Frank wrote:
Frank Wrote:
I'm going to attempt to build one of my ghost receievers dead bug style.
The goal being to take something that I usually mount in an old PC case,
and fit it into a cigar box. I've never tried dead bug, or ugly
construction, but figure it should be the most spacerous mehtod, and I
cany use both side of a board for seperate functions.

As far as my ghost receivers, just remember those proclaiming
something is impossible are interupted by someone doing it. Believe
it or not, like it or not, the dead talk! This IS the next frontier in
electronics!

http://franksumption.tripod.com/

I still haven't quite gotten the LNM3820 to work the way I want it to.
It works on the bread board, but not on a PCB.

Frank


Okay, I tried Dead Bug construtcion, and it seems it is absolutly
wortheless for complicated circuits. Most the hams I see pushing this
method are only using a couple components, try it with about 50, and
see how well it works---NOT. I made two of my systems with it, and an
amp, all are crappy!!

I wouldn't even consider it for anything at all complex, although it
might not be too bad if you split the circuit into smaller modules
rather than trying to get everything on one board. I prefer what could
be called 'live bug' construction, with the chips the right way up. I
have a good home PCB process, so I tend to use that these days.

Perhaps the ghosts from your dead bugs are causing interference. 8-)

73, Leon

I just got a very good "homebrew" PCB process set up using gloss photo paper
printed in a laser printer ironed onto the board for the resist and muriatic
acid / hydrogen peroxide for the etchant. Is this the way you are making
boards?

Jim



I
have a good home PCB process, so I tend to use that these days.

Perhaps the ghosts from your dead bugs are causing interference. 8-)

73, Leon

RST Engineering wrote:
I just got a very good "homebrew" PCB process set up using gloss photo paper
printed in a laser printer ironed onto the board for the resist and muriatic
acid / hydrogen peroxide for the etchant. Is this the way you are making
boards?


No, I use conventional UV exposure and FeCl3. With artwork printed on
an inkjet printer I can reliably do 8 mil tracks.

Leon

Leon wrote:
No, I use conventional UV exposure and FeCl3. With artwork printed on
an inkjet printer I can reliably do 8 mil tracks.
=========================
Leon , How do you dispose of spent ferichloride?
Do you take it to the local Council waste yard ?

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

Highland Ham wrote:
Leon wrote:
No, I use conventional UV exposure and FeCl3. With artwork printed on
an inkjet printer I can reliably do 8 mil tracks.
=========================
Leon , How do you dispose of spent ferichloride?
Do you take it to the local Council waste yard ?

Frank GM0CSZ / KN6WH

I just flush it down the toilet. I think that ferric chloride is used
for water treatment and I can't see the small amount of copper doing
any harm by the time it has been diluted millions of times. It's only a
litre ot so every six months - it's negligible.

73, Leon

On Sat, 27 May 2006 14:28:45 -0700, Leon wrote:

No, I use conventional UV exposure and FeCl3. With artwork printed on an
inkjet printer I can reliably do 8 mil tracks.

Leon

Do you use the inkjet to print directly on transparent film? Is the
contrast/opacity good enough or do you need to stack two or more sheets?

I use a laser printer and OHP film. Even with the toner density set to
maximum, I find I need to use two sheets of film for best results.

73, Ed. EI9GQ.


--
Linux 2.6.16
Remove 'X' to reply by e-mail.
Yes, my username really is: nospam

In article .com,
Leon wrote:

I just flush it down the toilet. I think that ferric chloride is used
for water treatment and I can't see the small amount of copper doing
any harm by the time it has been diluted millions of times. It's only a
litre ot so every six months - it's negligible.

By the time you dump it in this way, you aren't dumping pure ferric
chloride by any means! You're dumping a residual amount of ferric
chloride, plus a bunch of copper chloride.

The waste-treatment authorities in this area are very much against
having soluble copper dumped into the sewage system. The copper
eventually ends up in San Francisco Bay (after having caused some
amount of interference to the biological sewage-digestion/treatment
system). Multiplied by a large number of potential sources, the
copper load can have an injurious effect on the Bay ecosystem... it's
toxic to algae and to many other natural microorganisms.

