Homebrew_PCBs

I've been playing around with different papers and was very surprised
to find that regular old ink jet paper actually seemed to have
some potential but tended to pop up when I lifted the iron. There
was clearly some transfer going on so I modified my technique and
after about 2 minutes a side, turned off the iron and left it sitting
on the board/paper assembly. once it was cool well below the toner
fusing point, I soaked and rubbed. To my delight, I got an excellent
transfer. There was almost none of the blotchiness that I had been
getting earlier. I attribute this to the paper being porous and
soaking up any extra toner. There was very good adhesion, even a
good scrubbing with scotchbright didn't budge the resist. I'm really
glad because I was annoying my wife by cutting out magazine pages.

This was a double sided, 10 mil trace board. 3" x 2.5" so not super
large.

also, I decided to print the legend (tplace layer for eagle users)
and try to transfer that. It worked pretty well, I just ironed it on
and peeled it off hot. It wasn't thick enough for a resist but
legible. I used a 220 wet-n-dry sandpaper on the board to roughen it
up.

The paper is Office Depot Inkjet Paper. 24 lb, 92 brightness. item
#751381

Of course, if you don't mind doing some extra work, you can actually
turn NORMAL paper into really good toner transfer paper
by...essentially...painting it with gravy

After it's dried and you iron it flat it goes thru a normal copier
quite well...and as for easy release...

http://www.extremecooling.org/ec/images/pp/gravy/water5.jpg

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <phil1960us@y...> wrote:
> I've been playing around with different papers and was very
surprised
> to find that regular old ink jet paper actually seemed to have
> some potential but tended to pop up when I lifted the iron. There
> was clearly some transfer going on so I modified my technique and
> after about 2 minutes a side, turned off the iron and left it
sitting
> on the board/paper assembly. once it was cool well below the toner
> fusing point, I soaked and rubbed. To my delight, I got an
excellent
> transfer. There was almost none of the blotchiness that I had been
> getting earlier. I attribute this to the paper being porous and
> soaking up any extra toner. There was very good adhesion, even a
> good scrubbing with scotchbright didn't budge the resist. I'm
really
> glad because I was annoying my wife by cutting out magazine pages.
>
> This was a double sided, 10 mil trace board. 3" x 2.5" so not super
> large.
>
> also, I decided to print the legend (tplace layer for eagle users)
> and try to transfer that. It worked pretty well, I just ironed it
on
> and peeled it off hot. It wasn't thick enough for a resist but
> legible. I used a 220 wet-n-dry sandpaper on the board to roughen
it
> up.
>
> The paper is Office Depot Inkjet Paper. 24 lb, 92 brightness. item
> #751381

poitsplace wrote:

> Of course, if you don't mind doing some extra work, you can actually
> turn NORMAL paper into really good toner transfer paper
> by...essentially...painting it with gravy
>
> After it's dried and you iron it flat it goes thru a normal copier
> quite well...and as for easy release...
>
> http://www.extremecooling.org/ec/images/pp/gravy/water5.jpg
>
>

That may not be a bad method at all, something that keeps the toner from
sticking too well, yet doesn't make the paper surface hard and nonporous and
smash the toner out in the ironing. Can't tell well from the pics if all your
holes were clear or cleared easily, but looks good. I'll have to try it out
tonight and make sure there's nothing undesirable vs what I'm doing now. Free
paper is highly desirable, even vs just the 50 cents paper I'm using :). Was
that turkey gravy or beef to have with your paper?

And hopefully not leaving stinking gravy bits behind in the printer..

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Alan King <alan@n...> wrote:

> That may not be a bad method at all, something
> that keeps the toner from sticking too well, yet
> doesn't make the paper surface hard and nonporous
> and smash the toner out in the ironing. Can't
> tell well from the pics if all your holes were
> clear or cleared easily, but looks good. I'll
> have to try it out tonight and make sure there's
> nothing undesirable vs what I'm doing now. Free
> paper is highly desirable, even vs just the 50
> cents paper I'm using :). Was that turkey gravy
> or beef to have with your paper?
>
> And hopefully not leaving stinking gravy bits
> behind in the printer..

