Homebrew PCBs

>
> 
> 
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "dave_donlan"  wrote:
> >
> > Just been looking on flea bay and came across these
> > 
> > 36W Nail UV Lamp Acrylic Gel Curing Light
> > 
> > has anyone had any experience with these unit for producing pcbs - seem quite cheap might be worth a llok
> > Dave
> >
> I ordered on a while back to make an expousure box.   The one I go has 4 U shaped 8W tubes (36W total).  As is, it would do a 4x4 board.   I figured I wanted a little larger unit so the plan was to go with more tubes in a DIY box.  Also wanted the ability to do both sides of the board at once.
> 
> The replacement 8W bulbs are quite inexpensive, so I will just buy more bulbs.  No need for bulb sockets, just RTV the bulbs in place and solder directly to the pins.  The real issue is where to get low cost ballasts.  The nail unit I got had one ckt board that powered 4 bulbs, best I could tell there was one main line chopper and 4 bulb current limiting inductors.  If you don't want to roll your own ballast just hack some from old CFL cork screw bulbs -- they work fine.  FYI inside the blastic base of the bulb each end of the tube has two filiment wires. One wire from each filiment is connected to the pin on the base of the bulb.  The ohter filiment pins are joined together with a series capacitor.  Thus the bulbs will appear open to dc and an ohm meter.
> 
> Craig
>

From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Robin Whittle
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 9:17 PM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Vicent Colomar Prats
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV nail lamps - sharpness of shadow,
phototool-PCB contact closeness, 500W floodlamp

 

  

Hi Vicent,

Some of the eBay ads which can be found by searching for:

36W Nail UV Lamp Acrylic Gel Curing Light

show that they contain four long U-shaped fluorescent lamps. This ad:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/310556445104

shows one of these types of lamp - and they have "365nm" written on
them, which is most helpful! The Riston General Processing Guide at:

http://www2.dupont.com/Imaging_Materials/en_US/tech_info/datasheets/index.ht
ml

indicates peak sensitivity is in the 350-380 nm near-UV range, with some
sensitivity from 300nm (UV) to 450nm (blue).

I am not sure what wavelengths other photoresists are most sensitive to,
such as positive photoresists.

I think it is much better to have a relatively compact source of light
than something broad like these.

In some previous messages to this list, such as message 30440, I
described using a 500 watt linear halogen incandescent lamp with
reflector - a cheap hardware-store "floodlamp". Such lamps put out
enough near-UV to give me a sun-tan when I extensively used an old
process camera which had four of these lamps. Glass would reduce the
tanning/burning shorter wavelength UV rays to some extent but I think
would hardly affect the transmission of the 350-380nm light of interest.

The 500 watt lamp radiates most of its energy in the visible and
infra-red (with some being lost as hot air), and only a fraction of it
is the light we are interested in. I couldn't find a suitable source of
dark-violet-looking "Woods glass" to make a filter which would reject
most of the visible and IR I don't want. This visible and IR energy is
substantial and will warm the board, which might cause differential
expansion of the phototool and board. However, this can be largely
solved by blowing a fan on the board, with its phototool and glass or
other surface which clamps the phototool to the board.

This way, most of the light comes from an area about 10cm wide and 45cm
away from the board. These rays of light are relatively parallel, so
the shadow from the phototool remains relatively sharp even if the
phototool is not completely flat against the photoresist.

With a broader source of light, as would inevitably be the case with
these less intense, larger, fluorescent lamps, the shadow would be much
less sharp.

It is difficult to get the phototool sitting flat against the PCB. The
PCB is reasonably rigid and is not necessarily flat. If the top cover
is glass or acrylic, then any dust or mismatch between the flatness of
the glass and the PCB will cause a gap and loss of sharpness.

It would also be possible to use a vacuum frame with a soft, flexible,
top surface, such as clear PVC sheet (retailed at fabric and other shops
as a table covering), which would press the phototool close to the PCB
even if the PCB was not completely flat. This would also largely avoid
problems caused by dust, since it would tend to stretch the phototool
over the dust particle and so press it close even one or two mm away
from the particle, whereas with the glass or acrylic approach, the dust
particle would lift the phototool and glass off the board for a larger
surrounding area.

Another likely problem with fluorescent lamps of all types is that their
output would vary considerably with how long they have been on for,
which would be affected by their starting temperature and therefore how
long they had been on for in the last 30 minutes or so. This would make
it difficult to run them from a timer. This might be OK if you ran them
all the time and had a way of simply placing them over the PCB with
phototool etc. However, I prefer to place the phototool and my existing
glass sheet arrangement together by a safelight (a bunch of red LEDs)
and place it under the lamp, before turning the lamp on for a fixed
time. The 500W incandescent lamp would have its near-UV output affected
somewhat by mains voltage fluctuations, but I doubt if this is a
significant problem.

