UV LED box
2008-06-11 by DJ Delorie
Yahoo Groups archive
Index last updated: 2026-03-31 23:13 UTC
Thread
2008-06-11 by DJ Delorie
2008-06-11 by warrenbrayshaw
>
>
> 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.
2008-06-11 by Adam Seychell
> Just finished wiring mine up...Nice work
>
> 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.
>
2008-06-11 by DJ Delorie
> Whats the grid pitch ?About 1.2 inches. Just enough to solder the leads together :-) That
> Whats the LED brand/model ?The 395nm UV from BestHongKong. I got 100, and 100 of them worked -
> I'm interested in your exposure times. I get 60 seconds withI picked up a Stouffer step gauge (from stouffer.com - just call them,
> 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.
2008-06-11 by DJ Delorie
> I note that your LEDs are laid out with overlap in one axis but noneNot by much, and that was to spread them out to fit the 9x12 area I
> in the other.
> I suggest that you need to have all neighbouring LEDs overlap theThat's why I'm trying a triangular grid instead of a square grid.
> same amount to obtain a more even coverage.
> All the best with the fine tuning.Thanks. I think what I'll do is use the test supply to run each LED
2008-06-11 by Bertho Boman
2008-06-11 by DJ Delorie
> Maybe you want to try a sheet of plastic, PVC, about 5-6mm thick andYeah, I thought of that but didn't have any handy, and had to use an
> 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.
2008-06-11 by Adam Seychell
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:Thanks. I got 400 of the BestHongKong LEDs and got 0% failure. The ultra
>> 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.
>
2008-06-12 by DJ Delorie
> For calibration, you just take a strip of pre-sensitised PCB, andOr just expose it with a step gauge and read the step number. The
> expose it in increments of 10 seconds.
2008-06-12 by Jan Kok
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
>
>
>
>
2008-06-12 by DJ Delorie
> 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
2008-06-12 by Adam Seychell
>$7 !, damn last time I priced a step gauge I was quoted some exorbitant
> 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.
2008-06-12 by DJ Delorie
> Did you get the uncalibrated 21 step transmisive guide (part #Yes, that's what I got. If you want *calibrated* the cost starts
> T2115) $6.10 ?
> I think that probably best all round choice, even though 21 steps isExcept that all the films I've seen are calibrated against that very
> probably more than needed.
> If they send it in a standard envelope then I guess postageIt came in a small brown padded envelope, UPS ground (yeah, shipping
> worldwide would be cheap too.
2008-06-17 by DJ Delorie
> I'm interested in your exposure times. I get 60 seconds with negativeJust finished some tests. With the glass and transparency I'm using,
> 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.
2008-06-19 by Adam Seychell
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:Thank for getting back to us. I'm bit new to these step gauges. I
>> 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).
>
2008-06-19 by DJ Delorie
> From what I can gather, the transmission gauges are logarithmic. WithYes. So, my first exposure was step 5 at 2 min and I wanted to get to
> 21 step gauge, each successive step has the transmission 1/sqrt(2)
> factor relative to the previous step.
> step 8 means 6.25% transmission. if you exposed 5.5 minutes, then yourMath, perhaps. Logic, no. If a 5.5 min exposure gets to step 8, then
> 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 ?That time, yes. I also wetted the pcb as somewhere I read to do that,
> I will update my wet lamination web page sometime soon, since I'veI'm looking forward to trying that, especially if it gets better
> worked out some improvements to the process.
> Also I just discovered the importance of leaving the PCB stand afterI've read that many places. The curing creates a gas that needs to be
> exposure for > 5 minutes.
2008-06-19 by Markus Zingg
>
>
> 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
>
2008-06-20 by Adam Seychell
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:I'm still confused :)
>> 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.
>> Also I just discovered the importance of leaving the PCB stand afterThe data sheet for some resist I once had said 10 to 15 minutes hold time.
>> 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).
2008-06-20 by Bertho Boman
2008-06-20 by Bertho Boman
2008-06-20 by DJ Delorie
> Ok. so when you exposed the resist for 2 minutes with the step gauge inYes. 1 to 4 were fully exposed; they got enough UV to cure. Recall
> 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. SoI suppose. That would mean a 21 second exposure would cure some but
> 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 theYes. There is no point in calculating the 21 seconds result. That
> final exposure time use for PCBs will be somewhat longer.
