
>
> I picked up a Stouffer step gauge (from stouffer.com - just call them,
> they can ship direct, not expensive) so I'll know for sure. The
> distance to board is about 5 inches, the current 20 mA. I calculated
> about 30 seconds initial exposure based on the "math" of the setup,
> but I'm sure reality will correct my assumptions there :-)
>
> The next step is to laminate some resist and cut it into test strips.
> I don't get a lot of free time for these, so stuff happens as I find
> time to do it. I've got some photolith paper but it's not JetStar
> (they sent the wrong brand but they're working on getting the right
> stuff) and some glass of dubious UV qualities (cheap hardware store
> glass). We'll see how it goes.
>

Thanks. I got 400 of the BestHongKong LEDs and got 0% failure. The ultra
cheap brand I got 100 LEDs and 1 showed < 1/2 brightness, and another
one didn't work. The BestHongKong were also 2x energy output so my
choice was easy.

For calibration, you just take a strip of pre-sensitised PCB, and expose
it in increments of 10 seconds. You do this by marking lines across
the photoresist so has about 10 divisions. You expose each marked
section incrementally by shifting some black opaque film across the
sections every 10 seconds. That's a terrible explanation.
Anyway , the right exposure time is found when your photoresist shows no
signs of surface attack after developing.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-12 by DJ Delorie

Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
> For calibration, you just take a strip of pre-sensitised PCB, and
> expose it in increments of 10 seconds.

Or just expose it with a step gauge and read the step number. The
film says what step number it needs, just expose once and adjust the
exposure according to the step number. For $7 it doesn't pay to do it
the hard way.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: UV LED box

2008-06-12 by Jan Kok

5mm is .1969 inches, and a #8 drill is .1990 inches.

If you glue the LED leads to your plywood board with some hot glue,
that might hold well enough to allow adjusting the direction of each
LED.

Cheers,
- Jan


On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:30 AM, DJ Delorie <dj@...> wrote:
>
> "Bertho Boman" <boman01@...> writes:
>> Maybe you want to try a sheet of plastic, PVC, about 5-6mm thick and
>> drill 5mm holes. The LEDs should line up just about perfectly if
>> you use a drill press for the holes. A PCB will not align them but
>> of course make the connections easier.
>
> Yeah, I thought of that but didn't have any handy, and had to use an
> inch drill so it's not exactly the right size. I still have the
> option of doing a PCB with some alternate materials; I didn't cut the
> leads on any of the LEDs so I can just remove them and put them in
> something new later.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: UV LED box

2008-06-12 by DJ Delorie

"Jan Kok" <jan.kok.5y@...> writes:
> 5mm is .1969 inches, and a #8 drill is .1990 inches.

I used 13/64, which is 0.2031 inches. If I have to buy a drill bit
anyway, I might as well buy a metric one.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-12 by Adam Seychell

DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Or just expose it with a step gauge and read the step number. The
> film says what step number it needs, just expose once and adjust the
> exposure according to the step number. For $7 it doesn't pay to do it
> the hard way.

$7 !, damn last time I priced a step gauge I was quoted some exorbitant
number like AU$150. I'm pretty sure me and the sales guy on the phone
were talking about the same thing.
I have to agree , for $7 my method isn't worth the trouble.
I found that site you mentioned http://www.stouffer.net
Wow, they make many dozens of these gauges.
Did you get the uncalibrated 21 step transmisive guide (part # T2115)
$6.10 ?
I think that probably best all round choice, even though 21 steps is
probably more than needed.
If they send it in a standard envelope then I guess postage worldwide
would be cheap too.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-12 by DJ Delorie

Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
> Did you get the uncalibrated 21 step transmisive guide (part #
> T2115) $6.10 ?

Yes, that's what I got. If you want *calibrated* the cost starts
going up fast.

> I think that probably best all round choice, even though 21 steps is
> probably more than needed.

Except that all the films I've seen are calibrated against that very
gauge. Might as well get the one with the right numbers on it.

> If they send it in a standard envelope then I guess postage
> worldwide would be cheap too.

It came in a small brown padded envelope, UPS ground (yeah, shipping
was more than the cost of the item). I suppose they could put it in
the USmail if you asked. I didn't ask so I got the default - total
cost $15.10.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-17 by DJ Delorie

Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
> I'm interested in your exposure times. I get 60 seconds with negative
> dry film, grid density 0.28 LEDs/cm^2, BestHongKong 390nm UV LEDs at
> 20mA, about 100mm PCB to LED gap, measured with inkjet transparency +
> 5mm window glass in light path.

Just finished some tests. With the glass and transparency I'm using,
it needs 5.5 minutes of exposure to hit 8 on the step gauge. That's
with a ~5 inch gap and about 0.2 LEDs/cm^2, as reported before. The
step gauge helped - I got a perfect exposure on the second try, just
by doing the math!

Note that for two out of two tests I forgot to remove the cover film
before developing :-P

My etch tank seems to be a little pokey these days, though. I suspect
most of the H2O2 is just H2O by now. It still etches, but takes
longer. Not that I'm in a rush ;-) It's still the right color green,
but not as deep as others I've seen.

Still need to practice applying the film, though. Lots of wrinkles
and bubbles on my first try (good enough for exposure tests, not good
enough for circuitry).

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-19 by Adam Seychell

DJ Delorie wrote:
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
>> I'm interested in your exposure times. I get 60 seconds with negative
>> dry film, grid density 0.28 LEDs/cm^2, BestHongKong 390nm UV LEDs at
>> 20mA, about 100mm PCB to LED gap, measured with inkjet transparency +
>> 5mm window glass in light path.
>
> Just finished some tests. With the glass and transparency I'm using,
> it needs 5.5 minutes of exposure to hit 8 on the step gauge. That's
> with a ~5 inch gap and about 0.2 LEDs/cm^2, as reported before. The
> step gauge helped - I got a perfect exposure on the second try, just
> by doing the math!
>
> Note that for two out of two tests I forgot to remove the cover film
> before developing :-P
>
> My etch tank seems to be a little pokey these days, though. I suspect
> most of the H2O2 is just H2O by now. It still etches, but takes
> longer. Not that I'm in a rush ;-) It's still the right color green,
> but not as deep as others I've seen.
>
> Still need to practice applying the film, though. Lots of wrinkles
> and bubbles on my first try (good enough for exposure tests, not good
> enough for circuitry).
>

Thank for getting back to us. I'm bit new to these step gauges. I
ordered mine yesterday. I also got Stouffer $11 Transmission Resolution
Guide to make the $10 air mail delivery to Australia order more worth
while :)
From what I can gather, the transmission gauges are logarithmic. With
21 step gauge, each successive step has the transmission 1/sqrt(2)
factor relative to the previous step. In general, transmission is given
by 2^(-n/2) where n is the step number starting from 0 (100% transmission).

step 8 means 6.25% transmission. if you exposed 5.5 minutes, then your
real exposure should be 5.5*0.0625 = 0.34 minutes (21 seconds).
Is my math correct ?