- Robin http://www.firstpr.com.au/pcb-diy/





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

From: Jeff Heiss  Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 01:46



I experimented with a ziplock bag and a vacuum pump. The transparency is
held to the board very very well. Much better than glass can ever do.
However, I found a drawback and that is the plastic forms imperfections and
scratches from fingernails, stretching and pulling to get wrinkles out
during vacuum, and around the transparency and copper clad edges. 

I question, as I have not tested, if these imperfections can cause diffusion
of the light as it passes through and decrease results especially if the
imperfections are over a thin trace or spacing between traces. I tried
blanket storage bags, same problem. My conclusion is that very thin glass
like microscope cover slide glass is the ideal material because it is thin
enough to deform over the copper clad. I searched for glass as thin as
cover slide glass but I could not find a place who sells it. Maybe
something better than ziplock bag plastic can be used too that I am not
aware of. 

Jeff





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

-----Original Message-----
From: Boman33 <boman33@...>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 2:41 AM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV nail lamps - sharpness of shadow, phototool-PCB contact closeness, 500W floodlamp

 
Use thicker glass and let the PCB deform to lay flat against it. The force
 of the vacuum (air-pressure) is very large over the big area of the PCB.

 Bertho

 From: Jeff Heiss Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 01:46

 I experimented with a ziplock bag and a vacuum pump. The transparency is
 held to the board very very well. Much better than glass can ever do.
 However, I found a drawback and that is the plastic forms imperfections and
 scratches from fingernails, stretching and pulling to get wrinkles out
 during vacuum, and around the transparency and copper clad edges.

 I question, as I have not tested, if these imperfections can cause diffusion
 of the light as it passes through and decrease results especially if the
 imperfections are over a thin trace or spacing between traces. I tried
 blanket storage bags, same problem. My conclusion is that very thin glass
 like microscope cover slide glass is the ideal material because it is thin
 enough to deform over the copper clad. I searched for glass as thin as
 cover slide glass but I could not find a place who sells it. Maybe
 something better than ziplock bag plastic can be used too that I am not
 aware of.

 Jeff

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



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

>
> 
>
>Jeff
>
> 
>
>  _____  
>
>From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
>On Behalf Of Robin Whittle
>Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 9:17 PM
>To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
>Cc: Vicent Colomar Prats
>Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV nail lamps - sharpness of shadow,
>phototool-PCB contact closeness, 500W floodlamp
>
> 
>
>  
>
>Hi Vicent,
>
>Some of the eBay ads which can be found by searching for:
>
>36W Nail UV Lamp Acrylic Gel Curing Light
>
>show that they contain four long U-shaped fluorescent lamps. This ad:
>
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/310556445104
>
>shows one of these types of lamp - and they have "365nm" written on
>them, which is most helpful! The Riston General Processing Guide at:
>
>http://www2.dupont.com/Imaging_Materials/en_US/tech_info/datasheets/index.ht
>ml
>
>indicates peak sensitivity is in the 350-380 nm near-UV range, with some
>sensitivity from 300nm (UV) to 450nm (blue).
>
>I am not sure what wavelengths other photoresists are most sensitive to,
>such as positive photoresists.
>
>I think it is much better to have a relatively compact source of light
>than something broad like these.
>
>In some previous messages to this list, such as message 30440, I
>described using a 500 watt linear halogen incandescent lamp with
>reflector - a cheap hardware-store "floodlamp". Such lamps put out
>enough near-UV to give me a sun-tan when I extensively used an old
>process camera which had four of these lamps. Glass would reduce the
>tanning/burning shorter wavelength UV rays to some extent but I think
>would hardly affect the transmission of the 350-380nm light of interest.
>
>The 500 watt lamp radiates most of its energy in the visible and
>infra-red (with some being lost as hot air), and only a fraction of it
>is the light we are interested in. I couldn't find a suitable source of
>dark-violet-looking "Woods glass" to make a filter which would reject
>most of the visible and IR I don't want. This visible and IR energy is
>substantial and will warm the board, which might cause differential
>expansion of the phototool and board. However, this can be largely
>solved by blowing a fan on the board, with its phototool and glass or
>other surface which clamps the phototool to the board.
>
>This way, most of the light comes from an area about 10cm wide and 45cm
>away from the board. These rays of light are relatively parallel, so
>the shadow from the phototool remains relatively sharp even if the
>phototool is not completely flat against the photoresist.
>
>With a broader source of light, as would inevitably be the case with
>these less intense, larger, fluorescent lamps, the shadow would be much
>less sharp.
>
>It is difficult to get the phototool sitting flat against the PCB. The
>PCB is reasonably rigid and is not necessarily flat. If the top cover
>is glass or acrylic, then any dust or mismatch between the flatness of
>the glass and the PCB will cause a gap and loss of sharpness.
>
>It would also be possible to use a vacuum frame with a soft, flexible,
>top surface, such as clear PVC sheet (retailed at fabric and other shops
>as a table covering), which would press the phototool close to the PCB
>even if the PCB was not completely flat. This would also largely avoid
>problems caused by dust, since it would tend to stretch the phototool
>over the dust particle and so press it close even one or two mm away
>from the particle, whereas with the glass or acrylic approach, the dust
>particle would lift the phototool and glass off the board for a larger
>surrounding area.
>
>Another likely problem with fluorescent lamps of all types is that their
>output would vary considerably with how long they have been on for,
>which would be affected by their starting temperature and therefore how
>long they had been on for in the last 30 minutes or so. This would make
>it difficult to run them from a timer. This might be OK if you ran them
>all the time and had a way of simply placing them over the PCB with
>phototool etc. However, I prefer to place the phototool and my existing
>glass sheet arrangement together by a safelight (a bunch of red LEDs)
>and place it under the lamp, before turning the lamp on for a fixed
>time. The 500W incandescent lamp would have its near-UV output affected
>somewhat by mains voltage fluctuations, but I doubt if this is a
>significant problem.
>
>- Robin http://www.firstpr.com.au/pcb-diy/
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Harvey White
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 2:14 PM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV nail lamps - sharpness of shadow,
phototool-PCB contact closeness, 500W floodlamp

