Move them further away, then. You will get better definition, as well. I get excellent definition by having the UV tubes quite far from the board, although it increases the exposure time.
It should still produce a good PCB. It's best to use cross-hatching rather than solid areas with a laser printer.
Lots of people get opaque transparencies with laser printers, you just have to use the right film. No spray is needed, or modifications to the printer.
Why would it be best to cross-hatch rather than using solid areas with a laser printer? Could it be because the photo mask is not truly opaque?
You shouldn't make silly claims, if you don't want me to annoy you. You have spent months on your PCB process, and don't seem to have produced a single PCB that actually does something.
Cross-hatching is used because laser printers have problems with large solid areas. It's another reason for using inkjet printers.
The reason for cross-hatching is because laser printers have problems with large solid areas.
If the large solid areas are opaque, why would it matter?
You shouldn't make silly claims, if you don't want me to annoy you.
In my opinion, it is you that makes the silly claims.
You still have not produced a sample worthy of comparison to my first three samples. Just wait until you see my next one. And then, when I finally produce that stepper driver board and compare it to your existing boards or your future stepper driver board, the people are going to see who is making the silly claims.
Large areas aren't 100% opaque, which is why most people use cross-hatching.
What silly claims have I made? You keep promising the ultimate in board quality, but seem very coy about showing us your results. All that most people want is a simple process that enables them to make PCBs quickly, at minimum cost.
What about my test board with 8/8, 6/6 and 4/4 mil tracks? I'm actually more interested in producing PCBs that actually do something than forever messing about with sample boards. My latest board using the new DIP28 LPC1114 ARM chip is actually being used for software development.
What about my test board with 8/8, 6/6 and 4/4 mil tracks? I'm actually more interested in producing PCBs that actually do something than forever messing about with sample boards.
Your 8/8, 6/6 and 4/4 mil tracks were okay, but nothing spectacular as far as quality goes. As far as the samples go, you talk quality, but I don't see it. I want to see an equivalent comparison before you knock my methods. My proof is there for the world to see, let's see you create something comparable. From what I see, you can't even cut your boards straight.
What silly claims have i made?
I haven't found many people who can equal them, let alone get better results.
What was wrong with the quality of that board of mine with 8/8, 6/6 and 4/4 mil tracks? You can't even make a similar board!
My boards are perfectly adequate for their intended purpose as prototypes, and I can make them very quickly and cheaply. If I want good-looking boards with nice straight edges I could spend a lot of money on a shear, but I don't see the point. Scoring them with a Stanley knife, snapping them, and cleaning up the edges with a file only takes a couple of minutes.
I actually haven't seen many home-made boards that are better than mine. Have you seen many? I haven't seen a single one of yours!
This thread is going way off course and I intend to put it back on track. There are some people that might find this thread extremely useful, and your two cents, is not worth two cents. Go back to your thread.
So am I supposed to just sit idly by, let him trash me ideas, and just take it like a man?
Bruce,
The other thread you opened got locked before I had a chance to respond, so I'll post my response here.
YES, take it like a man.
Dave
BTW, when I saw your first post on the other thread my initial thought was "What is Leon up to now?". Little did I know that your antagonist actually was Leon. Leon is a smart guy with trollish tendencies. I think we have all learned something from him. His posts add a little spice to this forum. I have tangled with him in the past. You know you've stumped him if you can get him to say "rubbish".
The other thread you opened got locked before I had a chance to respond, so I'll post my response here.
YES, take it like a man.
Hear-hear! I really don't get it. Bruce must hold some sort of record for the most responses to his own OP's. It's very much "listen to ME, everybody!" Were it not for Leon's responses, they might as well be Twitter feeds...Now THERE's an idea Bruce!
These 'experiments' haven't been helped much by the fact
that the generous information volunteered to improve Bruce's
methods have typically been ignored.
It's been painful to see so much useful information given to Bruce going over the top of the spillway.
