Homebrew_PCBs

Russell,
Well I did a QFP144 which has 0.25mm pads with 0.2 mm spacing between
the pads, that's the tightest I could find in EAGLE and placed two of
them connected one to the other with about 1/4 of the pins and printed
it.

Results are very good. Clear space between the pins, I can etch this
size no problem.

So I made a few 2.5 mil traces (which I can't etch reliably) and wired
between the QFP144 pins.... OK that failed, that asking much than this
laserjet can do, which is 0.005"

About the clogged Epson, I only ever used the real Epson cartridges, in
fact I have an unused one here, out of date now...

Blackness: No the exposure will still eat your lunch, even if you have a
Litho film the light source will scatter and cause problems.
Get to know your light source, then blackness is not a problem.

26 mil is hughes.... Not really for Home Brew PCB making (the theme for
the forum) which for the most part "implies" hand soldering MSOP is
about the smallest I like to do comfortably.

I still think there has to be a reason so many people are dumping Epson
Inkjet printers for $5 ! as you are referring to eBay.au I assume
Australian dollars...

In the final conclusion, I still maintain that for Home Brew PCB making,
the LaserJet is cheap to run and does a fine job. Even at AU$5 I would
not waste time on an Epson printer, the two I trashed cost US$475 at the
time.... I doubt the print head problem is any better.

Please continue to use your Epson. Please do NOT spread misinformation
about LaserJets, form reading your post, one could be believe Espons is
the ONLY solution, when the fact is "Average" hobby / homebrew PCB
maker will never reach the level of a QFP256 pin device. We have people
here still talking about Iron On transfers.... :-)

Best Regards

Hans W
PS I'm not adding anymore to this thread, it's redundant..





Russell Shaw wrote:

> Hans Wedemeyer wrote:
> ? Mike,
> ? That's the reason I posted this today.... I'm also sick of the same
> old
> ? crap about lasjer jet not being any good... it really is
> ? misinformation...
>
> Show me a footprint of 0.5mm pitch 256 pin QFP done on a laser without
>
> most of the pads shorting and i'll be happy.
>
> ? The other point that I can't abid is them needless search for
> absolute
> ? blackness in the film... Special this and special that... hog
> wash...
>
> The blacker the film, the less critical the exposure.
>
> ? I use MSOP a lot of the time that's 0.0256? (0.65mm) and have no
> problem
> ? at all.
>
> 26mil is huge.
>
> ? With regards to 8 mil..... well I demonstrated today, 10 mil is run
> of
> ? the mil and 8 mil is just as easy.
>
> Fine-pitch footprint?
>
> ? I remember a stupid board I was presented with some years ago, it
> was a
> ? very simple circuit about 10 components and the board was about 4? X
> 4?
> ? ( Deer feeder controller) and the person used 8 mil lines and the
> ? smallest pads ! When they tried to change components of course
> without a
> ? vacuum driven desoldering tool, pads lifted of and traces got
> broken.
> ? The golden rule is when you have the space USE IT....
>
> Most of the time i use 20mil tracks and 60-80mil vias.
>
> ? I can do 5 mil if I use Apollo CG7060 film, 3M CG 3300 is only good
> to
> ? 10 mil (8 at a stretch, with some touch up afterwards)
> ?
> ? During the years I have trashed two Epson Inkjet (700 dpi) printers
> ? because the nozzles got blocked and I tried everything to devolve
> the
> ? hardened ink, but nothing worked. At the time Epson offered a head
> ? replacement for $130.... I went out and purchased a HP inkjet
> printer
> ? instead for less.
>
> Using crap ink i guess. I've used refill stuff just for printing
> on paper and sometimes it gets clogged after a few months. The best
> way to get it working again is to put in a genuine cartridge and
> it flushes the old crap real easy.
>
> ? If people are dumping Epson Inkjet printers for $5 I'd say good luck
> to
> ? anyone buying one, perhaps buy two and hope the parts are
> ? interchangeable... There are also good deals on eBay for HP Laser
> ? Jets...
>
> I just got a lexmark 4039 R+ 1200dpi, extra paper tray, duplexer
> (double-
> sided printing:), network card, 16ppm for AUS$200 off ebay.com.au.
> Great for printing big manuals;)
>
> ? I've only put one new toner in this LaserJet since I purchased it
> two
> ? years ago, my other one (same type, yes I have 5 printers...) is
> about 6
> ? months older than that and it's on the third toner.
> ? I buy real HP toners for about $48.... I wonder what Epson's inkjet
>
> ? cartridges cost... !
>
> Black costs AUS$25-35, but i make them last 6 months to a year by
> using
> it only for PCBs. Laser is much cheaper for paper printing.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT
[Click Here!]