 

  

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 01:46:29 -0500, you wrote:

>I experimented with a ziplock bag and a vacuum pump. The transparency is
>held to the board very very well. Much better than glass can ever do.
>However, I found a drawback and that is the plastic forms imperfections and
>scratches from fingernails, stretching and pulling to get wrinkles out
>during vacuum, and around the transparency and copper clad edges. 
>
> 
>
>I question, as I have not tested, if these imperfections can cause
diffusion
>of the light as it passes through and decrease results especially if the
>imperfections are over a thin trace or spacing between traces. I tried
>blanket storage bags, same problem. My conclusion is that very thin glass
>like microscope cover slide glass is the ideal material because it is thin
>enough to deform over the copper clad. I searched for glass as thin as
>cover slide glass but I could not find a place who sells it. Maybe
>something better than ziplock bag plastic can be used too that I am not
>aware of. 

I used furniture store vinyl, thin gauge, seemed to work just fine,
calibrated exposure with the covering in place. 

Did not use saran wrap or the equivalent, since it was too thin and
developed a static charge which tended to lift the positive from the
board and was messy to deal with. You could also use book cover
material, which may be equally nice.

Take something fluorescent, a black light, and see if it glows less
with the material between it and the light.

Harvey

>
> 
>
>Jeff
>
> 
>
> _____ 
>
>From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com> ]
>On Behalf Of Robin Whittle
>Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 9:17 PM
>To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com> 
>Cc: Vicent Colomar Prats
>Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV nail lamps - sharpness of shadow,
>phototool-PCB contact closeness, 500W floodlamp
>
> 
>
> 
>
>Hi Vicent,
>
>Some of the eBay ads which can be found by searching for:
>
>36W Nail UV Lamp Acrylic Gel Curing Light
>
>show that they contain four long U-shaped fluorescent lamps. This ad:
>
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/310556445104
>
>shows one of these types of lamp - and they have "365nm" written on
>them, which is most helpful! The Riston General Processing Guide at:
>
>http://www2.dupont.com/Imaging_Materials/en_US/tech_info/datasheets/index.h
t
>ml
>
>indicates peak sensitivity is in the 350-380 nm near-UV range, with some
>sensitivity from 300nm (UV) to 450nm (blue).
>
>I am not sure what wavelengths other photoresists are most sensitive to,
>such as positive photoresists.
>
>I think it is much better to have a relatively compact source of light
>than something broad like these.
>
>In some previous messages to this list, such as message 30440, I
>described using a 500 watt linear halogen incandescent lamp with
>reflector - a cheap hardware-store "floodlamp". Such lamps put out
>enough near-UV to give me a sun-tan when I extensively used an old
>process camera which had four of these lamps. Glass would reduce the
>tanning/burning shorter wavelength UV rays to some extent but I think
>would hardly affect the transmission of the 350-380nm light of interest.
>
>The 500 watt lamp radiates most of its energy in the visible and
>infra-red (with some being lost as hot air), and only a fraction of it
>is the light we are interested in. I couldn't find a suitable source of
>dark-violet-looking "Woods glass" to make a filter which would reject
>most of the visible and IR I don't want. This visible and IR energy is
>substantial and will warm the board, which might cause differential
>expansion of the phototool and board. However, this can be largely
>solved by blowing a fan on the board, with its phototool and glass or
>other surface which clamps the phototool to the board.
>
>This way, most of the light comes from an area about 10cm wide and 45cm
>away from the board. These rays of light are relatively parallel, so
>the shadow from the phototool remains relatively sharp even if the
>phototool is not completely flat against the photoresist.
>
>With a broader source of light, as would inevitably be the case with
>these less intense, larger, fluorescent lamps, the shadow would be much
>less sharp.
>
>It is difficult to get the phototool sitting flat against the PCB. The
>PCB is reasonably rigid and is not necessarily flat. If the top cover
>is glass or acrylic, then any dust or mismatch between the flatness of
>the glass and the PCB will cause a gap and loss of sharpness.
>
>It would also be possible to use a vacuum frame with a soft, flexible,
>top surface, such as clear PVC sheet (retailed at fabric and other shops
>as a table covering), which would press the phototool close to the PCB
>even if the PCB was not completely flat. This would also largely avoid
>problems caused by dust, since it would tend to stretch the phototool
>over the dust particle and so press it close even one or two mm away
>from the particle, whereas with the glass or acrylic approach, the dust
>particle would lift the phototool and glass off the board for a larger
>surrounding area.
>
>Another likely problem with fluorescent lamps of all types is that their
>output would vary considerably with how long they have been on for,
>which would be affected by their starting temperature and therefore how
>long they had been on for in the last 30 minutes or so. This would make
>it difficult to run them from a timer. This might be OK if you ran them
>all the time and had a way of simply placing them over the PCB with
>phototool etc. However, I prefer to place the phototool and my existing
>glass sheet arrangement together by a safelight (a bunch of red LEDs)
>and place it under the lamp, before turning the lamp on for a fixed
>time. The 500W incandescent lamp would have its near-UV output affected
>somewhat by mains voltage fluctuations, but I doubt if this is a
>significant problem.
>
>- Robin http://www.firstpr.com.au/pcb-diy/
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





