Homebrew PCBs

As promised i tried a test pattern.
I had not much time to think one up so i made simple grids with the lines  
extended on two sides.
The grids are equal line/spacing, 2/2mil, 3/3mil, 4/4mil and 5/5mil.

I noticed that the printer (600dpi, sold to me as 1200dpi which is really  
only a lie) did not do very well with this test pattern. It could not keep  
the lines at equal distance, and of the correct width. When one is making  
such test patterns multiples of the printer pixel size should be used  
instead. So mainly this shows how bad the printer is.

Nonetheless i etched it, in CuCl, with somewhere under 1 mol of HCl  
content, reasonably regenerated. The transfer was done with Verbatim  
glossy photo paper using a fuser, i think at 180C, single pass.

Here you can see the result:

Transfer:
<http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4gpjwy0>

Etched:
<http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4g86mw5>

I'm sorry about the quality but it is all my scanner will provide. If i  
find the time i will attempt to use the digital camera possibly through  
the microscope, if that works.

More or less all it shows is that 5mil is the limit with a 600DPI printer,  
below that lines will break up too easily. Also, 4 mil and under is always  
the same line with for the printer.

The other board i made today uses 10mil/10mil minimum throughout, and a  
little less spacing in places, without a single fault. 10mil is what i  
would use any time without much thinking about it.

ST

I think I'll give this test a go as well.

I'm awaiting my TT order to arrive. I have a Lexmark printer with 1200dpi, plus a few optimization and density features. I turn on full optimization (which I believe improves the quality), and set it to highest density. I can usually print really well to paper.

Stay tuned.


Torin...

----- Original Message ----
From: Stefan Trethan <stefan_trethan@...>
To: "Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com" <Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:36:12 PM
Subject: [Homebrew_PCBs] TT minimum line width


As promised i tried a test pattern.
I had not much time to think one up so i made simple grids with the lines  
extended on two sides.
The grids are equal line/spacing, 2/2mil, 3/3mil, 4/4mil and 5/5mil.

I noticed that the printer (600dpi, sold to me as 1200dpi which is really  
only a lie) did not do very well with this test pattern. It could not keep  
the lines at equal distance, and of the correct width. When one is making  
such test patterns multiples of the printer pixel size should be used  
instead. So mainly this shows how bad the printer is.

Nonetheless i etched it, in CuCl, with somewhere under 1 mol of HCl  
content, reasonably regenerated. The transfer was done with Verbatim  
glossy photo paper using a fuser, i think at 180C, single pass.

Here you can see the result:

Transfer:
<http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4gpjwy0>

Etched:
<http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=4g86mw5>

I'm sorry about the quality but it is all my scanner will provide. If i  
find the time i will attempt to use the digital camera possibly through  
the microscope, if that works.

More or less all it shows is that 5mil is the limit with a 600DPI printer,  
below that lines will break up too easily. Also, 4 mil and under is always  
the same line with for the printer.

The other board i made today uses 10mil/10mil minimum throughout, and a  
little less spacing in places, without a single fault. 10mil is what i  
would use any time without much thinking about it.

ST


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

If Files or Photos are running short of space, post them here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs_Archives/ 
Yahoo! Groups Links



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

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:49:12 +0100, Torin Walker <torinwalker@...>  
wrote:

> I think I'll give this test a go as well.
> I'm awaiting my TT order to arrive. I have a Lexmark printer with  
> 1200dpi, plus a few optimization and density features. I turn on full  
> optimization (which I believe improves the quality), and set it to  
> highest density. I can usually print really well to paper.
> Stay tuned.
> Torin...


I can also print really well to paper ;-)

I think most of the optimisation features are relevant for photo printing,  
where the printer can cheat more easily. I don't think it does much good  
to line art. But the 1200dpi will definitely make a difference, i would  
think. I especially bought a 1200dpi printer, only to find out it's really  
600dpi with "1200dpi photo quality* (* = equivalent nonsense). Well, was  
only 10eur so i shouldn't moan. (This is a Lexmark M412 BTW, i think i  
will buy HP for the next one, i liked the IIID better, it was sturdy  
enough to sit on, the lexmark is all plastic.)

Anyway, i look forward to seeing what you can do with 1200dpi.

BTW, i printed with max. density "10". This printer is not very dark, i  
can actually see light through the black fill areas but with glossy paper  
it will still work just fine. With matte paper i get some attacking of the  
fill areas.

ST

tried the microscope thing, but it didn't work so great.

<http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2dj1a10>

this is a 5/5mil grid.

The digital camera shows "tunnel vision" at any zoom or macro setting. I  
could engage the digital zoom, which only takes the center of the image,  
decreasing the tunnel effect. Also, i might not have held the thing steady  
enough (it showed long exposure don't move warning).