Are you using the hot roll laminator to apply film ?
I will update my wet lamination web page sometime soon, since I've
worked out some improvements to the process.

Also I just discovered the importance of leaving the PCB stand after
exposure for > 5 minutes. I've read several places that negative
photoresists continue to polymerise after exposure , and that this
polymerisation is inhibited by oxygen. So its really important you leave
the protective polyester cover film on during this hold time. I was
getting really puzzling results before I realised this. Often I used to
just develop immediately after exposure, and would find that one side of
the PCB would appear to be underexposed and get attacked in the
developer. It turned out to be the short delay differences from exposing
one side at a time was enough to show the problem. I also found I could
reduce my exposure from 60 seconds to 30 seconds when the PCB held > 5
minutes after exposure. The PCB process is much more consistent now.

Adam

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-19 by DJ Delorie

Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
> From what I can gather, the transmission gauges are logarithmic. With
> 21 step gauge, each successive step has the transmission 1/sqrt(2)
> factor relative to the previous step.

Yes. So, my first exposure was step 5 at 2 min and I wanted to get to
step 8 (three steps), so I multiplied 2 min * 1.4 * 1.4 * 1.4 = 5.5
min.

> step 8 means 6.25% transmission. if you exposed 5.5 minutes, then your
> real exposure should be 5.5*0.0625 = 0.34 minutes (21 seconds).
> Is my math correct ?

Math, perhaps. Logic, no. If a 5.5 min exposure gets to step 8, then
my true exposure time (for pcb film) is still 5.5 minutes. The idea
is that you don't want a "just barely works" exposure, you want an
*ideal* exposure. The step gauge tells you how far past "just barely"
you went. For Riston, you want an exposure that will just barely
harden the film under the 8th step. That gives you an ideal exposure
for film not covered by the step gauge - exposed film gets really
exposed, and covered film is not nearly exposed enough to harden.
Think of it as a halfway point between "barely enough" and "almost too
much".

Of course, my next step is to expose with the step gauge and a striped
pattern from my printer, to see what kind of range the printer offers.
The number of extra steps "held" under the ink indicates how
UV-blocking the ink is. I can thus test each color separately, and
see which holds the most extra steps.

> Are you using the hot roll laminator to apply film ?

That time, yes. I also wetted the pcb as somewhere I read to do that,
but it was a bad idea. I'll keep trying things until I find what
works for me.

> I will update my wet lamination web page sometime soon, since I've
> worked out some improvements to the process.

I'm looking forward to trying that, especially if it gets better
results :-)

> Also I just discovered the importance of leaving the PCB stand after
> exposure for > 5 minutes.

I've read that many places. The curing creates a gas that needs to be
trapped to complete the curing process, or something like that. I
left my test boards in the UV box (with the leds off, of course) for
15-30 minutes (the box is painted black inside for just this purpose).

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-19 by Markus Zingg

Intersting finding. I never could observe this! Might depend on the kind
of make/modell of the restist itself?

Markus

Adam Seychell schrieb:
[snip]
>
>
> Also I just discovered the importance of leaving the PCB stand after
> exposure for > 5 minutes. I've read several places that negative
> photoresists continue to polymerise after exposure , and that this
> polymerisation is inhibited by oxygen. So its really important you leave
> the protective polyester cover film on during this hold time. I was
> getting really puzzling results before I realised this. Often I used to
> just develop immediately after exposure, and would find that one side of
> the PCB would appear to be underexposed and get attacked in the
> developer. It turned out to be the short delay differences from exposing
> one side at a time was enough to show the problem. I also found I could
> reduce my exposure from 60 seconds to 30 seconds when the PCB held > 5
> minutes after exposure. The PCB process is much more consistent now.
>
> Adam
>

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-20 by Adam Seychell

DJ Delorie wrote:
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
>> From what I can gather, the transmission gauges are logarithmic. With
>> 21 step gauge, each successive step has the transmission 1/sqrt(2)
>> factor relative to the previous step.
>
> Yes. So, my first exposure was step 5 at 2 min and I wanted to get to
> step 8 (three steps), so I multiplied 2 min * 1.4 * 1.4 * 1.4 = 5.5
> min.

I'm still confused :)
Ok. so when you exposed the resist for 2 minutes with the step gauge in
place, then what you observed at step 5 was slightly unexposed
photoresist. Regions under steps 1 to 4 therefore must of been fully
exposed. Correct ?

The light at step 5 was attenuated by factor of 2^(-5/2) = 0.176. So
would I be correct saying to achieve the same exposure energy without
the step gauge then exposure time will be 2 minutes * 0.176 = 21 seconds ?
But this exposure energy doesn't quite achieve full exposure, so the
final exposure time use for PCBs will be somewhat longer.


>> Also I just discovered the importance of leaving the PCB stand after
>> exposure for > 5 minutes.
>
> I've read that many places. The curing creates a gas that needs to be
> trapped to complete the curing process, or something like that. I
> left my test boards in the UV box (with the leds off, of course) for
> 15-30 minutes (the box is painted black inside for just this purpose).

The data sheet for some resist I once had said 10 to 15 minutes hold time.
One old book I read said you can check post exposure hold time
sensitivity to by running a side by side comparison test. this will show
you if a delay is needed between exposure and development. I've tested
this myself. It would be good to know the actual minimum time rather
than just wait around for 15~30 minutes. I guess it would be like most
chemical reactions where polymerisation reaction continues exponentially.

Also try exposing with the polyester film removed. It will take at least
5x longer !

RE: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-20 by Bertho Boman

Are there any reasonably priced real UV (about 350nm) diodes available
suitable for an exposure box?

Any suggestions?

TIA

Bertho



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-20 by Bertho Boman

Testing the photo resist by itself might be interesting but what really
needs to be done is to test the system. Add your artwork and any hold down
glass or vacuum frame and then run an exposure test with the step gauge over
real PCB traces.



At the wedge's dark end the board will be way underexposed and the resist
will just wash away. At the other end, the UV will blast through even your
"black" traces and when etching you will get solid copper without traces.
In-between those two extremes you will hopefully have a good section if the
artwork is good enough.

Bertho



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-20 by DJ Delorie

Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
> Ok. so when you exposed the resist for 2 minutes with the step gauge in
> place, then what you observed at step 5 was slightly unexposed
> photoresist. Regions under steps 1 to 4 therefore must of been fully
> exposed. Correct ?

Yes. 1 to 4 were fully exposed; they got enough UV to cure. Recall
this is a negative resist, transparent = UV = cure = copper. Steps 6
through 21 were uncured, and the copper removed when etched.

http://www.thinktink.com/stack/volumes/volvi/filmimag.htm#Calibration

The step gauge is transparent at step 1 and opaque at step 21, so more
UV means more steps 1..N cured.

> The light at step 5 was attenuated by factor of 2^(-5/2) = 0.176. So
> would I be correct saying to achieve the same exposure energy without
> the step gauge then exposure time will be 2 minutes * 0.176 = 21 seconds ?