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

From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Harvey White
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 2:14 PM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV nail lamps - sharpness of shadow,
phototool-PCB contact closeness, 500W floodlamp

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 01:46:29 -0500, you wrote:

>I experimented with a ziplock bag and a vacuum pump. The transparency is
>held to the board very very well. Much better than glass can ever do.
>However, I found a drawback and that is the plastic forms imperfections
and
>scratches from fingernails, stretching and pulling to get wrinkles out
>during vacuum, and around the transparency and copper clad edges. 
>
> 
>
>I question, as I have not tested, if these imperfections can cause
diffusion
>of the light as it passes through and decrease results especially if the
>imperfections are over a thin trace or spacing between traces. I tried
>blanket storage bags, same problem. My conclusion is that very thin
glass
>like microscope cover slide glass is the ideal material because it is
thin
>enough to deform over the copper clad. I searched for glass as thin as
>cover slide glass but I could not find a place who sells it. Maybe
>something better than ziplock bag plastic can be used too that I am not
>aware of. 

I used furniture store vinyl, thin gauge, seemed to work just fine,
calibrated exposure with the covering in place. 

Did not use saran wrap or the equivalent, since it was too thin and
developed a static charge which tended to lift the positive from the
board and was messy to deal with. You could also use book cover
material, which may be equally nice.

Take something fluorescent, a black light, and see if it glows less
with the material between it and the light.

Harvey

>
> 
>
>Jeff
>
> 
>
> _____ 
>
>From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com

[mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
]
>On Behalf Of Robin Whittle
>Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 9:17 PM
>To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com 
>Cc: Vicent Colomar Prats
>Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] UV nail lamps - sharpness of shadow,
>phototool-PCB contact closeness, 500W floodlamp
>
> 
>
> 
>
>Hi Vicent,
>
>Some of the eBay ads which can be found by searching for:
>
>36W Nail UV Lamp Acrylic Gel Curing Light
>
>show that they contain four long U-shaped fluorescent lamps. This ad:
>
>http://www.ebay.com/itm/310556445104
>
>shows one of these types of lamp - and they have "365nm" written on
>them, which is most helpful! The Riston General Processing Guide at:
>
>http://www2.dupont.com/Imaging_Materials/en_US/tech_info/datasheets/inde
x.h
t
>ml
>
>indicates peak sensitivity is in the 350-380 nm near-UV range, with some
>sensitivity from 300nm (UV) to 450nm (blue).
>
>I am not sure what wavelengths other photoresists are most sensitive to,
>such as positive photoresists.
>
>I think it is much better to have a relatively compact source of light
>than something broad like these.
>
>In some previous messages to this list, such as message 30440, I
>described using a 500 watt linear halogen incandescent lamp with
>reflector - a cheap hardware-store "floodlamp". Such lamps put out
>enough near-UV to give me a sun-tan when I extensively used an old
>process camera which had four of these lamps. Glass would reduce the
>tanning/burning shorter wavelength UV rays to some extent but I think
>would hardly affect the transmission of the 350-380nm light of interest.
>
>The 500 watt lamp radiates most of its energy in the visible and
>infra-red (with some being lost as hot air), and only a fraction of it
>is the light we are interested in. I couldn't find a suitable source of
>dark-violet-looking "Woods glass" to make a filter which would reject
>most of the visible and IR I don't want. This visible and IR energy is
>substantial and will warm the board, which might cause differential
>expansion of the phototool and board. However, this can be largely
>solved by blowing a fan on the board, with its phototool and glass or
>other surface which clamps the phototool to the board.
>
>This way, most of the light comes from an area about 10cm wide and 45cm
>away from the board. These rays of light are relatively parallel, so
>the shadow from the phototool remains relatively sharp even if the
>phototool is not completely flat against the photoresist.
>
>With a broader source of light, as would inevitably be the case with
>these less intense, larger, fluorescent lamps, the shadow would be much
>less sharp.
>
>It is difficult to get the phototool sitting flat against the PCB. The
>PCB is reasonably rigid and is not necessarily flat. If the top cover
>is glass or acrylic, then any dust or mismatch between the flatness of
>the glass and the PCB will cause a gap and loss of sharpness.
>
>It would also be possible to use a vacuum frame with a soft, flexible,
>top surface, such as clear PVC sheet (retailed at fabric and other shops
>as a table covering), which would press the phototool close to the PCB
>even if the PCB was not completely flat. This would also largely avoid
>problems caused by dust, since it would tend to stretch the phototool
>over the dust particle and so press it close even one or two mm away
>from the particle, whereas with the glass or acrylic approach, the dust
>particle would lift the phototool and glass off the board for a larger
>surrounding area.
>
>Another likely problem with fluorescent lamps of all types is that their
>output would vary considerably with how long they have been on for,
>which would be affected by their starting temperature and therefore how
>long they had been on for in the last 30 minutes or so. This would make
>it difficult to run them from a timer. This might be OK if you ran them
>all the time and had a way of simply placing them over the PCB with
>phototool etc. However, I prefer to place the phototool and my existing
>glass sheet arrangement together by a safelight (a bunch of red LEDs)
>and place it under the lamp, before turning the lamp on for a fixed
>time. The 500W incandescent lamp would have its near-UV output affected
>somewhat by mains voltage fluctuations, but I doubt if this is a
>significant problem.
>
>- Robin http://www.firstpr.com.au/pcb-diy/
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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