It's not EXACTLY gravy. You just mix up some water
and flour (or starch...don't need as much starch)
and stir it into boiling water. I applied it with
one of those foam paint brushes. One nice thing
is that unlike standard coated inkjet paper, it
doesn't leave behind any white crusty stuff.

why not just use spray laundry starch?

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <lmburt@e...>
wrote:

> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Alan King <alan@n...> wrote:
>
> > That may not be a bad method at all, something
> > that keeps the toner from sticking too well, yet
> > doesn't make the paper surface hard and nonporous
> > and smash the toner out in the ironing. Can't
> > tell well from the pics if all your holes were
> > clear or cleared easily, but looks good. I'll
> > have to try it out tonight and make sure there's
> > nothing undesirable vs what I'm doing now. Free
> > paper is highly desirable, even vs just the 50
> > cents paper I'm using :). Was that turkey gravy
> > or beef to have with your paper?
> >
> > And hopefully not leaving stinking gravy bits
> > behind in the printer..
>
> It's not EXACTLY gravy. You just mix up some water
> and flour (or starch...don't need as much starch)
> and stir it into boiling water. I applied it with
> one of those foam paint brushes. One nice thing
> is that unlike standard coated inkjet paper, it
> doesn't leave behind any white crusty stuff.

It has to be a relatively thick coating...not sure spray starch would
do it (although I have considered it)

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <phil1960us@y...> wrote:
> why not just use spray laundry starch?
>
> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <lmburt@e...>
> wrote:
> > --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Alan King <alan@n...> wrote:
> >
> > > That may not be a bad method at all, something
> > > that keeps the toner from sticking too well, yet
> > > doesn't make the paper surface hard and nonporous
> > > and smash the toner out in the ironing. Can't
> > > tell well from the pics if all your holes were
> > > clear or cleared easily, but looks good. I'll
> > > have to try it out tonight and make sure there's
> > > nothing undesirable vs what I'm doing now. Free
> > > paper is highly desirable, even vs just the 50
> > > cents paper I'm using :). Was that turkey gravy
> > > or beef to have with your paper?
> > >
> > > And hopefully not leaving stinking gravy bits
> > > behind in the printer..
> >
> > It's not EXACTLY gravy. You just mix up some water
> > and flour (or starch...don't need as much starch)
> > and stir it into boiling water. I applied it with
> > one of those foam paint brushes. One nice thing
> > is that unlike standard coated inkjet paper, it
> > doesn't leave behind any white crusty stuff.

On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 23:13, poitsplace wrote:

> It has to be a relatively thick coating...not sure spray starch would
> do it (although I have considered it)

Doesn't it come off in the printer when the paper has to make a turn?
I'd love to be able to make my own paper like this, but I'm a little
leery of it clogging the printer up.

--
Anthony Toft <toftat@...>

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Toft <toftat@c...>
wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 23:13, poitsplace wrote:
> > It has to be a relatively thick coating...
> > not sure spray starch would do it (although
> > I have considered it)


> Doesn't it come off in the printer when the
> paper has to make a turn? I'd love to be
> able to make my own paper like this, but I'm
> a little leery of it clogging the printer up.

Heh, I actually don't have a laser printer, I
used it in the kinkos copier. However, the
stuff really doesn't come off easily. If you
are worried you can simply test it by bending
a sheet of test paper repeatedly. I never had
any problems with mine. The only time it seems
to come off easily is in the water (and then it
really just turns to goo)

I hope this isn't a joke. what kind of paper do you put it on? I
get very wrinkled paper that doesn't want to feed through the machine
at all. I even tried ironing it out but its still pretty bad.