>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

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

Hans Wedemeyer wrote:

> Russell,
> Well I did a QFP144 which has 0.25mm pads with 0.2 mm spacing between
> the pads, that's the tightest I could find in EAGLE and placed two of
> them connected one to the other with about 1/4 of the pins and printed
> it.
>
> Results are very good. Clear space between the pins, I can etch this
> size no problem.

I assume you mean very few if any shorts between pads?

> So I made a few 2.5 mil traces (which I can't etch reliably) and wired
> between the QFP144 pins.... OK that failed, that asking much than this
> laserjet can do, which is 0.005"
>
> About the clogged Epson, I only ever used the real Epson cartridges, in
> fact I have an unused one here, out of date now...
>
> Blackness: No the exposure will still eat your lunch, even if you have a
> Litho film the light source will scatter and cause problems.
> Get to know your light source, then blackness is not a problem.

I get sharper results by using spray-on PRP positive resist because the
plastic coating sheet on pre-coated boards causes more undercut with a
close-in uv light source.

> 26 mil is hughes.... Not really for Home Brew PCB making (the theme for
> the forum) which for the most part "implies" hand soldering MSOP is
> about the smallest I like to do comfortably.
>
> I still think there has to be a reason so many people are dumping Epson
> Inkjet printers for $5 ! as you are referring to eBay.au I assume
> Australian dollars...

I've seen similar prices on US ebay too. Most users want to print photos
sharper or faster (USB) and new printers are cheap.

> In the final conclusion, I still maintain that for Home Brew PCB making,
> the LaserJet is cheap to run and does a fine job. Even at AU$5 I would
> not waste time on an Epson printer, the two I trashed cost US$475 at the
> time.... I doubt the print head problem is any better.
>
> Please continue to use your Epson. Please do NOT spread misinformation
> about LaserJets, form reading your post, one could be believe Espons is
> the ONLY solution, when the fact is "Average" hobby / homebrew PCB
> maker will never reach the level of a QFP256 pin device. We have people
> here still talking about Iron On transfers.... :-)

I've used laserjets, but the results were hopeless. What model is yours
and how old is it? Genuine toner?

"Russell Shaw" wrote:

>
> I've used laserjets, but the results were hopeless. What model is yours
> and how old is it? Genuine toner?

Didn't you say you would shut up on this subject in an earlier post?

This has turned into a "printer wars" group...
What say you Steve? Isn't it time to shut this one down?

Mike Putnam wrote:

> "Russell Shaw" wrote:
>
>>I've used laserjets, but the results were hopeless. What model is yours
>>and how old is it? Genuine toner?
>
> Didn't you say you would shut up on this subject in an earlier post?

I said i'd shut up about inkjets being the only viable alternative to
doing fine work.

> This has turned into a "printer wars" group...
> What say you Steve? Isn't it time to shut this one down?

Why hasn't anyone ever said how fine they can go with a laser. If they'd
had have a year ago, i wouldn't have said anything in the last year.

At least someone has now said that they can do fine pitch work with a
laser. Why do i have to go to these lengths to extract this simple bit
of information? How can i reliable reproduce the results? Has anyone
done fine pitch work with a 1200dpi lexmark?

Russell Shaw wrote:

> Mike Putnam wrote:
>

...

> Has anyone
> done fine pitch work with a 1200dpi lexmark?

(a lexmark laser 4039 R+)

hey guys... this is a serious discussion about which method/printer is
best. ok, "serious" but.....
i see no reason for "shut up" posts or asking for closing it down.

if you don't want to read simply don't open mails with this subject.....
nobody forces you to read the mails....

but maybe it gets boring over time...

regards
stefan

Well said. Keep it friendly, or at least not too hostile. ;')

I'm very interested all this.

Steve, your friendly neighborhood moderatorman

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan
<stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:

> hey guys... this is a serious discussion about which method/printer is
> best. ok, "serious" but.....
> i see no reason for "shut up" posts or asking for closing it down.
>
> if you don't want to read simply don't open mails with this

subject.....