I suppose. That would mean a 21 second exposure would cure some but
not all of the film, hardly useful for PCB work ;-)

> But this exposure energy doesn't quite achieve full exposure, so the
> final exposure time use for PCBs will be somewhat longer.

Yes. There is no point in calculating the 21 seconds result. That
exposure will not cure the film adequately, and you'll never actually
run your box for that time. The *only* number that you care about
with the film is the time it takes to get an exposure that holds the
step you need to hold. So once you figure out the exposure that holds
the step you need, that's how long you run your box to expose your
boards. It doesn't matter what step '1' works out to be because
you'll never use it.

> The data sheet for some resist I once had said 10 to 15 minutes hold time.

The riston data sheet doesn't say, but thinktink says 15 min to 8
hours. http://www.thinktink.com/stack/volumes/voli/store/specs/m115spec.htm

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-20 by DJ Delorie

"Bertho Boman" <boman01@...> writes:
> Testing the photo resist by itself might be interesting but what
> really needs to be done is to test the system. Add your artwork and
> any hold down glass or vacuum frame and then run an exposure test
> with the step gauge over real PCB traces.

That's my next test. So far, I've tested my system with the LEDs,
glass, transparencies, and film I'll be using. The only thing missing
was the ink, but that's how you calibrate the system - no ink.

> In-between those two extremes you will hopefully have a good section
> if the artwork is good enough.

That doesn't really tell you what the ideal exposure time is, though.
The film is spec'd for a given exposure in mJ/cm2 to cure, you need to
expose it for that long. If your ink isn't UV-black enough, you need
to deal with it from the ink's side. I'm hoping that my ink will hold
at least 10 more steps (the minimum), although I'll have to overexpose
it through the step gauge to find out.

The film does give you a range of steps (7-9 for mine), so you can go
up or down a step (1.4x the time) if needed, but if it's that close,
it's too close, and you need darker ink.

Example, if it works the way I'm thinking:

I've figured my ideal exposure to be 5 minutes to step 8.

I put a printed stripe pattern on, with the step gauge et al, and
expose for 5 minutes - the stripes should hold for steps 1..8, with 9+
uncured. Recall that ink = no cure = no copper. Whatever happens at
step 1 *is* what will happen without the step gauge, since step 1 is
transparent.

Now, to see how far *past* "ideal" the ink will hold, I increase my
exposure 16x, or 8 steps (2^(8/2) = 16). Now we're at 80 minutes.
The parts of the film where there's no ink should now hold to step 16
(8+8). Whatever happens at step 9 now, is what happens at step 1 with
the "ideal" exposure.

Let's say the results were that stripes showed from step 16 down
through step 7. Since 7 is two steps below 9, that means that I would
have to increase my exposure 2x (from the ideal, so 10 minutes) to
risk exposing through the ink. Not a big margin.

To picture it: steps 1..7 are copper, 8..16 are stripes, 17..21 are
blank. The real board sees what happens at step 9, so there's only
one step below it that's also striped.

If the result is stripes down to step 5, that means I would have to
increase my exposure 4x from ideal (20 min) to risk exposing through
the ink. This is a bigger margin.

To picture it: steps 1..5 are copper, 6..16 are strips, 17..21 are
blank. There are now three steps below 9 that are striped.

What I want is whichever inks give me the greatest margin, meaning
they're blocking the most UV. Black, cyan, toner, whatever.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-20 by Adam Seychell

DJ Delorie wrote:
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
>> Ok. so when you exposed the resist for 2 minutes with the step gauge in
>> place, then what you observed at step 5 was slightly unexposed
>> photoresist. Regions under steps 1 to 4 therefore must of been fully
>> exposed. Correct ?
>
> Yes. 1 to 4 were fully exposed; they got enough UV to cure. Recall
> this is a negative resist, transparent = UV = cure = copper. Steps 6
> through 21 were uncured, and the copper removed when etched.
>

thanks, its getting a bit clearer now. So lets say your test expose for
120 seconds with the step gauge and full cure occurs at step 4. The
level of UV radiation at step 4 might be your final goal when exposing PCBs.

Exposure time for PCB fabrication will then be:
120 / (1.41 * 1.41 * 1.41 ) = 42 seconds

This is because step 1 is 100% transmission, and step 4 has
2^(-3/2) = 1/(1.41 * 1.41 * 1.41 ) = 35% transmission.

An alternate explanation is in terms of energy. To get equal exposure
energy for arbitrary time and transmission you have to keep constant
(time * transmission) product.

120 sec * 35% = t * 100%

t = 120 * 0.35 / 1.00
= 42 seconds


I cannot understand why you need a 5.5 minute PCB exposure based on your
results. A 42 second PCB exposure agrees a lot more with my experiences.


>> The data sheet for some resist I once had said 10 to 15 minutes hold time.
>
> The riston data sheet doesn't say, but thinktink says 15 min to 8
> hours. http://www.thinktink.com/stack/volumes/voli/store/specs/m115spec.htm

interesting. They say in "note 2" that it can be developed immediately
it may compromises adhesion. I found adhesion increases over time too,
and so that's second reason for leaving it. This may be especially true
for wet lamination, so water has dime to diffuse.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-20 by DJ Delorie

Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:

> So lets say your test expose for 120 seconds with the step gauge and
> full cure occurs at step 4.

If it were my film, I'd need to expose my boards for 480 seconds, the
equivalent of holding step 8.

> Exposure time for PCB fabrication will then be:
> 120 / (1.41 * 1.41 * 1.41 ) = 42 seconds

No. I think you're misunderstanding what the step gauge is for.

> I cannot understand why you need a 5.5 minute PCB exposure based on
> your results. A 42 second PCB exposure agrees a lot more with my
> experiences.

Because the film's spec says so. The film's spec says that, for
optimal performance, you must overexpose by 8-16x. This may take into
consideration more than just "the film doesn't dissolve in the
developer" but also adhesion, edge geometry, resistance to abrasion by
spray tanks, etc. It also may be the halfway point between "the film
is partially cured under the transparent areas" and "the film is
partially cured under the opaque areas" for your pcb pattern.

Note that my setup and yours are different. Also, based on a 120
second exposure holding step 5, I could go as low as 30 seconds and
still cure *some* of the film. For me, a 45 second exposure would
probably work some of the time, but I'd have a high risk of
underexposed portions.

Let's go by mJ/cm2 instead. The spec for my film recommends 25-60
mJ/cm2, about a 2.4:1 range of times, or about two steps (2:1 time).
Let's assume 40 mJ/cm2 is our "midpoint".

Now, let's say that by trial and error we've determined that 2.5
mJ/cm2 is enough to START curing some of the film. If you tried to do
a pcb with this exposure, some copper sections would be uncured, and
would wash off in the developer. This 2.5 mJ/cm2 is the exposure at
which 50% of your exposed film cures, and 50% remains uncured.

So, you have to expose MORE THAN 2.5 mJ/cm2 to ensure that all your
exposed film cures. But how much more than?

Ah, that's what the spec tells you. Assume it tells you to expose for
16x more than the "bare minimum". So if you determine that 2.5 mJ/cm2
is the bare minimum, you can calculate that 40 mJ/cm2 is the ideal
exposure.