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <lmburt@e...>
wrote:

> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Toft <toftat@c...>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 23:13, poitsplace wrote:
> > > It has to be a relatively thick coating...
> > > not sure spray starch would do it (although
> > > I have considered it)
>
>
> > Doesn't it come off in the printer when the
> > paper has to make a turn? I'd love to be
> > able to make my own paper like this, but I'm
> > a little leery of it clogging the printer up.
>
>
> Heh, I actually don't have a laser printer, I
> used it in the kinkos copier. However, the
> stuff really doesn't come off easily. If you
> are worried you can simply test it by bending
> a sheet of test paper repeatedly. I never had
> any problems with mine. The only time it seems
> to come off easily is in the water (and then it
> really just turns to goo)

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <phil1960us@y...> wrote:

> I hope this isn't a joke. what kind of paper do
> you put it on? I get very wrinkled paper that
> doesn't want to feed through the machine at all.
> I even tried ironing it out but its still pretty
> bad.

Yeah, initially it looks like this
http://www.extremecooling.org/ec/images/pp/gravy/dry.jpg

After drying and ironing I think I left it under a heavy
book overnight. I found some of that initial batch of
paper when cleaning a while back (after a couple months)
and it was almost as flat as normal paper. Of course,
one good thing about a large commercial copier (like
those used at kinkos...and which I used with my test)
is that the rollers are far larger and don't have as
much trouble with minor imperfections in the paper. I
was going to continue to refine the process and make a
guide (hence the pictures on the server) but my wife has
been disabled and/or ill for quite some time now so I've
been unable to pursue any of my hobbies :\

> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <lmburt@e...>
> wrote:
> > --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Toft <toftat@c...>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 23:13, poitsplace wrote:
> > > > It has to be a relatively thick coating...
> > > > not sure spray starch would do it (although
> > > > I have considered it)
> >
> >
> > > Doesn't it come off in the printer when the
> > > paper has to make a turn? I'd love to be
> > > able to make my own paper like this, but I'm
> > > a little leery of it clogging the printer up.
> >
> >
> > Heh, I actually don't have a laser printer, I
> > used it in the kinkos copier. However, the
> > stuff really doesn't come off easily. If you
> > are worried you can simply test it by bending
> > a sheet of test paper repeatedly. I never had
> > any problems with mine. The only time it seems
> > to come off easily is in the water (and then it
> > really just turns to goo)

OK, made a batch...what I seem to find is...

(1) thicker paper works better (not crazy
kinds of thick, just not the uber-cheap
paper
(2) half sheets are less likely to get as
wrinkled
(3) if you've got a steam iron, steam them
(starched side up) and they'll flatten
out almost perfectly. If you iron them
starched side down the starch gets moist
and sticks to whatever you're using.
Since the surface of the iron is hotter
than the steam, the starch won't stick
(can't get moist)

Here's a couple pictures of half-sheets I
tried.

Here's a half-sheet of that cheap crappy
paper. I made sure to have a light shine
on from an angle so you could see both any
wrinkles better
http://www.poitsplace.com/images/thinpaper.jpg

And because I had it laying around, another
half-sheet...this time it's actually coated
inkjet paper
http://www.poitsplace.com/images/coatedpaper.jpg

stick it under the yellow pages over night and
it'll probably get rid of any remaining wrinkles
or curling. Hope this information helps






--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <lmburt@e...>
wrote:

> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <phil1960us@y...>

wrote:

> > I hope this isn't a joke. what kind of paper do
> > you put it on? I get very wrinkled paper that
> > doesn't want to feed through the machine at all.
> > I even tried ironing it out but its still pretty
> > bad.
>
> Yeah, initially it looks like this
> http://www.extremecooling.org/ec/images/pp/gravy/dry.jpg
>
> After drying and ironing I think I left it under a heavy
> book overnight. I found some of that initial batch of
> paper when cleaning a while back (after a couple months)
> and it was almost as flat as normal paper. Of course,
> one good thing about a large commercial copier (like
> those used at kinkos...and which I used with my test)
> is that the rollers are far larger and don't have as
> much trouble with minor imperfections in the paper. I
> was going to continue to refine the process and make a
> guide (hence the pictures on the server) but my wife has
> been disabled and/or ill for quite some time now so I've
> been unable to pursue any of my hobbies :\
>
>
>
> > --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <lmburt@e...>
> > wrote:
> > > --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Toft