Anyway, you don't see much more with this, but i can't think of a way to  
make a better image...

The affordable digicam eyepieces are only 640x480, and i don't know if  
there is a way to attach the digital camera in a better way. I know there  
are eyepieces for regular cameras, so maybe there's some better way i  
don't know of to use digital cameras.

any ideas?

ST

That isn't bad at all for using a camera through the scope!

I hope to be trying some different things over the next few weeks 
with a webcam to see if I can do some close up type stuff but I 
don't think I am going to get anything better than you got there.




--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "Stefan Trethan" 
<stefan_trethan@...> wrote:
>
> tried the microscope thing, but it didn't work so great.
> 
> <http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2dj1a10>
> 
> this is a 5/5mil grid.
> 
> The digital camera shows "tunnel vision" at any zoom or macro 
setting. I  
> could engage the digital zoom, which only takes the center of the 
image,  
> decreasing the tunnel effect. Also, i might not have held the 
thing steady  
> enough (it showed long exposure don't move warning).
> 
> Anyway, you don't see much more with this, but i can't think of a 
way to  
> make a better image...
> 
> The affordable digicam eyepieces are only 640x480, and i don't 
know if  
> there is a way to attach the digital camera in a better way. I 
know there  
> are eyepieces for regular cameras, so maybe there's some better 
way i  

> don't know of to use digital cameras.
> 
> any ideas?
> 
> ST
>

On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 20:50 +0100, Stefan Trethan wrote:
> The affordable digicam eyepieces are only 640x480, and i don't know if  
> there is a way to attach the digital camera in a better way. I know there  
> are eyepieces for regular cameras, so maybe there's some better way i  
> don't know of to use digital cameras.

> any ideas?

Try one of those 'beauty cams' - they have a fixed 200x magnification,
and send out composite video which can be easily recorded as video or
stills via a capture card. They're used by beauticians to analyse skin
condition.

I'm using one and it's brilliant - my only gripe is that I can't drop
the magnification - maybe I could devise some lenses to allow it to back
off from the board and retain clear focus.

Cheers
David

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:38:17 +0100, David McNab <rebirth@...>  
wrote:

>
> Try one of those 'beauty cams' - they have a fixed 200x magnification,
> and send out composite video which can be easily recorded as video or
> stills via a capture card. They're used by beauticians to analyse skin
> condition.
> I'm using one and it's brilliant - my only gripe is that I can't drop
> the magnification - maybe I could devise some lenses to allow it to back
> off from the board and retain clear focus.
> Cheers
> David


but composite is worse than 640x480, no?

Do you have an example image?

ST

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:36:43 +0100, lcdpublishing  
<lcdpublishing@...> wrote:

> That isn't bad at all for using a camera through the scope!


Compared to what you see when you look directly into the scope it's  
virtually useless.


ST

On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 21:44 +0100, Stefan Trethan wrote:
> but composite is worse than 640x480, no?
> 
> Do you have an example image?

To me, the analog distortion is very minor.


As posted in an earlier message:

TT using inkjet gloss card:
http://i12.tinypic.com/2vxj2uv.jpg

TT using WashAway paper, fed directly into laminator:
http://i13.tinypic.com/30ddpxz.jpg

TT using WashAway paper, fed into laminator but enclosed in thin card:
http://i14.tinypic.com/4ggakqc.jpg

Cheers
David

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:51:29 +0100, David McNab <rebirth@...>  
wrote:

>
> To me, the analog distortion is very minor.
> As posted in an earlier message:
> TT using inkjet gloss card:
> http://i12.tinypic.com/2vxj2uv.jpg
> TT using WashAway paper, fed directly into laminator:
> http://i13.tinypic.com/30ddpxz.jpg
> TT using WashAway paper, fed into laminator but enclosed in thin card:
> http://i14.tinypic.com/4ggakqc.jpg
> Cheers
> David


OK, thanks, that's not much better than the cam into the scope. I could  
probably stick a webcam into the microscope, because of the small eye-like  
lens those usually work with optical devices without the tunnel vision  
issue. But i would kinda like megapixel quality ;-)

ST

>> David Wrote:
>>
>> Try one of those 'beauty cams' - they have
>> a fixed 200x magnification, and send out
>> composite video
>> <SNIP>

> ST wrote:
> 
> but composite is worse than 640x480, no?
> Do you have an example image?

Composite is possibly worse than 640x480
(but could be as good as 720x512 depending)
but there is EVERY possibility that the
CCD in the beauty cams is capable of >400
TV lines.

There is also every chance than a crappy
CMOS web cam - although putting out 640x480
PIXELS can only resolve about 200 lines.

How many lands/pixels a camera has and how
many lines they can resolve (kinda like how
much the pixels bleed into each other) is
very different.