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

-----Original Message-----
From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of smilingcat90254
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:13 PM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.

Some of you have complained that the resist lifts off or gets damaged during
handling. laying of the transparent image, static electricity causing the
resist to lift off with the image, vacuum bagging causing more surface
scratch and so on. 

and the use of chemicals.

I just recently ordered a material called puretch from only US distributor.
claims that the film is good down to 1 mil resolution provided your image is
that good.

links to the US distributor: www.capefearpress.com/puretch.html
youtube videos on the product: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkGt9nFER1s

another link:
http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/en-gb/dept_183.html

Developer used is sodium carbonate (do not get it confused with sodium
bicarbonate which is baking soda)

capefear press has some good information on how to expose without creating
shadows and the lamp recommended. Good solid information. Application at
capefearpress is not electronics but rather arcane art form. Far more
technical than most of us here or using toner transfer method.

Some advantages: photoresist is protected from handling by a thin plastic
layer. It is removed when you are ready to develop so that you can't scratch
or lift off during handling and exposing.

For photoimaging, they also sell stoufer exposure gauge to help you get the
right exposure.

------------
For now I think I have Pulsar toner transfer system working well enough.
Don't need to use lot of pressure. Too much pressure causes the toner to
"bleed" on the edges. temperature to melt toner is around 100C anything more
and the toner becomes too thin and the image "bleeds"/run.

I may still switch over to puretch. Don't need to keep printing images for
multiple board. higher resolution for use with TQFP with 0.5mm pitch. Pulsar
is near the limit for 0.5mm pitch.

 



------------------------------------

Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links

From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Rick Sparber
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:40 PM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.

 

  

Ms. Smilingcat,

It looks like very interesting stuff. What bothers me is they said
"affordable price" yet don't list the price. That usually means it ain't
that affordable. So what DOES it cost?

Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com> ]
On Behalf Of smilingcat90254
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:13 PM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com> 
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.

Some of you have complained that the resist lifts off or gets damaged during
handling. laying of the transparent image, static electricity causing the
resist to lift off with the image, vacuum bagging causing more surface
scratch and so on. 

and the use of chemicals.

I just recently ordered a material called puretch from only US distributor.
claims that the film is good down to 1 mil resolution provided your image is
that good.

links to the US distributor: www.capefearpress.com/puretch.html
youtube videos on the product: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkGt9nFER1s

another link:
http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/en-gb/dept_183.html

Developer used is sodium carbonate (do not get it confused with sodium
bicarbonate which is baking soda)

capefear press has some good information on how to expose without creating
shadows and the lamp recommended. Good solid information. Application at
capefearpress is not electronics but rather arcane art form. Far more
technical than most of us here or using toner transfer method.

Some advantages: photoresist is protected from handling by a thin plastic
layer. It is removed when you are ready to develop so that you can't scratch
or lift off during handling and exposing.

For photoimaging, they also sell stoufer exposure gauge to help you get the
right exposure.

------------
For now I think I have Pulsar toner transfer system working well enough.
Don't need to use lot of pressure. Too much pressure causes the toner to
"bleed" on the edges. temperature to melt toner is around 100C anything more
and the toner becomes too thin and the image "bleeds"/run.

I may still switch over to puretch. Don't need to keep printing images for
multiple board. higher resolution for use with TQFP with 0.5mm pitch. Pulsar
is near the limit for 0.5mm pitch.