> 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
2008-06-20 by DJ Delorie
> Testing the photo resist by itself might be interesting but whatThat's my next test. So far, I've tested my system with the LEDs,
> 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.
> In-between those two extremes you will hopefully have a good sectionThat doesn't really tell you what the ideal exposure time is, though.
> if the artwork is good enough.
2008-06-20 by Adam Seychell
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:thanks, its getting a bit clearer now. So lets say your test expose for
>> 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.
>
>> The data sheet for some resist I once had said 10 to 15 minutes hold time.interesting. They say in "note 2" that it can be developed immediately
>
> 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
2008-06-20 by DJ Delorie
> So lets say your test expose for 120 seconds with the step gauge andIf it were my film, I'd need to expose my boards for 480 seconds, the
> full cure occurs at step 4.
> Exposure time for PCB fabrication will then be:No. I think you're misunderstanding what the step gauge is for.
> 120 / (1.41 * 1.41 * 1.41 ) = 42 seconds
> I cannot understand why you need a 5.5 minute PCB exposure based onBecause the film's spec says so. The film's spec says that, for
> your results. A 42 second PCB exposure agrees a lot more with my
> experiences.
2008-06-20 by Adam Seychell
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:Thanks, I get it now.
>
>> 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.
>
2008-06-21 by DJ Delorie
> So the photoresist professionals say you must expose the resist suchMore like some parts come completely off, and other parts remain
> 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 thenYes.
> be 11.3137 times the amount of energy needed for "%50" cure. I think
> this is what your saying above.
2008-06-22 by Russell Shaw
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:The way i checked mine is to expose a series of areas, where each is
>> 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.
2008-06-22 by Bertho Boman
2008-06-22 by DJ Delorie
> I am a little surprised at the long discussions about selectingIf you had been following the discussion, you would have known that I
> 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 andThat doesn't affect the exposure, that's something to account for in
> development and etching issues.
> In an ideal situation, the variables should independently beUm, yes we do. The step gauge measures the process exposure, and a
> 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.The LEDs have a 10 degree range. We've talked about this before.
> Make a parallel test pattern of the skinniest lines and spacingI did say that would be my *next* test. It's not the *first* test
> required and long enough to match the step gauge.
> Run an exposure test as the real boards will be exposed, developI've done all that. Please re-read my posts.
> just the resist, eyeball the result,
> Also for the tests above I leave a little piece of PCB not coveredThe step gauge does all that for you, and it's easier and calibrated.
> 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 artworkDid you miss my post about how to determine the UV opacity of your
2008-06-22 by DJ Delorie
> That's my next test. So far, I've tested my system with the LEDs,I did one of these tests. I used 8x the "ideal" time, because my
> 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.
2008-06-22 by Mike Young
----- 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.
>
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
2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie
> Has anyone measured the UV transmissive density of their artwork?The disadvantage of laser printers (at least, based on looking at it
> 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?
2008-06-23 by John Coppens
> My TT results always gave irregular edges. Plus forThis is probably too obvious, but still... (At least) some printer
> 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.
2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie
> This is probably too obvious, but still...My dad always told me to check the stupid things first. Yes, it's
> (At least) some printer drivers, when fed with gray scale images,The artifacts are on the scale of a pixel or so. I've looked at it
> use (random dot) dithering. Print quality for PC boards and other
> line drawing items improves immensely when switching to pure b/w
> printing.
2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie
> Having said that, I was going to run tests with laser printed masksStill etching, but it looks like it only gives 3 steps of useful
> too. Hmmm... maybe I'll redo my latest test with a laser printed
> one, on vellum (it's cheaper than laser transparencies).
2008-06-23 by warrenbrayshaw
> DJ Delorie writes:As has been often posted here. The UV transparency of each inkjet
>
> 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.
>
2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie
> As has been often posted here. The UV transparency of each inkjetYup. However, the software I use for printing doesn't put down as
> 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.