If you are going to compare a 5 megapixel
digital camera to a TV.  The digi will win.
If you are going to compare a TV to an
average webcam the TV will more than likely
win.

On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 21:17 +0000, Andrew wrote:
> If you are going to compare a 5 megapixel
> digital camera to a TV. The digi will win.
> If you are going to compare a TV to an
> average webcam the TV will more than likely
> win.

Another way the CCTV camera wins is with bandwidth - USB is a painful
traffic jam when it comes to video, where as composite video into a
capture card is true realtime.

Cheers
David

Yup, Very poor results here too.

Last night I tried using the webcam with some of the various glasses 
(Optics, loupes etc.) I have here.  About the best, clearest, and 
biggest image I can get is using the camera directly.  I can position 
the camera about 3 inches away from the object, then focus the camera 
to show a sharp image.  

Any efforts using additional optics resulted in no improvements 
whatsoever.  Perhaps when I get some money I will take apart the 
webcam and try again without using it's standard lense but suspect 
that will be a nightmare as well without have a good variety of optics 
to test and tinker with.

Chris









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

>
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:36:43 +0100, lcdpublishing  
> <lcdpublishing@...> wrote:
> 
> > That isn't bad at all for using a camera through the scope!
> 
> 
> Compared to what you see when you look directly into the scope it's  
> virtually useless.
> 
> 
> ST
>

>Yup, Very poor results here too.

Warning! Closer and more detailed views of TT tracks may be detrimental 
to your current acceptance level. Ignorance is bliss, leave well enough 
alone. What you can't see can't hurt.

--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, "lcdpublishing" 
<lcdpublishing@...> wrote:
>

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:52:51 +0100, derekhawkins <eldata@...> wrote:

> Warning! Closer and more detailed views of TT tracks may be detrimental
> to your current acceptance level. Ignorance is bliss, leave well enough
> alone. What you can't see can't hurt.


What do you want to say with this?
A photoprocess board will look no better, when the film was printed with a  
household printer.

I was never much one for ignorance...

ST

>A photoprocess board will look no better, when the film was printed 
>with a household printer.

Self induced delusional states can do so much and no more. Avoiding any 
exposure to close-ups is the only permanent solution. 

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

On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 20:00 +0000, derekhawkins wrote:
> >A photoprocess board will look no better, when the film was printed 
> >with a household printer.
> 
> Self induced delusional states can do so much and no more. Avoiding
> any 
> exposure to close-ups is the only permanent solution. 

Main criteria being:
 - whether the damn thing works
 - failure rate % when producing n of the same board
 - time/ease/comfort of home production
 - ease and error vulnerability when soldering

>From hard experience, I've learned to think - during the layout stage -
how it will feel to solder the board with my crappy iron (still waiting
for the time when I can justify dropping $100+ on a Weller temp reg
station). This practice is starting to save me much pain.

Cheers
David

>

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:00:19 +0100, derekhawkins <eldata@...> wrote:

>
> Self induced delusional states can do so much and no more. Avoiding any
> exposure to close-ups is the only permanent solution.


I don't get you here, i made fine line trials _with TT_ and you rant on  
and on about how it is better not to do that.
Why?

Do you have photoprocess trials with 5 mil or smaller lines?

If you express an opinion here, i ask you to do it clearly and not in some  
strange veiled way that is predestined for misunderstanding.

ST

if you remove the lens from the web cam and tape it onto the scope, you can then focus the image using the scope focus, i used to do a similar thing with a telescope and a web cam.

Gary

----- Original Message ----
From: Stefan Trethan <stefan_trethan@...>
To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:55:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] TT minimum line width


On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:51:29 +0100, David McNab <rebirth@orcon.net.nz>  
wrote:

>
> To me, the analog distortion is very minor.
> As posted in an earlier message:
> TT using inkjet gloss card:
> http://i12.tinypic.com/2vxj2uv.jpg
> TT using WashAway paper, fed directly into laminator:
> http://i13.tinypic.com/30ddpxz.jpg
> TT using WashAway paper, fed into laminator but enclosed in thin card:
> http://i14.tinypic.com/4ggakqc.jpg
> Cheers
> David


OK, thanks, that's not much better than the cam into the scope. I could  
probably stick a webcam into the microscope, because of the small eye-like  
lens those usually work with optical devices without the tunnel vision  
issue. But i would kinda like megapixel quality ;-)

ST


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

If Files or Photos are running short of space, post them here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Homebrew_PCBs_Archives/ 
Yahoo! Groups Links





 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:18:19 +0100, Gary Hoyles <dimlow_uk@...>  
wrote:

> if you remove the lens from the web cam and tape it onto the scope, you  
> can then focus the image using the scope focus, i used to do a similar  
> thing with a telescope and a web cam.
> Gary


Yes, but all my webcams only have low resolution, 640x480 at best, and a  
pretty bad picture quality at that resolution.