------------------------------------

Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links





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

>
>  
> http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/en-gb/dept_183.html
> 
>  
> 
> The price is on the bottom of the page.  The cost is 24" x 10' for $78 (60
> Euro).  It costs 5.4 times as much as photoresist available on Ebay.  I
> computed 5.4x using the resist I purchased which is 8.3" by 9.7' DuPont
> MM540 for $14.49.
> 
>  
> 
> Jeff
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Rick Sparber
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:40 PM
> To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Ms. Smilingcat,
> 
> It looks like very interesting stuff. What bothers me is they said
> "affordable price" yet don't list the price. That usually means it ain't
> that affordable. So what DOES it cost?
> 
> Rick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
>  ]
> On Behalf Of smilingcat90254
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:13 PM
> To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com  
> Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.
> 
> Some of you have complained that the resist lifts off or gets damaged during
> handling. laying of the transparent image, static electricity causing the
> resist to lift off with the image, vacuum bagging causing more surface
> scratch and so on. 
> 
> and the use of chemicals.
> 
> I just recently ordered a material called puretch from only US distributor.
> claims that the film is good down to 1 mil resolution provided your image is
> that good.
> 
> links to the US distributor: www.capefearpress.com/puretch.html
> youtube videos on the product: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkGt9nFER1s
> 
> another link:
> http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/en-gb/dept_183.html
> 
> Developer used is sodium carbonate (do not get it confused with sodium
> bicarbonate which is baking soda)
> 
> capefear press has some good information on how to expose without creating
> shadows and the lamp recommended. Good solid information. Application at
> capefearpress is not electronics but rather arcane art form. Far more
> technical than most of us here or using toner transfer method.
> 
> Some advantages: photoresist is protected from handling by a thin plastic
> layer. It is removed when you are ready to develop so that you can't scratch
> or lift off during handling and exposing.
> 
> For photoimaging, they also sell stoufer exposure gauge to help you get the
> right exposure.
> 
> ------------
> For now I think I have Pulsar toner transfer system working well enough.
> Don't need to use lot of pressure. Too much pressure causes the toner to
> "bleed" on the edges. temperature to melt toner is around 100C anything more
> and the toner becomes too thin and the image "bleeds"/run.
> 
> I may still switch over to puretch. Don't need to keep printing images for
> multiple board. higher resolution for use with TQFP with 0.5mm pitch. Pulsar
> is near the limit for 0.5mm pitch.
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

-----Original Message-----
From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of smilingcat90254
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:29 PM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: photo resist. Slightly different material.

Yes E-bay is cheaper.

At Capefear, cost for 10' x 24" film is $59.00 with S/H I think it was. they
have much smaller size for sampling but it is pretty pricy!! $19 for 12" x
24". 

I pay premium over E-bay because I prefer to have a "regular" supplier. It's
the reason I order from DigiKey, and buy Tektronix and HP equipment. 

My sample order from Capefear came very prompt. Well packed, looking very
reputable. 

I do not care for grey market items or suppliers where you can't trace back.


As a reference of how I view things: Some of my cutting tools are cobalt
steel with TiN coated material. Not some high carbon steel. Tools
themselves, I prefer Dewalt, Bosch, Makita... Prefer it is MADE IN USA or
Germany or Japan and not just the label saying USA/German/Japanese company.
Most recent outburst was over 6-32 tap. Ordered a replacement tap. Broken
one was a cheapie from Craftsman high carbon steel. Flute on the tap was cut
so irregular, one of the cutting surface was less than 1/32" wide.
Replacement is a cobalt steel, TiN coated 6-32 H3 tap from Ghurring. cost is
about $15.00 each.

Been looking for a lathe and mill and I think I'm going to invest in Taig.
Not so hot on Smithy or Grizzly. Both are not that accurate. I used Smithy
and wasn't impresed. Even their technical spec was bit of a yawn. 