So what's the step gauge for? Each step scales the UV hitting the
film by some specified amount. For the SST 21, each step passes
1/1.414 the UV as the step before it. So each step passes some
fraction of the total UV. Each step is thus a test for "Am I giving
it N times the minimum exposure?" It's like performing 21 exposure
tests simultaneously. The result is that you can determine how much
more than a minimum exposure your current time is providing.

If you almost hold step 5 (i.e. part of step 5's film is cured), for
example, you know that you're giving it 4x the minimum exposure. You
also know that you're giving it more than 2.8x the minimum (step 4
holds completely) and less than 5.6x the minimum (step 6 is uncured).
If we want a step 8 exposure, we now know we need to give it 2.8 times
the UV to get there. So we increase our exposure time by 2.8x and
test again. Now we almost hold step 8, showing that we're giving it
11x the minimum exposure. Step 7 holds, so we're giving it more than
8x, and step 9 is uncured so we're giving less than 16x.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-20 by Adam Seychell

DJ Delorie wrote:
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
>
>> So lets say your test expose for 120 seconds with the step gauge and
>> full cure occurs at step 4.
>
> If it were my film, I'd need to expose my boards for 480 seconds, the
> equivalent of holding step 8.
>
>> Exposure time for PCB fabrication will then be:
>> 120 / (1.41 * 1.41 * 1.41 ) = 42 seconds
>
> No. I think you're misunderstanding what the step gauge is for.
>
>> I cannot understand why you need a 5.5 minute PCB exposure based on
>> your results. A 42 second PCB exposure agrees a lot more with my
>> experiences.
>
> Because the film's spec says so. The film's spec says that, for
> optimal performance, you must overexpose by 8-16x. This may take into
> consideration more than just "the film doesn't dissolve in the
> developer" but also adhesion, edge geometry, resistance to abrasion by
> spray tanks, etc. It also may be the halfway point between "the film
> is partially cured under the transparent areas" and "the film is
> partially cured under the opaque areas" for your pcb pattern.
>
> Note that my setup and yours are different. Also, based on a 120
> second exposure holding step 5, I could go as low as 30 seconds and
> still cure *some* of the film. For me, a 45 second exposure would
> probably work some of the time, but I'd have a high risk of
> underexposed portions.
>
> Let's go by mJ/cm2 instead. The spec for my film recommends 25-60
> mJ/cm2, about a 2.4:1 range of times, or about two steps (2:1 time).
> Let's assume 40 mJ/cm2 is our "midpoint".
>
> Now, let's say that by trial and error we've determined that 2.5
> mJ/cm2 is enough to START curing some of the film. If you tried to do
> a pcb with this exposure, some copper sections would be uncured, and
> would wash off in the developer. This 2.5 mJ/cm2 is the exposure at
> which 50% of your exposed film cures, and 50% remains uncured.
>
> So, you have to expose MORE THAN 2.5 mJ/cm2 to ensure that all your
> exposed film cures. But how much more than?
>
> Ah, that's what the spec tells you. Assume it tells you to expose for
> 16x more than the "bare minimum". So if you determine that 2.5 mJ/cm2
> is the bare minimum, you can calculate that 40 mJ/cm2 is the ideal
> exposure.
>
> So what's the step gauge for? Each step scales the UV hitting the
> film by some specified amount. For the SST 21, each step passes
> 1/1.414 the UV as the step before it. So each step passes some
> fraction of the total UV. Each step is thus a test for "Am I giving
> it N times the minimum exposure?" It's like performing 21 exposure
> tests simultaneously. The result is that you can determine how much
> more than a minimum exposure your current time is providing.
>
> If you almost hold step 5 (i.e. part of step 5's film is cured), for
> example, you know that you're giving it 4x the minimum exposure. You
> also know that you're giving it more than 2.8x the minimum (step 4
> holds completely) and less than 5.6x the minimum (step 6 is uncured).
> If we want a step 8 exposure, we now know we need to give it 2.8 times
> the UV to get there. So we increase our exposure time by 2.8x and
> test again. Now we almost hold step 8, showing that we're giving it
> 11x the minimum exposure. Step 7 holds, so we're giving it more than
> 8x, and step 9 is uncured so we're giving less than 16x.
>



Thanks, I get it now.
I have been doing it wrong all this time. Previously, I would estimated
exposure purely on the appearance of the film after development. If the
film lost its shine after developing then that means it was attacked by
the developer and therefore underexposed. Looks like I have to wait for
my step gauge to arrive.

So the photoresist professionals say you must expose the resist such
that when you put a 21 step gauge, the resist under step 8 should be
about "%50" cured. I assume "%50" cured means its gets heavily eroded by
the developer but not quite enough to be completely removed.

In this situation, the actual energy during PCB exposure will then be
11.3137 times the amount of energy needed for "%50" cure. I think this
is what your saying above.

Adam

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-21 by DJ Delorie

Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
> So the photoresist professionals say you must expose the resist such
> that when you put a 21 step gauge, the resist under step 8 should be
> about "%50" cured. I assume "%50" cured means its gets heavily
> eroded by the developer but not quite enough to be completely
> removed.

More like some parts come completely off, and other parts remain
intact. I guess the parts that remain could be thinner, but I didn't
check.

> In this situation, the actual energy during PCB exposure will then
> be 11.3137 times the amount of energy needed for "%50" cure. I think
> this is what your saying above.

Yes.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-22 by Russell Shaw

DJ Delorie wrote:
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
>> So the photoresist professionals say you must expose the resist such
>> that when you put a 21 step gauge, the resist under step 8 should be
>> about "%50" cured. I assume "%50" cured means its gets heavily
>> eroded by the developer but not quite enough to be completely
>> removed.
>
> More like some parts come completely off, and other parts remain
> intact. I guess the parts that remain could be thinner, but I didn't
> check.
>
>> In this situation, the actual energy during PCB exposure will then
>> be 11.3137 times the amount of energy needed for "%50" cure. I think
>> this is what your saying above.

The way i checked mine is to expose a series of areas, where each is
30s longer than the last. I selected a time that was beyond where there
was no visible difference between steps, after developing.

RE: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-22 by Bertho Boman

I am a little surprised at the long discussions about selecting exposure for
just the photo resist. To me that is artificial and not real life. To make
PCBs, there needs to be an artwork and a hold down vacuum frame or glass.
Both will absorb some UV so that will affect the result and the "opaque"
sections of the artwork are not really perfect, they will let through
unintentional UV that also will affect the outcome.



Further, there is undercutting by light creeping around the edges and
development and etching issues. In an ideal situation, the variables should
independently be measured but most hobbyists do not have all the equipment
to do accurate measurements of the individual variables. Also affecting the
result is how the light source is colliminated. So to repeat my previous
suggestion:



Make a parallel test pattern of the skinniest lines and spacing required and
long enough to match the step gauge. Run an exposure test as the real
boards will be exposed, develop just the resist, eyeball the result,
readjust to be in the ball park, run the test again, develop and etch with
the real etching process to be used. Evaluate the result and measure line
width and spacing. From there pick a safe middle exposure value. If the
artwork is too poor it might not even work at all. In that case wider
traces might have to be used and or the artwork improved.