I have been out of town for a couple days, so the experimentation process has been on hold. Since my return, I have purchased a new OEM HP Laser cartridge from eBay, and I intend to hold off with further testing until the new cartridge arrives. However, when it arrives, I should be able to make much better photo masks.
In the mean time, I am going to work on the Automated PCB Drilling Machine, because it has been on hold for quite some time, and I believe now is good as time as any to spend some time on it.
Comments
It is the close proximity of the lamps to the board that reduces exposure time and latitude.
Bruce
After looking at this thread, I beg to differ:
Why would it be best to cross-hatch rather than using solid areas with a laser printer? Could it be because the photo mask is not truly opaque?
Bruce
I don't want to say mean or hurtful things to you, but sometimes you annoy the bejeezers out of me.
Bruce
Cross-hatching is used because laser printers have problems with large solid areas. It's another reason for using inkjet printers.
If the large solid areas are opaque, why would it matter?
In my opinion, it is you that makes the silly claims.
You still have not produced a sample worthy of comparison to my first three samples. Just wait until you see my next one. And then, when I finally produce that stepper driver board and compare it to your existing boards or your future stepper driver board, the people are going to see who is making the silly claims.
Bruce
What silly claims have I made? You keep promising the ultimate in board quality, but seem very coy about showing us your results. All that most people want is a simple process that enables them to make PCBs quickly, at minimum cost.
What about my test board with 8/8, 6/6 and 4/4 mil tracks? I'm actually more interested in producing PCBs that actually do something than forever messing about with sample boards. My latest board using the new DIP28 LPC1114 ARM chip is actually being used for software development.
Your 8/8, 6/6 and 4/4 mil tracks were okay, but nothing spectacular as far as quality goes. As far as the samples go, you talk quality, but I don't see it. I want to see an equivalent comparison before you knock my methods. My proof is there for the world to see, let's see you create something comparable. From what I see, you can't even cut your boards straight.
My boards are perfectly adequate for their intended purpose as prototypes, and I can make them very quickly and cheaply. If I want good-looking boards with nice straight edges I could spend a lot of money on a shear, but I don't see the point. Scoring them with a Stanley knife, snapping them, and cleaning up the edges with a file only takes a couple of minutes.
I actually haven't seen many home-made boards that are better than mine. Have you seen many? I haven't seen a single one of yours!
This thread is going way off course and I intend to put it back on track. There are some people that might find this thread extremely useful, and your two cents, is not worth two cents. Go back to your thread.
Bruce
The other thread you opened got locked before I had a chance to respond, so I'll post my response here.
YES, take it like a man.
Dave
BTW, when I saw your first post on the other thread my initial thought was "What is Leon up to now?". Little did I know that your antagonist actually was Leon. Leon is a smart guy with trollish tendencies. I think we have all learned something from him. His posts add a little spice to this forum. I have tangled with him in the past. You know you've stumped him if you can get him to say "rubbish".
Hear-hear! I really don't get it. Bruce must hold some sort of record for the most responses to his own OP's. It's very much "listen to ME, everybody!" Were it not for Leon's responses, they might as well be Twitter feeds...Now THERE's an idea Bruce!
Mickster.
These 'experiments' haven't been helped much by the fact
that the generous information volunteered to improve Bruce's
methods have typically been ignored.
It's been painful to see so much useful information given to Bruce going over the top of the spillway.
Kinda like the re-incarnation of Dr. Gouge.
I can hardly wait for the future PTH "lectures".
jr
As a totally disinterested third party I have to say I concur............
Keep on grinning Bruce:)
Cheers
Would you please be so kind as to move this thread to the GENERAL forum.
Thank You
Bruce
-browz
I have been out of town for a couple days, so the experimentation process has been on hold. Since my return, I have purchased a new OEM HP Laser cartridge from eBay, and I intend to hold off with further testing until the new cartridge arrives. However, when it arrives, I should be able to make much better photo masks.
In the mean time, I am going to work on the Automated PCB Drilling Machine, because it has been on hold for quite some time, and I believe now is good as time as any to spend some time on it.
Bruce