I've seen how a cheap digital camera can be modified to work with a  
microscope, also by removing the optics. I think that would give  
reasonable results and i'll try some day when i get hold of a cheap camera.

ST

>> Derek of the nice photos wrote:
>>
>> Warning! Closer and more detailed views
>> of TT tracks may be detrimental to your
>> current acceptance level.
>>
>>Ignorance is bliss, leave well enough 
>> alone. What you can't see can't hurt.
 
> ST Wrote:
> What do you want to say with this?
> A photoprocess board will look no better,
> when the film was printed with a
> household printer.
> 
> I was never much one for ignorance...

ST,

Derek has posted piccies in the past of
6/6 with a photo process and an inkjet
printer here (very household printer)

http://www.pbase.com/eldata/6_6_rules&page=1

(took me a while to find it in the archive)

I think this picture Derek took kinda really
shows the difference I think there is between
photo and toner boards.

http://www.pbase.com/eldata/image/62352763

They are 6 thou tracks - and they are uniform
and square across a very wide area (printer
resolution induced random line widths aside).

I could get a TT board with a perfect 6/6
that was maybe 75mm by 75mm when I used to do
TT. (and fit 8 x 75x75 boards on one 150x300
blank to make sure a few where perfect)

I can get a board that is 300mm x 150mm with
6/6 and not have any fear the thing will have
a break or a pin hole anywhere in that 
45000 sq millimeters.

(now scratched due to my miss handling are
another issue all together)

Not saying TT has no place in this world.
If you want cheap startup cost it is great.
I don't beleive it gets the same results as
photo though.

On Jan 18, 2007, at 7:07 AM, lcdpublishing wrote:

> Perhaps when I get some money I will take apart the
> webcam and try again without using it's standard lense but suspect
> that will be a nightmare as well without have a good variety of optics
> to test and tinker with.

There's a very nice digital microscope in the science supply  
magazines:  perhaps someone would like to donate to a fund so I can  
buy one?  :)



Seriously, does anyone have one of these?   I bought a little one for  
$20 on clearance but haven't used it much.

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

Would that be the new $85 Intel QX-5 ???

I have it on my Buy-darned-soon list.

Best to ya'
Mike Bauers
Milwaukee Wi, USA

On Jan 18, 2007, at 9:58 PM, William Carr wrote:

>
> On Jan 18, 2007, at 7:07 AM, lcdpublishing wrote:
>
>> Perhaps when I get some money I will take apart the
>> webcam and try again without using it's standard lense but suspect
>> that will be a nightmare as well without have a good variety of  
>> optics
>> to test and tinker with.
>
> There's a very nice digital microscope in the science supply
> magazines:  perhaps someone would like to donate to a fund so I can
> buy one?  :)
>
>
>
> Seriously, does anyone have one of these?   I bought a little one for
> $20 on clearance but haven't used it much.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of David McNab
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 3:26 PM
> To: Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Homebrew_PCBs] Re: TT minimum line width
>
>
> >From hard experience, I've learned to think - during the layout stage -
> how it will feel to solder the board with my crappy iron (still waiting
> for the time when I can justify dropping $100+ on a Weller temp reg
> station). This practice is starting to save me much pain.
>
> Cheers
> David

Before you plunk down your money on something like that, take a look at this
one:
http://www.web-tronics.com/aueltecosost.html

or this one:
http://www.web-tronics.com/cispdeesdsas.html

I have the second one, and it has been great!!

On Jan 19, 2007, at 7:04 PM, Mike Bauers wrote:

> Would that be the new $85 Intel QX-5 ???
>
> I have it on my Buy-darned-soon list.

No, the one I bought was remaindered for $20.   It works under  
Windows but not OS X so I don't really use it.   There's an OS X app  
for the QX microscope, as well as drivers for several other units.

The really good 'scope is several hundred bucks though.

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

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 00:15:41 +0100, William Carr <Jkirk3279@...>  
wrote:

>
> No, the one I bought was remaindered for $20.   It works under
> Windows but not OS X so I don't really use it.   There's an OS X app
> for the QX microscope, as well as drivers for several other units.
> The really good 'scope is several hundred bucks though.


There are many guides on the web on how to modify a cheap webcam to work  
through an eyepiece. Combined with a stereo scope, which i have already  
and can highly recommend, that seems like a good solution. You can get  
composite video from many cameras, and you can get high resolution still  
photos too. That's what i'll do when i get the time. I think i'll just use  
a larger tube that slips over the eyepiece and it's mounting tube to  
install the camera, i'm wary of swapping eyepieces and getting dust into  
the innards of the microscope. The guides i've seen suggest mounting the  
camera to a spare eyepiece.

ST