Also for the tests above I leave a little piece of PCB not covered by the
artwork (punch a hole) and I also place a small piece of aluminum foil near
the test pattern. That will give you two references: A perfect opaque
pattern and a perfect transparent pattern.



Since we are on this subject, I see little discussed about the artwork
except different toners, transparency material and so on. Since the only
way to have a perfect artwork would be a metal mask with holes (not
practical) we really need to discuss the ratio between the clear and the
dark areas. It is that ratio that is critical, not just how dark is the
toner.



As an extreme example, using transparencies they have good clear performance
but so-so dark areas. Printing on paper gives much better toner coverage
but much worse "clear" areas. Which material has the best ratio? You might
be surprised by taking the paper artwork and placing the toner downwards and
run a quick test. Exposure will be longer than the clear artwork but the
black is much blacker so you might like the result better than some other
processes.

Happy Etching,

Bertho



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-22 by DJ Delorie

"Bertho Boman" <boman01@...> writes:
> I am a little surprised at the long discussions about selecting
> exposure for just the photo resist. To me that is artificial and
> not real life. To make PCBs, there needs to be an artwork and a
> hold down vacuum frame or glass. Both will absorb some UV so that
> will affect the result and the "opaque" sections of the artwork are
> not really perfect, they will let through unintentional UV that also
> will affect the outcome.

If you had been following the discussion, you would have known that I
*included* those items in the test exposures, so I *am* compensating
for loss through the glass, artwork, etc. That's the whole point of
calibrating with a step gauge - it tells you exactly what exposure you
need for YOUR SETUP.

> Further, there is undercutting by light creeping around the edges and
> development and etching issues.

That doesn't affect the exposure, that's something to account for in
the artwork. I have a test pattern I use for doing that, and PCB has
a setting that lets you compensate for edge bloat/shrink.

> In an ideal situation, the variables should independently be
> measured but most hobbyists do not have all the equipment to do
> accurate measurements of the individual variables.

Um, yes we do. The step gauge measures the process exposure, and a
test print measures the undercut and other edge conditions.

> Also affecting the result is how the light source is colliminated.

The LEDs have a 10 degree range. We've talked about this before.

> Make a parallel test pattern of the skinniest lines and spacing
> required and long enough to match the step gauge.

I did say that would be my *next* test. It's not the *first* test
because you have to calibrate the exposure first, which is done
without a pattern to interfere with your inspection of the "last held
step" (which is itself partially etched).

> Run an exposure test as the real boards will be exposed, develop
> just the resist, eyeball the result,

I've done all that. Please re-read my posts.

> Also for the tests above I leave a little piece of PCB not covered
> by the artwork (punch a hole) and I also place a small piece of
> aluminum foil near the test pattern. That will give you two
> references: A perfect opaque pattern and a perfect transparent
> pattern.

The step gauge does all that for you, and it's easier and calibrated.

> Since we are on this subject, I see little discussed about the artwork

Did you miss my post about how to determine the UV opacity of your
selected inks?

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-22 by DJ Delorie

DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:
> That's my next test. So far, I've tested my system with the LEDs,
> glass, transparencies, and film I'll be using. The only thing
> missing was the ink, but that's how you calibrate the system - no
> ink.
>
> Now, to see how far *past* "ideal" the ink will hold, I increase my
> exposure 16x, or 8 steps (2^(8/2) = 16). Now we're at 80 minutes.

I did one of these tests. I used 8x the "ideal" time, because my
timer only goes to 60 minutes. So I ran for 44 minutes. Here's a
scan of the board which may help explain my recent ramblings:

http://www.delorie.com/pcb/dryfilm2.html

Remember, this is a negative film, so ink = no cure = no copper, and
clear = cure = copper.

Since I'm exposing for 8x the time, that means everything is shifted
by 6 steps (2^(6/2) = 8). Step 14 is partially cured even through the
clear parts of the pattern, that corresponds to step 8 at the ideal
time. So far so good (the data sheet says to expose to steps 7-9).

Step 7 is what the board will actually see. The results at step 7
look reasonable. Mind you, I didn't try too hard to get a good print
- I just printed a test pattern at whatever the printer was set for,
with no attempt to calibrate the edges.

Step 6 is still OK, but starting to hint at overexposure. Step 5 is
definitely overexposed, and step 4 is almost completely shorted.

So if I was forced to use this ink and print settings, I might think
about reducing the exposure a step or two to give myself more margin
against overexposing through the ink. Midway between "too much" and
"too little" is step 9, which would mean exposing for two steps less
than ideal, or about half the ideal exposure time (~3 minutes for me).
However, at step 9 the copper is narrower than it should be (probably
due to ink bleeding near the edges of the print and blocking some UV),
so I'd need to make my copper a bit thicker than my spaces to
compensate.

But I haven't played with the other color inks yet, nor have I
experimented with heavier coats or edge adjustments.

Notes: The other imperfections in the etch are due to poor results
laminating the film. This is my first try. The blob at step 20 is
where the clip held the board in the developer. The stripes are 12
mil wide, 12 mil between.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-22 by Mike Young

Has anyone measured the UV transmissive density of their artwork? One would
think Laserjet toner should be opaque "enough", and dye-based ink jets will
have difficulty achieving the required density. Is it a for sure certainty
that laser printers should have no difficulty?


----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Delorie" <dj@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box


>
> "Bertho Boman" <boman01@...> writes:
>> I am a little surprised at the long discussions about selecting
>> exposure for just the photo resist. To me that is artificial and
>> not real life. To make PCBs, there needs to be an artwork and a
>> hold down vacuum frame or glass. Both will absorb some UV so that
>> will affect the result and the "opaque" sections of the artwork are
>> not really perfect, they will let through unintentional UV that also
>> will affect the outcome.
>
> If you had been following the discussion, you would have known that I
> *included* those items in the test exposures, so I *am* compensating
> for loss through the glass, artwork, etc. That's the whole point of
> calibrating with a step gauge - it tells you exactly what exposure you
> need for YOUR SETUP.
>

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-22 by Leon

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Young" <mikewhy@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 12:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box


> Has anyone measured the UV transmissive density of their artwork? One
> would
> think Laserjet toner should be opaque "enough", and dye-based ink jets
> will
> have difficulty achieving the required density. Is it a for sure certainty
> that laser printers should have no difficulty?

I don't have any problems with artwork printed on an HP Deskjet.5940 used
with Premium JetStar film.

Leon

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie

"Mike Young" <mikewhy@...> writes:
> Has anyone measured the UV transmissive density of their artwork?
> One would think Laserjet toner should be opaque "enough", and
> dye-based ink jets will have difficulty achieving the required
> density. Is it a for sure certainty that laser printers should have
> no difficulty?