smilingcat,

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Jeff Heiss"  wrote:
>
>  
> http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/en-gb/dept_183.html
> 
>  
> 
> The price is on the bottom of the page.  The cost is 24" x 10' for $78 
> (60 Euro).  It costs 5.4 times as much as photoresist available on 
> Ebay.  I computed 5.4x using the resist I purchased which is 8.3" by 
> 9.7' DuPont
> MM540 for $14.49.
> 
>  
> 
> Jeff
> 
>  
> 
>   _____
> 
> From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Rick Sparber
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:40 PM
> To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.
> 
>  
> 
>   
> 
> Ms. Smilingcat,
> 
> It looks like very interesting stuff. What bothers me is they said 
> "affordable price" yet don't list the price. That usually means it 
> ain't that affordable. So what DOES it cost?
> 
> Rick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
>  ]
> On Behalf Of smilingcat90254
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:13 PM
> To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.
> 
> Some of you have complained that the resist lifts off or gets damaged 
> during handling. laying of the transparent image, static electricity 
> causing the resist to lift off with the image, vacuum bagging causing 
> more surface scratch and so on.
> 
> and the use of chemicals.
> 
> I just recently ordered a material called puretch from only US
distributor.
> claims that the film is good down to 1 mil resolution provided your 
> image is that good.
> 
> links to the US distributor: www.capefearpress.com/puretch.html
> youtube videos on the product: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkGt9nFER1s
> 
> another link:
> http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/en-gb/dept_183.html
> 
> Developer used is sodium carbonate (do not get it confused with sodium 
> bicarbonate which is baking soda)
> 
> capefear press has some good information on how to expose without 
> creating shadows and the lamp recommended. Good solid information. 
> Application at capefearpress is not electronics but rather arcane art 
> form. Far more technical than most of us here or using toner transfer
method.
> 
> Some advantages: photoresist is protected from handling by a thin 
> plastic layer. It is removed when you are ready to develop so that you 
> can't scratch or lift off during handling and exposing.
> 
> For photoimaging, they also sell stoufer exposure gauge to help you 
> get the right exposure.
> 
> ------------
> For now I think I have Pulsar toner transfer system working well enough.
> Don't need to use lot of pressure. Too much pressure causes the toner 
> to "bleed" on the edges. temperature to melt toner is around 100C 
> anything more and the toner becomes too thin and the image "bleeds"/run.
> 
> I may still switch over to puretch. Don't need to keep printing images 
> for multiple board. higher resolution for use with TQFP with 0.5mm 
> pitch. Pulsar is near the limit for 0.5mm pitch.
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and
Photos:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>




------------------------------------

Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links

From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of smilingcat90254
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:13 PM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.

 

  

Some of you have complained that the resist lifts off or gets damaged during
handling. laying of the transparent image, static electricity causing the
resist to lift off with the image, vacuum bagging causing more surface
scratch and so on. 

and the use of chemicals.

I just recently ordered a material called puretch from only US distributor.
claims that the film is good down to 1 mil resolution provided your image is
that good.

links to the US distributor: www.capefearpress.com/puretch.html
youtube videos on the product: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkGt9nFER1s

another link: http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/en-gb/dept_183.html

Developer used is sodium carbonate (do not get it confused with sodium
bicarbonate which is baking soda)

capefear press has some good information on how to expose without creating
shadows and the lamp recommended. Good solid information. Application at
capefearpress is not electronics but rather arcane art form. Far more
technical than most of us here or using toner transfer method.

Some advantages: photoresist is protected from handling by a thin plastic
layer. It is removed when you are ready to develop so that you can't scratch
or lift off during handling and exposing.

For photoimaging, they also sell stoufer exposure gauge to help you get the
right exposure.

------------
For now I think I have Pulsar toner transfer system working well enough.
Don't need to use lot of pressure. Too much pressure causes the toner to
"bleed" on the edges. temperature to melt toner is around 100C anything more
and the toner becomes too thin and the image "bleeds"/run.

I may still switch over to puretch. Don't need to keep printing images for
multiple board. higher resolution for use with TQFP with 0.5mm pitch. Pulsar
is near the limit for 0.5mm pitch.





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

-----Original Message-----
From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of smilingcat90254
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:13 PM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.

Some of you have complained that the resist lifts off or gets damaged during
handling. laying of the transparent image, static electricity causing the
resist to lift off with the image, vacuum bagging causing more surface
scratch and so on. 

and the use of chemicals.

I just recently ordered a material called puretch from only US distributor.
claims that the film is good down to 1 mil resolution provided your image is
that good.

links to the US distributor: www.capefearpress.com/puretch.html
youtube videos on the product: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkGt9nFER1s

another link:
http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/en-gb/dept_183.html

Developer used is sodium carbonate (do not get it confused with sodium
bicarbonate which is baking soda)

capefear press has some good information on how to expose without creating
shadows and the lamp recommended. Good solid information. Application at
capefearpress is not electronics but rather arcane art form. Far more
technical than most of us here or using toner transfer method.

Some advantages: photoresist is protected from handling by a thin plastic
layer. It is removed when you are ready to develop so that you can't scratch
or lift off during handling and exposing.

For photoimaging, they also sell stoufer exposure gauge to help you get the
right exposure.

------------
For now I think I have Pulsar toner transfer system working well enough.
Don't need to use lot of pressure. Too much pressure causes the toner to
"bleed" on the edges. temperature to melt toner is around 100C anything more
and the toner becomes too thin and the image "bleeds"/run.

I may still switch over to puretch. Don't need to keep printing images for
multiple board. higher resolution for use with TQFP with 0.5mm pitch. Pulsar
is near the limit for 0.5mm pitch.

 



------------------------------------

Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and Photos:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links

From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of smilingcat90254
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 10:29 PM
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: photo resist. Slightly different material.

 

  

Yes E-bay is cheaper.

At Capefear, cost for 10' x 24" film is $59.00 with S/H I think it was. they
have much smaller size for sampling but it is pretty pricy!! $19 for 12" x
24". 

I pay premium over E-bay because I prefer to have a "regular" supplier. It's
the reason I order from DigiKey, and buy Tektronix and HP equipment. 

My sample order from Capefear came very prompt. Well packed, looking very
reputable. 