> nobody forces you to read the mails....
>
> but maybe it gets boring over time...
>
> regards
> stefan

Russel,
OK I said no more, but as you are asking serious questions here are the
answers:

> > Results are very good. Clear space between the pins, I can etch this
>
> > size no problem.
>
> I assume you mean very few if any shorts between pads?
>

ZERO shorts, I got two short when I tried to put (silly idea) the 2.5mil
trave between the 8 mil spaced pads... Can't do that

>
> I get sharper results by using spray-on PRP positive resist because
> the
> plastic coating sheet on pre-coated boards causes more undercut with a
>
> close-in uv light source.
>

As I said get to know your ligth source, and it appears you got to know
yours. the UV lights close up will casue scatter.
I use a bulb at 6 inches and it is god enoguht to NOT casue that
problem.
Also the shortened exposure time will help prevent that also. With
these 500Watt bulbs I expose for 70 seconds.

>
> > I still think there has to be a reason so many people are dumping
> Epson
> > Inkjet printers for $5 ! as you are referring to eBay.au I assume
> > Australian dollars...
>
> I've seen similar prices on US ebay too. Most users want to print
> photos
> sharper or faster (USB) and new printers are cheap.
>

Ok... My two inkjet USB is no faster that the LPT1 version, just more
convenient. I agree Inkjet are wonderful for phot printing...

>
> I've used laserjets, but the results were hopeless. What model is
> yours
> and how old is it? Genuine toner?
>

The first one (now retired) was a HP LaserJet 5L it did excellent PCB
work. The two I have now are both HP LaserJet 1100
One is used to clerical work the other is for me and my stuff.

Ink jet's are HP DeskJet 1220C(for schematics B-size and Yes... D-size
(two halves) ), HP 932C (the work horse for photo's), and the third one
is HP Photo Smart Photo Printer (six color) . The Photo printer could
have been a nice printer, I convinced this is one of the worst HP
products I have ever owned. The cartridge connection assembly is so
poorly done, rubber pads behind flex printer) , HP has to be ashamed of
it... I still have but hardly use it anymore, my old Fargo Premier
Photo printer, it uses dye sublimation. If you have ever seen this in
action it's a strange beast... resolution 144 dots per inch ! however
the results are as good as wet processed photo's from film, truly photo
quality. I know, can't be with only 144 dots per inch.... as I said
"strange beast".... but it really works... also costs US$2 per sheet of
paper and add to that the dye film comes to about $4.75 per 8" X 10"
still cheap . Today we are all locked into dots per inch as the only way
to judge photo quality, well... dye sublimation has been used to make
TechniColor (spelling) films since 1930's and is a wonderful process...

OK now I am shutting down, I don't have anymore time for this. I have
nothing against Ink jet's but just remember if you had a bad experience
with Laser, that doe snot mean every Laser user has the same....

Best Regards
Hans W



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

I have no problem with a serious discussion on a method of making
transparencies, but when someone says something can't be done and other
people say it can with proven results, that person should back off the
original statement rather than make argument constantly. I did not tell
anyone to shut up. Those were his words. He said he would if anyone was able
to use laser printers on small artwork. Obviously, when someone continues to
blame a piece of hardware for their lack of experience or know how in the
photographic or development area then he should back off and reconsider the
process.
If unconstructive argument is allowed, I won't try to weed out the subject
lines like spam, I will just unsubscribe. I was very patient when the
discussion about yag lasers and when the multi-thousand dollar laser cutting
equipment went on and on for weeks. I felt that was OT for a homegbrew pcb
list, but sat patiently waiting for it to die out. I have more tolerance for
OT than for unconstructive argument.
This is a great forum to learn, but if you become argumentive, you are not
going to learn anything. Instead, you are just going to make it a bad
experience for others on here who want to learn more.
You CAN make professional PCBs at home and you can make competitive money
doing so. In my home business, I used to make PCBs for several larger
corporations and project sites. One of which was Nuts and Volts magazine.
For them, I made the boards for the Karaoke project, the weekend workbench
projects and I think, some of the solar workshop. In addition to this, I was
contacted by many of their columnists to produce the PCBs for kits for their
projects. In the course of this time, I had very successful results with my
home made process using laser printer, tubular black light bulbs and sodium
silicate developer. I never received a complaint about the artwork and
usually had repeat business when the customer had a new project.
If your process does not work, you should inquire as to how you can improve
it, not blast the hardware as unusable. Even the subject line implies that
the laser printer is not usable.
-Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <alienrelics@...>
To: <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 2:45 AM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: the naked truth about Laser Jet, warts and all!


