On 15/01/2011 22:16, IVP wrote:
> As Michael said, toner is basically plastic and soot. There will
> be a few formulations which are profitable, and probably also
> therefore quite generic in bulk that will be used in the cartridges
> of many printer manufacturers
>
> It might be that generally toner is pretty good but the printer
> is the built-by-accountants weak link, which is why results
> could be variable across brands

That sounds like pretty fair reasoning, and along the lines of what I=20
thought might be the case in general, I was mainly wondering what might=20
be different about Brother printers (i.e. the printers rather than the=20
ink) to cause them to be singled out (which Kerry has now explained)
For me, I never got into the toner transfer method, tried it a few times=20
ages ago then moved on to UV, and for me this works pretty flawlessly in=20
that no pitch/package is really a problem. Also, with the UV box and=20
etch tank the process is a bit less "fussy" and more reproducible IMHO=20
(no scrubbing/soaking/ironing board etc, just UV, develop and chuck in=20
tank - though this is a very debatable point I'm sure many would=20
disagree with.. :-) )
I think the toner method seems fine though for all but the smallest=20
detail, and is probably a bit cheaper too (both in equipment and=20
expendables), so there is not much either way, just whatever works best=20
for you, which of course (as Kerry also mentioned) is the important thing.
My goal with the whole thing was never really to save money, just time=20
when prototyping (which it does very well when the need arises) but=20
everyone who "rolls their own" is going to have slightly different=20
motivations.

P.S. Very interested in how it goes with the Riston film - keep us=20
posted there.. :-)





--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.