The disadvantage of laser printers (at least, based on looking at it
under a microscope) is that it's made of dry particles, so you don't
get a smooth opacity. Ink drops, no matter how fast they dry, will
tend to pool together, resulting in a smoother mask, or at least
smoother edges. My TT results always gave irregular edges. Plus for
my laser printer at least, the imprecision of the toner transfer to
the paper limits how small a feature I can allow. My inkjet, cheap
though it is, is still five times more precise than my expensive laser
printer.

Having said that, I was going to run tests with laser printed masks
too. Hmmm... maybe I'll redo my latest test with a laser printed one,
on vellum (it's cheaper than laser transparencies).

Worst case with any of these, you run the test I just ran with a given
printed mask, and choose the exposure that puts you in the middle of
the sweet spot for results. If your mask isn't opaque enough, you'll
just have to use a less-than-ideal exposure to avoid risking defects.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-23 by John Coppens

On 22 Jun 2008 20:12:24 -0400
DJ Delorie <dj@...> wrote:

> My TT results always gave irregular edges. Plus for
> my laser printer at least, the imprecision of the toner transfer to
> the paper limits how small a feature I can allow. My inkjet, cheap
> though it is, is still five times more precise than my expensive laser
> printer.

This is probably too obvious, but still... (At least) some printer
drivers, when fed with gray scale images, use (random dot) dithering.
Print quality for PC boards and other line drawing items improves
immensely when switching to pure b/w printing.

John

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie

John Coppens <john@...> writes:
> This is probably too obvious, but still...

My dad always told me to check the stupid things first. Yes, it's
obvious. Yes, I checked it anyway ;-)

> (At least) some printer drivers, when fed with gray scale images,
> use (random dot) dithering. Print quality for PC boards and other
> line drawing items improves immensely when switching to pure b/w
> printing.

The artifacts are on the scale of a pixel or so. I've looked at it
under a microscope, it's not anything that could be attributed to the
pc asking for the wrong pixels, especially since I'm sending
postscript directly to the printer from one PC, and a raster from the
other. And three different laser printers do the same thing, to
various degrees, even though on one *my* software is generating the
raster.

The inkjet does the same thing, even though I know the driver isn't
dithering it. Apparently, the print head just can't shoot ink drops
accurately.

These consumer-level devices just aren't engineered for the type of
accuracy we're hoping for :-P

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie

DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:
> Having said that, I was going to run tests with laser printed masks
> too. Hmmm... maybe I'll redo my latest test with a laser printed
> one, on vellum (it's cheaper than laser transparencies).

Still etching, but it looks like it only gives 3 steps of useful
range, vs 8 steps for the inkjet. Under a microscope with
back-lighting, the toner is not as opaque as you'd think.

Re: UV LED box

2008-06-23 by warrenbrayshaw

> DJ Delorie writes:

>
> Still etching, but it looks like it only gives 3 steps of useful
> range, vs 8 steps for the inkjet. Under a microscope with
> back-lighting, the toner is not as opaque as you'd think.
>

As has been often posted here. The UV transparency of each inkjet
colored ink is different. Next test could be CMY tests to confirm if
black or black made from CMY is the best or does a single color
perform better with your transparency.

Thanks for the posted photos. Better than a thousand words.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: UV LED box

2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie

"warrenbrayshaw" <warrenbrayshaw@...> writes:
> As has been often posted here. The UV transparency of each inkjet
> colored ink is different. Next test could be CMY tests to confirm if
> black or black made from CMY is the best or does a single color
> perform better with your transparency.

Yup. However, the software I use for printing doesn't put down as
much of the colored ink as it does for black, so I need to resolve
that first.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie

DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:
> Still etching, but it looks like it only gives 3 steps of useful
> range, vs 8 steps for the inkjet. Under a microscope with
> back-lighting, the toner is not as opaque as you'd think.

Done. Only one step was useful; the one above it was completely
etched away and the one below it had shorts. Also, the vellum itself
took three steps of the exposure. So, it's a bad combination of
uv-blocking paper with uv-passing toner :-(

inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-23 by Adam Seychell

DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> The inkjet does the same thing, even though I know the driver isn't
> dithering it. Apparently, the print head just can't shoot ink drops
> accurately.
>


Thats what I have observed too. If you look at it under a microscope
then you can clearly see that line edges parallel to the print head
travel axis are much less jagged than line edges perpendicular to the
print head travel axis. It could be that the droplets are not landing on
the paper at the precise time. Maybe air currents play role here. It
would be interesting to override printer control and allow the head to
move 1/10th its normal velocity and see if it improves the effective
resolution.

I'm sure most printers do not print at the resolution manufactures
claim. I see pixelation errors when printing 6mil (0.2mm) lines from my
Canon MP810. This printer is rated at 1200dpi (7 pixels in one 8mill
line) yet I see some lines are significantly wider than others
indicating the printer software is down converting the image to a lower
resolution. Normally the effect isn't major but visible under a microscope.
The image files in question are 1200dpi and do contains correct number
of pixels.


Adam

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie

Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
> Thats what I have observed too. If you look at it under a microscope
> then you can clearly see that line edges parallel to the print head
> travel axis are much less jagged than line edges perpendicular to the
> print head travel axis.

Actually, that's not what I see. There seems to be a gaussian
distribution of off-bys in both directions (vertical and horizontal).
If I enable bi-directional printing, there's an obvious duality to
that direction, but I think it's either (1) the various print heads
aren't aligned to each other, or (2) individual dots don't leave the
print head at a true 90 degrees each time.

One of these days I'm going to write a program to print my image with
only one of the jets and see, assuming I can wait all day for it to
print ;-)

> I'm sure most printers do not print at the resolution manufactures
> claim. I see pixelation errors when printing 6mil (0.2mm) lines from my
> Canon MP810. This printer is rated at 1200dpi (7 pixels in one 8mill
> line) yet I see some lines are significantly wider than others
> indicating the printer software is down converting the image to a lower
> resolution.

On my laser printer (600dpi) I don't use 6 or 8 mil lines. I use 6.67
or 8.33 mil lines, which are exact(ish) multiples of the print
resolution. Otherwise, yeah, some lines are wider than others by a
pixel.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-23 by Mike Young

Well that just s*cks. :D The Epson 1280 has been sitting idle for about 2
years now. It would be simpler to replace it than try to clean out the print
heads.

Are you using pigment based inks? Or dye-based? Black only?


----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Delorie" <dj@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box


>
> DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:
>> Still etching, but it looks like it only gives 3 steps of useful
>> range, vs 8 steps for the inkjet. Under a microscope with
>> back-lighting, the toner is not as opaque as you'd think.
>
> Done. Only one step was useful; the one above it was completely
> etched away and the one below it had shorts. Also, the vellum itself
> took three steps of the exposure. So, it's a bad combination of
> uv-blocking paper with uv-passing toner :-(
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and
> Photos:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie

"Mike Young" <mikewhy@...> writes:
> Well that just s*cks. :D The Epson 1280 has been sitting idle for about 2
> years now. It would be simpler to replace it than try to clean out the print
> heads.
>
> Are you using pigment based inks? Or dye-based? Black only?