I do not care for grey market items or suppliers where you can't trace back.


As a reference of how I view things: Some of my cutting tools are cobalt
steel with TiN coated material. Not some high carbon steel. Tools
themselves, I prefer Dewalt, Bosch, Makita... Prefer it is MADE IN USA or
Germany or Japan and not just the label saying USA/German/Japanese company.
Most recent outburst was over 6-32 tap. Ordered a replacement tap. Broken
one was a cheapie from Craftsman high carbon steel. Flute on the tap was cut
so irregular, one of the cutting surface was less than 1/32" wide.
Replacement is a cobalt steel, TiN coated 6-32 H3 tap from Ghurring. cost is
about $15.00 each.

Been looking for a lathe and mill and I think I'm going to invest in Taig.
Not so hot on Smithy or Grizzly. Both are not that accurate. I used Smithy
and wasn't impresed. Even their technical spec was bit of a yawn. 

smilingcat,

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com> , "Jeff Heiss" wrote:
>
> 
> http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/en-gb/dept_183.html
> 
> 
> 
> The price is on the bottom of the page. The cost is 24" x 10' for $78 (60
> Euro). It costs 5.4 times as much as photoresist available on Ebay. I
> computed 5.4x using the resist I purchased which is 8.3" by 9.7' DuPont
> MM540 for $14.49.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> _____ 
> 
> From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of Rick Sparber
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 8:40 PM
> To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com>

> Subject: RE: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ms. Smilingcat,
> 
> It looks like very interesting stuff. What bothers me is they said
> "affordable price" yet don't list the price. That usually means it ain't
> that affordable. So what DOES it cost?
> 
> Rick
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com>  
> [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com> 
> ]
> On Behalf Of smilingcat90254
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:13 PM
> To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Homebrew_PCBs%40yahoogroups.com>

> Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] photo resist. Slightly different material.
> 
> Some of you have complained that the resist lifts off or gets damaged
during
> handling. laying of the transparent image, static electricity causing the
> resist to lift off with the image, vacuum bagging causing more surface
> scratch and so on. 
> 
> and the use of chemicals.
> 
> I just recently ordered a material called puretch from only US
distributor.
> claims that the film is good down to 1 mil resolution provided your image
is
> that good.
> 
> links to the US distributor: www.capefearpress.com/puretch.html
> youtube videos on the product: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkGt9nFER1s
> 
> another link:
> http://www.polymetaal.nl/siteUK/shopukwork/en-gb/dept_183.html
> 
> Developer used is sodium carbonate (do not get it confused with sodium
> bicarbonate which is baking soda)
> 
> capefear press has some good information on how to expose without creating
> shadows and the lamp recommended. Good solid information. Application at
> capefearpress is not electronics but rather arcane art form. Far more
> technical than most of us here or using toner transfer method.
> 
> Some advantages: photoresist is protected from handling by a thin plastic
> layer. It is removed when you are ready to develop so that you can't
scratch
> or lift off during handling and exposing.
> 
> For photoimaging, they also sell stoufer exposure gauge to help you get
the
> right exposure.
> 
> ------------
> For now I think I have Pulsar toner transfer system working well enough.
> Don't need to use lot of pressure. Too much pressure causes the toner to
> "bleed" on the edges. temperature to melt toner is around 100C anything
more
> and the toner becomes too thin and the image "bleeds"/run.
> 
> I may still switch over to puretch. Don't need to keep printing images for
> multiple board. higher resolution for use with TQFP with 0.5mm pitch.
Pulsar
> is near the limit for 0.5mm pitch.
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Be sure to visit the group home and check for new Links, Files, and
Photos:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBsYahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>





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

>
> 
> 
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "dave_donlan"  wrote:
> >
> > Just been looking on flea bay and came across these
> > 
> > 36W Nail UV Lamp Acrylic Gel Curing Light
> > 
> > has anyone had any experience with these unit for producing pcbs - seem quite cheap might be worth a llok
> > Dave
> >
> I ordered on a while back to make an expousure box.   The one I go has 4 U shaped 8W tubes (36W total).  As is, it would do a 4x4 board.   I figured I wanted a little larger unit so the plan was to go with more tubes in a DIY box.  Also wanted the ability to do both sides of the board at once.
> 
> The replacement 8W bulbs are quite inexpensive, so I will just buy more bulbs.  No need for bulb sockets, just RTV the bulbs in place and solder directly to the pins.  The real issue is where to get low cost ballasts.  The nail unit I got had one ckt board that powered 4 bulbs, best I could tell there was one main line chopper and 4 bulb current limiting inductors.  If you don't want to roll your own ballast just hack some from old CFL cork screw bulbs -- they work fine.  FYI inside the blastic base of the bulb each end of the tube has two filiment wires. One wire from each filiment is connected to the pin on the base of the bulb.  The ohter filiment pins are joined together with a series capacitor.  Thus the bulbs will appear open to dc and an ohm meter.
> 
> Craig
>

>
> Can you tell us what kind of solder mask film have you used? Brand and
> model? Cheers.
>