This problem can be prevented, quite easily, by simply titrating some
sodium hydroxide (lye) or sodium carbonate (washing soda, soda ash)
into the exhausted etchant. It may bubble a bit, with the bubbling
ceasing as the pH rises to the point of being mildly alkaline (pH of 7
to 8... use pH paper to monitor). The copper remaining in the
solution will precipitate out as an insoluble solid. Allow it to
settle and pour off the remaining liquid... MG says that the liquid
can now be poured down the toilet safely. The solid (copper hydroxide
or copper carbonate, I believe) should be disposed of according to
local requirements.

I've used the same precipitate-with-soda-ash trick when using sodium
monopersulphate as an etchant (it's surely work with the somewhat
faster-acting ammonium persulphate). It's quite striking in this
case... the clear blue-green copper-loaded etchant turns a milky
green, the precipitate settles out, and you're left with a clear
near-colorless liquid which contains little or no copper.

I've heard of people disposing of copper-loaded used etchant by mixing
in some Portland cement powder. This raises the pH, converts the
copper to an insoluble form, and then binds it into (in effect) solid
rock which can be disposed of in a landfill without causing
significant leaching of copper. The same trick could no doubt be used
to solidify the precipitated copper from a lye or soda-ash
neutralization of spent etchant.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Sun, 28 May 2006 05:29:21 -0700, Leon wrote:


I print directly on special JetStar film, from Mega Electronics in the UK.
Opacity is fine.

Thanks for the tip.

I never found OHP film much good when I used a laser printer, I used to
use LaserStar film or tracing paper. The latter is fine for most boards
and very cheap.

Leon

I get very good results with Staedtler Lumocolor film and
a HP 1200 dpi laser. The UV light source is a 500W halogen
floodlight.

73, Ed. EI9GQ.

--
Linux 2.6.16
Remove 'X' to reply by e-mail.
Yes, my username really is: nospam

Dave Platt wrote:

In article .com,
Leon wrote:

I just flush it down the toilet. I think that ferric chloride is used
for water treatment and I can't see the small amount of copper doing
any harm by the time it has been diluted millions of times. It's only a
litre ot so every six months - it's negligible.

By the time you dump it in this way, you aren't dumping pure ferric
chloride by any means! You're dumping a residual amount of ferric
chloride, plus a bunch of copper chloride.

The waste-treatment authorities in this area are very much against
having soluble copper dumped into the sewage system. The copper
eventually ends up in San Francisco Bay (after having caused some
amount of interference to the biological sewage-digestion/treatment
system). Multiplied by a large number of potential sources, the
copper load can have an injurious effect on the Bay ecosystem... it's
toxic to algae and to many other natural microorganisms.

This problem can be prevented, quite easily, by simply titrating some
sodium hydroxide (lye) or sodium carbonate (washing soda, soda ash)
into the exhausted etchant. It may bubble a bit, with the bubbling
ceasing as the pH rises to the point of being mildly alkaline (pH of 7
to 8... use pH paper to monitor). The copper remaining in the
solution will precipitate out as an insoluble solid. Allow it to
settle and pour off the remaining liquid... MG says that the liquid
can now be poured down the toilet safely. The solid (copper hydroxide
or copper carbonate, I believe) should be disposed of according to
local requirements.

I've used the same precipitate-with-soda-ash trick when using sodium
monopersulphate as an etchant (it's surely work with the somewhat
faster-acting ammonium persulphate). It's quite striking in this
case... the clear blue-green copper-loaded etchant turns a milky
green, the precipitate settles out, and you're left with a clear
near-colorless liquid which contains little or no copper.

I've heard of people disposing of copper-loaded used etchant by mixing
in some Portland cement powder. This raises the pH, converts the
copper to an insoluble form, and then binds it into (in effect) solid
rock which can be disposed of in a landfill without causing
significant leaching of copper. The same trick could no doubt be used
to solidify the precipitated copper from a lye or soda-ash
neutralization of spent etchant.


I've also heard of putting steel wool into spent ferric chloride etchant,
which I think gets the copper out in a metallic form and probably replaces
it with iron. Whether that would be better I don't know.

Chris

Since ferric chloride is another name for iron chloride, I'm not sure how
that would work, since there is already an abundance of iron in the
solution, but I've never tried it so I'm not going to say it won't work.
However, I'd like to hear from somebody who HAS tried it, for better or for
worse.

Jim




I've also heard of putting steel wool into spent ferric chloride etchant,
which I think gets the copper out in a metallic form and probably replaces
it with iron. Whether that would be better I don't know.

Chris