The laser printer (3 steps) uses toner. The inkjet is an Epson R280,
with the "claria" dye-based ink. So far I've only tested the black
ink (8 steps).

I also haven't tried my older laserjets (4P and 4) on laser
transparencies yet, or the inkjet on vellum (vellum is cheap but the
ink bleeds if you put too much down).

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box

2008-06-23 by Leon

----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Delorie" <dj@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV LED box


>
> "Mike Young" <mikewhy@...> writes:
>> Well that just s*cks. :D The Epson 1280 has been sitting idle for about 2
>> years now. It would be simpler to replace it than try to clean out the
>> print
>> heads.
>>
>> Are you using pigment based inks? Or dye-based? Black only?
>
> The laser printer (3 steps) uses toner. The inkjet is an Epson R280,
> with the "claria" dye-based ink. So far I've only tested the black
> ink (8 steps).
>
> I also haven't tried my older laserjets (4P and 4) on laser
> transparencies yet, or the inkjet on vellum (vellum is cheap but the
> ink bleeds if you put too much down).

My DeskJet uses pigment ink, it's much better.

Leon

Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-24 by dandumit

> One of these days I'm going to write a program to print my image with
> only one of the jets and see, assuming I can wait all day for it to
> print ;-)

I am very curious about your program. How do you plan to wrote it ?
Are you printing form Windows ?
I mean I have seen a guy in this group that was printing from some
kind of a RIP processor but this was under Linux and personally I'm
not that good to use linux for every day tasks.
Among misalignment of jet's on bidirectional printing, a big issue on
windows printer drivers is that that windows is automatically adding
some dithering and anti aliasing "functions". Those "features" are
extremely unappropriated for this job.

Daniel

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-24 by Adam Seychell

dandumit wrote:
>> One of these days I'm going to write a program to print my image with
> Among misalignment of jet's on bidirectional printing, a big issue on
> windows printer drivers is that that windows is automatically adding
> some dithering and anti aliasing "functions". Those "features" are
> extremely unappropriated for this job.
>

Unfortunately for us PCB homebrewers , inkjet manufactures are not going
to optimise their products for highly accurate and fine line image
artwork. The market is to create prints intended to be viewed from the
naked eye and which resolution requirements have already long been met.
There is no need for them to improve line edge jaggedness, ink drop
placement accuracy, or absolute resolution at the expense of print speed
and colour rendering.
Its annoying that these printers are probably capable of being lot more
accurate for no extra cost. Its just a case of adding a specialised
operating mode of the software. Oh well..

Adam

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-24 by DJ Delorie

Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
> Its just a case of adding a specialised operating mode of the
> software.

The host software, or the printer's software? I control the host
software...

I suspect it's imprecision in the print head mechanics. It just can't
fire a drop of ink with sufficient precision for our purposes. Hence
my thought to do a print with only one head; at least any
manufacturing differences between heads would no longer count against
us.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-25 by Adam Seychell

DJ Delorie wrote:
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
>> Its just a case of adding a specialised operating mode of the
>> software.
>
> The host software, or the printer's software? I control the host
> software...

I'd reckon you need to write your own printer firmware, or built your
own controller hardware. I'd imagine there would be a lot of printer
settings you cannot set through the PC connection. They are not a "dumb"
printers.


>
> I suspect it's imprecision in the print head mechanics. It just can't
> fire a drop of ink with sufficient precision for our purposes.
>
If the ink drop can be placed with very little randomness, and is
repeatable, then software can in theory compensate for any
misalignments. If the drops are too random then it will be a
mechanical problem that software cannot fix.
I think if the head were to travel much slower then the randomness will
be reduced.

Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-25 by Steve

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, DJ Delorie <dj@...> wrote:
>
>
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:
> > Thats what I have observed too. If you look at it under a microscope
> > then you can clearly see that line edges parallel to the print head
> > travel axis are much less jagged than line edges perpendicular to the
> > print head travel axis.
>
> Actually, that's not what I see. There seems to be a gaussian
> distribution of off-bys in both directions (vertical and horizontal).
> If I enable bi-directional printing, there's an obvious duality to
> that direction, but I think it's either (1) the various print heads
> aren't aligned to each other, or (2) individual dots don't leave the
> print head at a true 90 degrees each time.
>
> One of these days I'm going to write a program to print my image with
> only one of the jets and see, assuming I can wait all day for it to
> print ;-)

Use the print head alignment check or nozzle check, that will print
one line using one nozzle. That should give you some indication of how
straight one nozzle can print, independent of software/driver dithering.

I suspect part of the problem may be that a lot goes into writing the
drivers to -hide- those straight lines that the print head would
otherwise print. So that gaussian distribution of dot placement is
most likely by design.

Early inkjet printers often suffered from banding caused not by clogs,
but by the fact that the image was drawn by placement of drops in
straight lines. A lot of work went into dithering patterns to hide this.

> > I'm sure most printers do not print at the resolution manufactures
> > claim. I see pixelation errors when printing 6mil (0.2mm) lines
from my
> > Canon MP810. This printer is rated at 1200dpi (7 pixels in one 8mill
> > line) yet I see some lines are significantly wider than others
> > indicating the printer software is down converting the image to a
lower
> > resolution.

Inkjet printers, from my understanding, are "faking" the higher
resolution by micropositioning the print head. That the print head
itself is really 300dpi or 360dpi.

> On my laser printer (600dpi) I don't use 6 or 8 mil lines. I use 6.67
> or 8.33 mil lines, which are exact(ish) multiples of the print
> resolution. Otherwise, yeah, some lines are wider than others by a
> pixel.

There you go.

I had tried making PCB patterns using a dot matrix printer (long ago)
and ran into that same problem only at much larger line widths.

Steve Greenfield

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-25 by DJ Delorie

"Steve" <alienrelics@...> writes:

> Use the print head alignment check or nozzle check, that will print
> one line using one nozzle. That should give you some indication of how
> straight one nozzle can print, independent of software/driver dithering.

Tried that. The nozzle check dots are HUGE compared to the ones used
at 2880 DPI. I'm guessing they're printing bars, not dots, to make
them visible.

Anyway, I'm investigating gutenprint and the printer's language to see
if I can write my own driver that does what *I* want it to do. Yay
open source :-)

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-26 by DJ Delorie

DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:
> Anyway, I'm investigating gutenprint and the printer's language to see
> if I can write my own driver that does what *I* want it to do. Yay
> open source :-)

I've got some preliminary (i.e. unetched) results.

See: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/inkjet/

What I did was modify the print driver to think it needs to print
every single pixel (which would normally be too much ink). Then I
wrote a program to remove half the pixels from the "field" away from
the edges. That way, I don't get dithering near the edges (clean
edges) but I do away from them (not too much ink).

I was able to write my own software to send data to the printer, and
indeed I can control every single drop of ink, but unfortunately the
inkjet is itself incapable of better precision (mechanically) than
what you see in the photographs. Unfortunately, my micro-weave
algorithm is much worse than gutenprint's one, so until I can copy
that to my software, I'm still printing with the gimp.