<toftat@c...>

> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2004-03-08 at 23:13, poitsplace wrote:
> > > > > It has to be a relatively thick coating...
> > > > > not sure spray starch would do it (although
> > > > > I have considered it)
> > >
> > >
> > > > Doesn't it come off in the printer when the
> > > > paper has to make a turn? I'd love to be
> > > > able to make my own paper like this, but I'm
> > > > a little leery of it clogging the printer up.
> > >
> > >
> > > Heh, I actually don't have a laser printer, I
> > > used it in the kinkos copier. However, the
> > > stuff really doesn't come off easily. If you
> > > are worried you can simply test it by bending
> > > a sheet of test paper repeatedly. I never had
> > > any problems with mine. The only time it seems
> > > to come off easily is in the water (and then it
> > > really just turns to goo)

Well...it still suffers the same problems as regular coated inkjet
paper (can't do large areas as well as traces) so I guess it's a bust
(although it does work well for silkscreening the odd label on a
board since unlike standard coated inkjet paper...it doesn't leave
the paper's coating stuck to the surface)

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "poitsplace" <lmburt@e...>
wrote:

> OK, made a batch...what I seem to find is...
>
> (1) thicker paper works better (not crazy
> kinds of thick, just not the uber-cheap
> paper
> (2) half sheets are less likely to get as
> wrinkled
> (3) if you've got a steam iron, steam them
> (starched side up) and they'll flatten
> out almost perfectly. If you iron them
> starched side down the starch gets moist
> and sticks to whatever you're using.
> Since the surface of the iron is hotter
> than the steam, the starch won't stick
> (can't get moist)
>
> Here's a couple pictures of half-sheets I
> tried.
>
> Here's a half-sheet of that cheap crappy
> paper. I made sure to have a light shine
> on from an angle so you could see both any
> wrinkles better
> http://www.poitsplace.com/images/thinpaper.jpg
>
> And because I had it laying around, another
> half-sheet...this time it's actually coated
> inkjet paper
> http://www.poitsplace.com/images/coatedpaper.jpg
>
> stick it under the yellow pages over night and
> it'll probably get rid of any remaining wrinkles
> or curling. Hope this information helps

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 04:13:11 -0000, Phil <phil1960us@...> wrote:

> I hope this isn't a joke. what kind of paper do you put it on? I
> get very wrinkled paper that doesn't want to feed through the machine
> at all. I even tried ironing it out but its still pretty bad.
>

I thought so too first ;-)
i thought gravy, with the fat/grease and all, that is never
going to work. (i didn't believe my dictionary)

but then, when it was said to use flour or starch i can well believe it.
i may actually try it some day too...

ST

Stefan Trethan wrote:

> I thought so too first ;-)
> i thought gravy, with the fat/grease and all, that is never
> going to work. (i didn't believe my dictionary)
>
> but then, when it was said to use flour or starch i can well believe it.
> i may actually try it some day too...
>

Yes, same here. The idea is more understandable when you realize that this
is more familiar to most as paper mache glue not really gravy. Sticking to the
page yet releasing easier than the paper makes much more sense then. I'll be
trying it out today.

And he just mentioned that large areas don't work as well. They work fine on
the jetprint paper, but I suspect that may be as much his printer as the paper.
All lasers have some degree of less printing on large areas, part of how they
work. Then again the glue covered paper could be interfering and making it a
bit worse. Conductivity can interfere, so if my initial prints aren't perfect
I'll bake a sheet or two so I know it's completely dry.

Even with some extra prep work it's all very simple, as long as the rest
works as well or better I'll switch. No sense bothering to buy the other papers
if this little bit of prep now and then makes something as good out of regular
paper. And I like the idea of being able to control your coating's consistency,
that means things can be adjusted until the best point of toner adhesion and
later release from the paper are found. I'm following some PM glue
instructions, but I'm going to try consderably less water than called for since
PM is only trying to make a very sparse coating that just glues here and there.
Shouldn't need so much water even for a thin coating when actually trying to
coat the page.