2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie
> Still etching, but it looks like it only gives 3 steps of usefulDone. Only one step was useful; the one above it was completely
> range, vs 8 steps for the inkjet. Under a microscope with
> back-lighting, the toner is not as opaque as you'd think.
2008-06-23 by Adam Seychell
>Thats what I have observed too. If you look at it under a microscope
> 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.
>
2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie
> Thats what I have observed too. If you look at it under a microscopeActually, that's not what I see. There seems to be a gaussian
> 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.
> I'm sure most printers do not print at the resolution manufacturesOn my laser printer (600dpi) I don't use 6 or 8 mil lines. I use 6.67
> 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.
2008-06-23 by Mike Young
----- 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
>
>
>
2008-06-23 by DJ Delorie
> Well that just s*cks. :D The Epson 1280 has been sitting idle for about 2The laser printer (3 steps) uses toner. The inkjet is an Epson R280,
> 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?
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
>> 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
2008-06-24 by dandumit
> One of these days I'm going to write a program to print my image withI am very curious about your program. How do you plan to wrote it ?
> only one of the jets and see, assuming I can wait all day for it to
> print ;-)
2008-06-24 by DJ Delorie
> Are you printing from Windows ?No, Linux. I've got the sources for all the printer drivers :-)
2008-06-24 by Adam Seychell
>> One of these days I'm going to write a program to print my image withUnfortunately for us PCB homebrewers , inkjet manufactures are not going
> 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.
>
2008-06-24 by DJ Delorie
> Its just a case of adding a specialised operating mode of theThe host software, or the printer's software? I control the host
> software.
2008-06-25 by Adam Seychell
> Adam Seychell <a_seychell@...> writes:I'd reckon you need to write your own printer firmware, or built your
>> 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...
>If the ink drop can be placed with very little randomness, and is
> 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.
>
2008-06-25 by Steve
>Use the print head alignment check or nozzle check, that will print
>
> 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 manufacturesfrom my
> > claim. I see pixelation errors when printing 6mil (0.2mm) lines
> > Canon MP810. This printer is rated at 1200dpi (7 pixels in one 8milllower
> > line) yet I see some lines are significantly wider than others
> > indicating the printer software is down converting the image to a
> > resolution.Inkjet printers, from my understanding, are "faking" the higher
> On my laser printer (600dpi) I don't use 6 or 8 mil lines. I use 6.67There you go.
> 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.
2008-06-25 by DJ Delorie
> Use the print head alignment check or nozzle check, that will printTried that. The nozzle check dots are HUGE compared to the ones used
> one line using one nozzle. That should give you some indication of how
> straight one nozzle can print, independent of software/driver dithering.
2008-06-26 by DJ Delorie
> Anyway, I'm investigating gutenprint and the printer's language to seeI've got some preliminary (i.e. unetched) results.
> if I can write my own driver that does what *I* want it to do. Yay
> open source :-)
2008-06-27 by DJ Delorie
> I might try letting it print every dot anyway, just to see how bad itFollow-up: seems to have worked OK on the SilkJet film (still waiting
> gets. I worry about ink bleeding causing breaks in the copper traces.
2008-06-27 by Russell Shaw
> DJ Delorie <dj@...> writes:If you use the gelatine coated film that absorbs ink, you won't get
>> 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.
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
2008-06-27 by DJ Delorie
> I can post you a couple of pieces of the ordinary and PremiumThanks, but (1) I think the Silkjet is good enough to handle whatever
> 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.
2008-06-27 by Mike Young
>I looked at a 3200 dpi reflective scan of an LJ4 print very closely in
> I've got some preliminary (i.e. unetched) results.
>
> See: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/inkjet/
2008-06-28 by DJ Delorie
> I've got some preliminary (i.e. unetched) results.And finally, etched results are there too.
>
> See: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/inkjet/
2008-06-28 by Bertho Boman
> I've got some preliminary (i.e. unetched) results.And finally, etched results are there too.
>
> See: http://www.delorie.com/pcb/inkjet/
2008-06-28 by DJ Delorie
> Congratulation on the great result!Thanks!
> A quick question/suggestion: I think many messages ago it wasThe web site already says "this is SilkJet film" and does not say I
> 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.