I might try letting it print every dot anyway, just to see how bad it
gets. I worry about ink bleeding causing breaks in the copper traces.

I think this is as good as it mechanically gets.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-27 by DJ Delorie

DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:
> I might try letting it print every dot anyway, just to see how bad it
> gets. I worry about ink bleeding causing breaks in the copper traces.

Follow-up: seems to have worked OK on the SilkJet film (still waiting
for the Jetstar film to compare with) as long as I keep my fingers off
it. I updated the web page.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution

2008-06-27 by Russell Shaw

DJ Delorie wrote:
> DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:
>> Anyway, I'm investigating gutenprint and the printer's language to see
>> if I can write my own driver that does what *I* want it to do. Yay
>> open source :-)
>
> I've got some preliminary (i.e. unetched) results.
>
> See: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/inkjet/
>
> What I did was modify the print driver to think it needs to print
> every single pixel (which would normally be too much ink). Then I
> wrote a program to remove half the pixels from the "field" away from
> the edges. That way, I don't get dithering near the edges (clean
> edges) but I do away from them (not too much ink).
>
> I was able to write my own software to send data to the printer, and
> indeed I can control every single drop of ink, but unfortunately the
> inkjet is itself incapable of better precision (mechanically) than
> what you see in the photographs. Unfortunately, my micro-weave
> algorithm is much worse than gutenprint's one, so until I can copy
> that to my software, I'm still printing with the gimp.
>
> I might try letting it print every dot anyway, just to see how bad it
> gets. I worry about ink bleeding causing breaks in the copper traces.
>
> I think this is as good as it mechanically gets.

If you use the gelatine coated film that absorbs ink, you won't get
bleeding.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-27 by Leon

----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Delorie" <dj@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 1:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)


>
> DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:
>> I might try letting it print every dot anyway, just to see how bad it
>> gets. I worry about ink bleeding causing breaks in the copper traces.
>
> Follow-up: seems to have worked OK on the SilkJet film (still waiting
> for the Jetstar film to compare with) as long as I keep my fingers off
> it. I updated the web page.

I can post you a couple of pieces of the ordinary and Premium JetStar if you
are are really stuck. I cut it to a bit oversize and stick it to a pice of
A4, as it's expensive stuff.

Leon

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-27 by DJ Delorie

"Leon" <leon355@...> writes:
> I can post you a couple of pieces of the ordinary and Premium
> JetStar if you are are really stuck. I cut it to a bit oversize and
> stick it to a pice of A4, as it's expensive stuff.

Thanks, but (1) I think the Silkjet is good enough to handle whatever
my inkjet give it, (2) I've got some Jetstar (non-premium, I think) in
the mail already, and (3) the local distributor is using me as a
guinea pig to work some bugs out of their system (the original order
was for JetStar Premium).

The SilkJet print has been sitting for a few hours and shows no signs
of ink creep like my other films have shown.

I've been cutting sheets in quarters for testing. My inkjet takes
them that size without problem, and it's just the right size for my
next board anyway.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-27 by Mike Young

DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:
>
> I've got some preliminary (i.e. unetched) results.
>
> See: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/inkjet/

I looked at a 3200 dpi reflective scan of an LJ4 print very closely in
Photoshop, printed on the cheap paper I normally use. The results aren't
good. Some isolated, minor pitting is evident even without adjusting the
gamma curve. There is also some faint smudging, not significant and also
ignorable.

I then adjusted the bottom of the curve until it just began to clip the
blacks, and progressively brought down the highlights. At the point the
smudging disappeared, assuming etching is similar to a photographic process,
the board would have been usable at that state. A few more pits became
visible, but the fine details were still whole and intact. (I use 8 mil/8
mil rules for most stuff, dropping down to 6/6 only around 0.4 mm pitch
devices.) Continuing to adjust down the highlights, it began looking like
the boards and traces I typically make. Pitting became significant in
places, but not objectionably so until still higher levels of "over-etch".
At extremes, the over-etch is obvious, and looks surprisingly exactly like
copper on an over processed board. Many of my problem boards are from
etching, but I already knew that.

The scanner is an Epson 3200, calibrated using Monaco EZColor. What it sees
is pretty much what's there to be seen. I could try it again as a
transparency, but I think I can extrapolate from this the effects of
over-exposure on photo-resist. The only thing missing is a relative measure
of the (visible light) transmissive density compared to a Stouffer wedge.
I'm still curious, but don't have any transparency sheets laying about. (I
use toner transfer.)

By mere coincidence, I have an HP P2015dn on order (1200 dpi). I'll check
this again Tuesday when it gets here. (Its purchase is only peripherally
related to PCBs. I've been wearing out the pavement between here and Kinkos
the past few months, where I've been sending rather large print jobs. The
printer will actually pay for itself before the year is out.)

Mike.

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-28 by DJ Delorie

DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:
> I've got some preliminary (i.e. unetched) results.
>
> See: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/inkjet/

And finally, etched results are there too.

Adam - I used the wet-lamination technique. The results were nearly
perfect (more heat next time, one of the unattached pads floated away
during etch, leaving the copper therein to get etched away). It also
let me use some old 0.063" stock, which won't fit through my
laminator. Any tips for doing double-sided boards this way? The
second side was harder due to the board being more slippery, and trapped
water in the pre-drilled holes kept steaming the film away from the board.

Fine line tests - I think had I left it in the etch tank longer, 4/4
would have worked just fine. I'll have to include another test patch
on the next set of boards I do. 6/6 was perfect and 5/5 again needed
more etch time.

About the comb edges - the film seems to have smoothed that out,
leaving professional-looking edges on everything. Even at 200X they
look smooth.

Overall - aside from the one floating pad and the fine-trace test
patches, the rest of the board looks perfect. MUCH higher quality
than with toner transfer. Next time, though, more time in the etch
tank, and more heat putting down the film.

Now I'm considering getting some solder mask film too :-)

RE: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-28 by Bertho Boman

Hi DJ,

Congratulation on the great result!



A quick question/suggestion: I think many messages ago it was discussed
what media is used but on your web page is says "photo paper". Presumably
that is a printer setting since I think you are using some brand of
transparency. Maybe you want to update the website to include the media.

Have a great PCB making weekend!

Bertho



From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of DJ Delorie
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 01:16
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)




DJ Delorie <dj@... <mailto:dj%40delorie.com> > writes:
> I've got some preliminary (i.e. unetched) results.
>
> See: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/inkjet/

And finally, etched results are there too.








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: inkjet resolution (was: UV LED box)

2008-06-28 by DJ Delorie

"Bertho Boman" <boman01@...> writes:
> Congratulation on the great result!

Thanks!

> A quick question/suggestion: I think many messages ago it was
> discussed what media is used but on your web page is says "photo
> paper". Presumably that is a printer setting since I think you are
> using some brand of transparency. Maybe you want to update the
> website to include the media.

The web site already says "this is SilkJet film" and does not say I
used photo paper.

The software's *print setting* is glossy photo, but that's the best
quality the software offers.