Alan

It seems there are two bondings going on here: toner to paper and
toner to board. The goal is to increase the ratio of bonding to the
board vs bonding to the paper so the paper will release. Of course
there needs to be a minimum level of bonding to the board. coated
paper works because the toner only bonds to the board-side layer and
soaking causes the layers to seperate.

The starch method of decreasing paper bonding is very promising but
I've not been able to get smooth enough paper to feed cleanly. My
best effort got creases and spacial distortion of the transfer
pattern. I'm skeptical of this working well for 8 mil traces and
tqfp packages. I've got some 90 lb paper that might maintain its
integrity during starch treatment and will give it a try. There may
be other products that don't wet the paper but decrease the paper-
toner bonding. a very thin coating of a light oil (wd40 springs to
mind) might do it.

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Alan King <alan@n...> wrote:
> Stefan Trethan wrote:
>
> > I thought so too first ;-)
> > i thought gravy, with the fat/grease and all, that is never
> > going to work. (i didn't believe my dictionary)
> >
> > but then, when it was said to use flour or starch i can well
believe it.
> > i may actually try it some day too...
> >
>
>
> Yes, same here. The idea is more understandable when you
realize that this
> is more familiar to most as paper mache glue not really gravy.
Sticking to the
> page yet releasing easier than the paper makes much more sense
then. I'll be
> trying it out today.
>
> And he just mentioned that large areas don't work as well. They
work fine on
> the jetprint paper, but I suspect that may be as much his printer
as the paper.
> All lasers have some degree of less printing on large areas, part
of how they
> work. Then again the glue covered paper could be interfering and
making it a
> bit worse. Conductivity can interfere, so if my initial prints
aren't perfect
> I'll bake a sheet or two so I know it's completely dry.
>
> Even with some extra prep work it's all very simple, as long as
the rest
> works as well or better I'll switch. No sense bothering to buy the
other papers
> if this little bit of prep now and then makes something as good out
of regular
> paper. And I like the idea of being able to control your coating's
consistency,
> that means things can be adjusted until the best point of toner
adhesion and
> later release from the paper are found. I'm following some PM glue
> instructions, but I'm going to try consderably less water than
called for since
> PM is only trying to make a very sparse coating that just glues
here and there.
> Shouldn't need so much water even for a thin coating when
actually trying to
> coat the page.
>
> Alan

> a very thin coating of a light oil (wd40 springs to
> mind) might do it.
>

I do not think so.
you WILL get some of the wd40 (which is really awful stuff)
on the surface of the toner prohibiting a good bond to the copper.
(fuser. rollers in printer, etc...)

ST

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <phil1960us@y...> wrote:

> It seems there are two bondings going on here: toner to paper and
> toner to board. The goal is to increase the ratio of bonding to the
> board vs bonding to the paper so the paper will release. Of course
> there needs to be a minimum level of bonding to the board. coated
> paper works because the toner only bonds to the board-side layer and
> soaking causes the layers to seperate.
>
> The starch method of decreasing paper bonding is very promising but
> I've not been able to get smooth enough paper to feed cleanly. My
> best effort got creases and spacial distortion of the transfer
> pattern. I'm skeptical of this working well for 8 mil traces and
> tqfp packages. I've got some 90 lb paper that might maintain its
> integrity during starch treatment and will give it a try. There may
> be other products that don't wet the paper but decrease the paper-
> toner bonding. a very thin coating of a light oil (wd40 springs to
> mind) might do it.

Yes, as has been covered here in depth, paper contraction due to the
heat of a laser printer/copier causes problems. I'd imagine a sheet of
paper wetted and not sufficiently dried is going to be worse.

I think your analysis of bonding is correct.

As for WD-40, speaking as an electronics tech: Don't do it! WD-40 and
electronics do -not- mix. WD-40 is -not- an oil. It's volatile, which
means heat is going to cause it to evaporate anyway. It's main use is
as a water displacer. My father destroyed the hinges on a truck of
mine, because unknown to me he was spraying all the hinges on my truck
with WD-40 every time I visited. I couldn't figure out why my doors
kept squeeking and sticking, I'd grease them, and in a short time
they'd stick again. He'd hosed out all the grease with WD-40 and
within a short time all the WD-40 had evaporated, leaving nothing but
metal to metal contact with some dust thrown in.