> Well said. Keep it friendly, or at least not too hostile. ;')
>
> I'm very interested all this.
>
> Steve, your friendly neighborhood moderatorman
>
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Stefan Trethan
> <stefan_trethan@g...> wrote:
> > hey guys... this is a serious discussion about which method/printer is
> > best. ok, "serious" but.....
> > i see no reason for "shut up" posts or asking for closing it down.
> >
> > if you don't want to read simply don't open mails with this
> subject.....
> > nobody forces you to read the mails....
> >
> > but maybe it gets boring over time...
> >
> > regards
> > stefan
>
>
>
>
>
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Bookmarks and files:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Homebrew_PCBs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Mike,
I agree with you 100% that's why I displayed some practical everyday
proven results.

And yes you never did tell Russell to shut up. Russell said he would
shut up if someone can show him a QFP etc etc

Well I wasted a good Apollo transparencies to prove to myself that it
can be done.

It's the constant misinformation or lack of acceptance that other people
can use lasers that bugged me as much as it did you, that why I named
the thread the naked truth...

I'm done trying to convince Russell, he will not believe me even if I
sent him the final PCB...

Take care..
Best Regards
Hans W

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Hans Wedemeyer <hans@c...> wrote:

> Mike,
> I agree with you 100% that's why I displayed some practical everyday
> proven results.

I'm convinced. It looks to me like good results depend on experience,
quality control, and using the right mix.

My laser printer did not work well for laser peel, but I have a
different laser printer now.

I think the thread is ended now, of it's own accord.

Steve

Hans Wedemeyer wrote:

> Mike,
> I agree with you 100% that's why I displayed some practical everyday
> proven results.
>
> And yes you never did tell Russell to shut up. Russell said he would
> shut up if someone can show him a QFP etc etc
>
> Well I wasted a good Apollo transparencies to prove to myself that it
> can be done.
>
> It's the constant misinformation or lack of acceptance that other people
> can use lasers that bugged me as much as it did you, that why I named
> the thread the naked truth...
>
> I'm done trying to convince Russell, he will not believe me even if I
> sent him the final PCB...

The only convincing i needed was that someone had a proven example.
It was hardly misleading information until a concrete example was done.

I have a dirt cheap laser, the Samsung ML-1210. It makes artwork
that is pretty well perfect. No pinholes or dropouts and large black
areas are nice solid black. My DJ-610C does pretty good too but its
a bit dicey going smaller than 0.015" - ground planes are streaked
somewhat (have to ink them over to use).

My first set of boards all had .012" traces on 0.025" centers (I
didn't know that was supposed to be hard - newb me!) and they
exposed/etched just fine once I figured out my artwork wasn't
sitting flat and got my chemical temperatures/times sorted out.

Since I've gotten some more practice, I've been using 0.01" traces
at times without defects (only when I have to, other than that I go
BIG - if you have the room, why not use it!). Haven't had the need
to go smaller than 0.01" but I could give it a shot with a little
left over board I guess.


--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@i...>
wrote:

> Hans Wedemeyer wrote:
> > Mike,
> > I agree with you 100% that's why I displayed some practical

everyday

> > proven results.
> >
> > And yes you never did tell Russell to shut up. Russell said he

would

> > shut up if someone can show him a QFP etc etc
> >
> > Well I wasted a good Apollo transparencies to prove to myself

that it

> > can be done.
> >
> > It's the constant misinformation or lack of acceptance that

other people

> > can use lasers that bugged me as much as it did you, that why I

named

> > the thread the naked truth...
> >
> > I'm done trying to convince Russell, he will not believe me even

if I

> > sent him the final PCB...
>
> The only convincing i needed was that someone had a proven example.
> It was hardly misleading information until a concrete example was

done.

I don't know if you need some examples, but in the "FIles" section I
have posted the results of my Laser PCB printing.
Look in the "Files" and "A_direct_Hot_Foil_method"

I use the laser to get the toner, then I use the hot stamping foil as
my backing paper. The ink from the foil makes the toner thicker, with
less gaps, etc.

I do use a flat press.
I get excellent results.

John Myszkowski...
=====================



--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Russell Shaw <rjshaw@i...>
wrote:

> Hans Wedemeyer wrote:
> > Mike,
> > I agree with you 100% that's why I displayed some practical

everyday

> > proven results.
> >
> > And yes you never did tell Russell to shut up. Russell said he

would

> > shut up if someone can show him a QFP etc etc
> >
> > Well I wasted a good Apollo transparencies to prove to myself

that it

> > can be done.
> >
> > It's the constant misinformation or lack of acceptance that other

people

> > can use lasers that bugged me as much as it did you, that why I

named

> > the thread the naked truth...
> >
> > I'm done trying to convince Russell, he will not believe me even

if I

> > sent him the final PCB...
>
> The only convincing i needed was that someone had a proven example.
> It was hardly misleading information until a concrete example was

done.