I suspect coatings are the answer. I tried inkjet transparencies, on
the theory that the coating on the plastic is water soluble and so
would easily let go of the toner when soaked. I was right, the
transparency got slimy when wet and let go easily. The problem was I
could not get water all the way under the plastic and the toner stuck
better to dry inkjet transparency than it did to copper.

And as has been pointed out here, the plastic caused the traces to all
mash out.

Steve

maybe mineral oil. thats not so volatile.

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <alienrelics@y...>
wrote:

> --- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <phil1960us@y...>

wrote:

> > It seems there are two bondings going on here: toner to paper

and

> > toner to board. The goal is to increase the ratio of bonding to

the

> > board vs bonding to the paper so the paper will release. Of

course

> > there needs to be a minimum level of bonding to the board.

coated

> > paper works because the toner only bonds to the board-side layer

and

> > soaking causes the layers to seperate.
> >
> > The starch method of decreasing paper bonding is very promising

but

> > I've not been able to get smooth enough paper to feed cleanly.

My

> > best effort got creases and spacial distortion of the transfer
> > pattern. I'm skeptical of this working well for 8 mil traces and
> > tqfp packages. I've got some 90 lb paper that might maintain its
> > integrity during starch treatment and will give it a try. There

may

> > be other products that don't wet the paper but decrease the paper-
> > toner bonding. a very thin coating of a light oil (wd40 springs

to

> > mind) might do it.
>
> Yes, as has been covered here in depth, paper contraction due to the
> heat of a laser printer/copier causes problems. I'd imagine a sheet

of

> paper wetted and not sufficiently dried is going to be worse.
>
> I think your analysis of bonding is correct.
>
> As for WD-40, speaking as an electronics tech: Don't do it! WD-40

and

> electronics do -not- mix. WD-40 is -not- an oil. It's volatile,

which

> means heat is going to cause it to evaporate anyway. It's main use

is

> as a water displacer. My father destroyed the hinges on a truck of
> mine, because unknown to me he was spraying all the hinges on my

truck

> with WD-40 every time I visited. I couldn't figure out why my doors
> kept squeeking and sticking, I'd grease them, and in a short time
> they'd stick again. He'd hosed out all the grease with WD-40 and
> within a short time all the WD-40 had evaporated, leaving nothing

but

> metal to metal contact with some dust thrown in.
>
> I suspect coatings are the answer. I tried inkjet transparencies, on
> the theory that the coating on the plastic is water soluble and so
> would easily let go of the toner when soaked. I was right, the
> transparency got slimy when wet and let go easily. The problem was I
> could not get water all the way under the plastic and the toner

stuck

> better to dry inkjet transparency than it did to copper.
>
> And as has been pointed out here, the plastic caused the traces to

all

> mash out.
>
> Steve

> As for WD-40, speaking as an electronics tech: Don't do it! WD-40 and
> electronics do -not- mix. WD-40 is -not- an oil. It's volatile, which
> means heat is going to cause it to evaporate anyway. It's main use is
> as a water displacer. My father destroyed the hinges on a truck of
> mine, because unknown to me he was spraying all the hinges on my truck
> with WD-40 every time I visited. I couldn't figure out why my doors
> kept squeeking and sticking, I'd grease them, and in a short time
> they'd stick again. He'd hosed out all the grease with WD-40 and
> within a short time all the WD-40 had evaporated, leaving nothing but
> metal to metal contact with some dust thrown in.
>

we all have read it, and experienced it a hundred times now (ok, almost
all).
WD40 is only good to lubruicate the dust bin!

throw it away and get somthing useable.
there are mighty good lubricants (also in spray cans) out there, more
expensive of course. for most applications a simple thin oil or grease is
worlds better
than a liter of WD40.

what is it good for as a water displacer? it vanishes after some time and
the
water comes back... for loosening rusty screws there are also better
quality sprays.

There should be a law for a warning label on WD40...

ST

Phil wrote:

> My
> best effort got creases and spacial distortion of the transfer
> pattern.

The only thing such statements are a true indicator of is that not much
effort has yet gone into trying many variations on the technique. It's never an
indicator of the usefullness of anything until the technique is known and correct.


I'm skeptical of this working well for 8 mil traces and

> tqfp packages. I've got some 90 lb paper that might maintain its
> integrity during starch treatment and will give it a try. There may
> be other products that don't wet the paper but decrease the paper-
> toner bonding. a very thin coating of a light oil (wd40 springs to
> mind) might do it.
>

All you're likely to get is a splotchy mess. Yes you want to increase the
ratio of one to the other, but they still have to be relatively close for the
bonding to do well through both steps. You're not expecting melted plastic to
stick to oil? And unlikely you'd ever be able to put on so sparse an oil layer
evenly enough to modify the paper's adhesion without having a very inconsistent
process.




Just got finished trying a board myself. Didn't even worry about wrinkling,
that is an issue to be controlled after a correct process is known. Still, got
poor toner adhesion to the board, although I didn't do the normal acetone rub so
that may have been some of it. Even without acetone though my other paper will
still tack the toner down easily enough, but it has a more solid surface than
this will make so the toner is in better contact.

What is promising is that the pattern did stick fine to the paper, but under
water didn't take that much rubbing effort with my finger to rub most of it off
the paper. So it is allowing the toner to stick fine for the print, but
allowing it to release fairly easily from the page with water. It has very good
initial characteristics, so likely just needs process tuning. It may actually
work better with a bit coarser toner, the fine toner I have may need the more
heavily coated pages to make it stay against the board. But I may also just
need to do a few coats etc, so several things to try.

And paper only wrinkles because it's allowed to expand unevenly. Put the
paper on a sheet of glass, coat another sheet of glass with glue and then lay it
on top. It'd take forever to dry but it won't wrinkle. We'll need to find
something stiff enough to hold the paper flat, porous enough to let it dry in a
reasonable time while holding it flat, and that the glue won't stick to. May
take some looking around but no doubt there's something common and reasonably
cheap to develop a paper making system.

Also there are premade products to look at. There are ready made paper mache
strips, don't know about the widths though. And there is preglued wallpaper and
border paper, which are already dried and flat and may be quite reasonable for
this use and have a very similar glue.

There's a heck of a lot of stuff to try before making any major
pronouncements about the process. And even though I got poor results on an
initial swipe at it, several observations lead me to believe it could end up
being superior to what I'm doing with the photo paper, which is already
excellent. So well worth persuing a bit further.

LOL heck it wouldn't really surprise me to find out that some of the
commercial stuff is just water soluable dried glue on film with some blue food
coloring added in to throw people off the trail. For $4 a sheet even.. :)

Alan

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Alan King <alan@n...> wrote:

> Phil wrote:
> > My
> > best effort got creases and spacial distortion of the transfer
> > pattern.
>
>
> The only thing such statements are a true indicator of is that

not much

> effort has yet gone into trying many variations on the technique.

It's never an

> indicator of the usefullness of anything until the technique is

known and correct.

wow, that's kind of rude and very irritating... I spent half a day
fussing with this stuff with like 10 different trials and 4 different
kinds of paper. Others indicated similar problems. and by the way, i
did not say this technique had no merit. Guess I just don't measure
up to your godliness. I hope you can figure this out for us mere
mortals to slavishly follow you.

Phil wrote:

>
> wow, that's kind of rude and very irritating... I spent half a day
> fussing with this stuff with like 10 different trials and 4 different
> kinds of paper. Others indicated similar problems.

Sorry if you read it that way. But that is a terribly low amount of time and
attempts at a new process, and you made little if any mention of the good points
that it has, even though they are much more important than problems in initial
passes when you're unfamiliar with what you're doing. Problems as mentioned are
usually clear and easy to eliminate later, good points are what's important and
often hard to come by. And regardless that others also haven't worked with it
much yet to get it right, the original posted pics already left little doubt
that it can work quite well, which means it is more a failing in both of our
materials or processes to date than the idea.

Although I will admit that I don't tend to worry nearly so much about being
politically correct as most people you may be used to. I type fast and simply
say what I'm thinking, so it may not always sound exactly right or be sugar
coated like most people do. Don't like it, feel free to fight back with your
own good ideas. Competing ideas make for far more rapid analysis and
development than worrying about 100% political correctness anyway. Plus with
probably 25 or 30 lists coming in, I am flying through when I am replying to
messages so I rarely edit and some things may definitely not be phrased the
right way for intended meanings to start with..



and by the way, i

> did not say this technique had no merit.

I wasn't saying you did. I only said that even with my own poor results
initial pass I already do see high merit from other observations. And you must
be reading most of that message as directed at you or something. Past the break
was already largely typed up before your message even hit the list and cut and
pasted in since they were both on the same subject. I often do this so there
aren't lots of excess seperate messages from me all on the same subject. If
they're related they go together anyway, but it wasn't all about you.

But on the other hand you did say this " I'm skeptical of this working well
for 8 mil traces and
tqfp packages." Why would you be skeptical already? You've only played with
the method one morning for a very small number of attempts. That is not to
belittle your work, but even 10 or 20 so far is a very small amount for process
development, especially when considering the materials are basically free.
Developing stuff like this often takes years in production, so often weeks or
months at home. Hundreds of attempts would start being a more reasonable number
to draw conclusions from, it may take 10 or 20 times this initial stab to start
getting things under control.

> Guess I just don't measure
> up to your godliness. I hope you can figure this out for us mere
> mortals to slavishly follow you.
>

A large amount of patience and a good long term view of development hardly
qualifies as godliness. But with familiarity that my current process evolved
over 6 months or more before it truly became excellent does make me a little bit
skeptical that you've tried much in only one morning. I tried many variations
at once too, but it'll be weeks of other ideas popping into mind to start
thinking it isn't likely to provide good results. And overall development time
doesn't affect the validity or ease of a process, I can still show or explain
how to do what I'm now doing in a short time so it doesn't take others 6 months
to get the same results. The only difference is long term viewpoint, I likely
got far worse results than you had, yet see it as a far more positive thing
because the few things that did go right are the ones that are usually hardest
to make work. Wrinkling etc should be dealable later in one manner or another.

Alan

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" <phil1960us@y...> wrote:

> maybe mineral oil. thats not so volatile.

A drum coated in oil of any kind isn't going to work correctly. And
it's going to be impossible to prevent at least some of the oil from
transfering to the drum.

At that point, water won't remove the paper any more.

What is needed is a water based coating that can be dried completely
before printing, but dissolves quickly and easily in water.

Inkjet coatings are one. Starch seems to be another with some merit.

What about a heated vacuum table to hold the paper flat and dry it at
the same time? Lay it down and spray or brush coat it, then turn on
the heat.

Steve

And here I thought TT was to be the quick and easy method, after
reading all these post on TT and Gravy I am not too sure about
that. Think I will stay with my Positve Photo method myself for
now. Now the InkJet direct to a PCB sounds interesting. I think my
ink jet can do straight thru feed from the rear but I am not really
willing to try it out on a $500.00 printer, without knowing more
about it. Are HP print heads compatible for this? Guess I am
getting the two threads crossed up here. Sure would not be critial
of someone that has the time and wants to experiment with different
methods as experimenting that is how new things and processes are
found.

Ben

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 04:39:49 -0000, Ben H. Lanmon <bhleavi@...>
wrote:

> And here I thought TT was to be the quick and easy method, after
> reading all these post on TT and Gravy I am not too sure about
> that.

You can just go out in the shop and buy the photo paper if you do not like
the work.
it is not very expensive and the results are very good.
I think it is not really worth making the starch paper from a financial
point of view.
it is just for the fun of experimenting.

ST