followup: ironing laser printed patterns

[Australopithecus scobis]

Greetings, Awhile back the notion of ironing a laser-printed pattern onto the work came up. I recently needed to transfer a pattern. I chose to use this method just to post this report.

The stock is 5/4 ash, the project is a frame saw. Because I was going to spokeshave off lots of stock, I only trued one face and one side.

I use Adobe Illustrater for my plans because I like it.

This particular saw takes a 28" blade. The vertical members came out to 19.75". Had to tile two pages to get the printout. I added two registration marks in waste areas. Did a copy'n'flip to get two mirrored patterns. Printed two copies. Cut out and taped the tiled pieces together. Taped a pattern on the trued face of each vertical arm. I ran the iron up to "Linen." (Also had a pattern for the mortise side with registration lines to match up to the face patterns.)

OK, so the results. The seam where the two pages met was, of course, exactly at a region of interest. Kind of like fighting your battles at the corners of four map sections. The transfer went just fine on the trued faces. Drilled 1/8 " holes through the reg marks and aligned the mirror copy on the back sides. Surprise, the transfer on the back sides missed the valleys. I only used two registration marks. Needed six, three for each sheet. Even though I lined the pattern pieces up with a straightedge, the tape gave a little. The tape caused another problem: I used a scrap of aluminum foil twixt the iron and the pattern when I went over the taped places. Transfer worked fine; the tape passed the heat through. It also came off the pattern and stuck to the foil.

Once the toner gets stuck to the wood, it glues the pattern paper down so it doesn't jiggle around. However, I suspect that if it cools too much before lifting the paper, then the paper peels the toner back off the wood. A couple of panels came out light, but my peel-off idea is after-the-fact guessing, not direct observation.

I would use this method again. On thin stock, only one side might need marking. I cared that the two verticals came out the same; I didn't care if they matched the original pattern precisely. So, the misregistration front and back wasn't too big an issue. I hadn't planned to put patterns on front and back; I would have trued both faces.

Right now, the arms are roughed out and mortised. I'm working through gnarly grain on the crosspiece. Fun with tearout, but that's a different thread :-)

[J T]

Wed, Jul 7, 2004, 1:34pm (EDT-1) enalbor [e-mail] (Australopithecus=A0scobis) Greetings,

As long as you don't lose sight of the two most important details.

One. That there ARE simpler, easier, faster, ways of doing all that. It doesn't NEED to be that complex / complicated.

Two. As long as you're having fun, no prob.

JOAT What we see depends mainly on what we look for.

- Sir John Lubbock

[Australopithecus scobis]

Yah. I think the iron-on method is well suited for complex patterns that have to be just so. If matching a particular pattern is not so important, as in my application, the simpler the better. FWIW, I made my first 12" bowsaw by tracing a printout of the bugsaw (DAGS) via a sheet of credit-card-receipt carbon paper.

OT, but I noticed that the "Bugsaw" has a couple of dimensions in the Golden Ratio. (I sized my current saw to GR ratios; the inflection points for the curves, and the location of the crossbar, e.g., fit that ratio.) I was amused that my affection (affectation!) for the GR was a reflection of a past (real) craftsman.

[J T]

Wed, Jul 7, 2004, 5:10pm (EDT-1) enalbor [e-mail] (Australopithecus=A0scobis) says: Yah. I think the iron-on method is well suited for complex patterns

True. However, I always had trouble geting dark lines, even on light color wood, and on dark wood, about impossible to see. So, I don't use it anymore. For what I'm doing now, gluing the pattern down works best. That does play Hell if you want to reuse the pattern tho. LMAO

But, even as I type, it struck me. I wonder how a white wash coat would work, to iron the pattern down on. Then, sand after, to take the wash off. Possibly shellac first, then the wash, so the wash doesn't soak into the wood, so excessive sanding isn't needed, to remove it. I'm thinking the wash would make the lines show up a lot better. May check that one day, just in case.

JOAT What we see depends mainly on what we look for.

- Sir John Lubbock

[Australopithecus scobis]

In article , [e-mail] (J T) wrote: ...

OK, following your thought... iron the pattern down first, then whitewash and ... press the work flat against some paper. Offset printing--we take the white off the toner tracks.

I suspect the heat of the iron would turn shellac+whitewash into a horrid mess.

I, too, have glued the pattern down. Super 77. Spokeshaved the paper off as I went along (round stuff).

[TRU]

Use magenta, yellow or some other contrasting color for your pattern. That makes it a lot easier to see, although it requires color toner from a color LaserJet or a color copier.

You could even use a green-on-red pattern for optimum visibility, but you'd need a program like Adobe Illustrator, or some advance CAD work to create it accurately. What I'm talking about is that each drawing line contains alternating stripes of green-red-green.

TRU -- Tony Uranga (Hewlett-Packard Design Engineer)

True. However, I always had trouble geting dark lines, even on light color wood, and on dark wood, about impossible to see. So, I don't use it anymore. For what I'm doing now, gluing the pattern down works best. That does play Hell if you want to reuse the pattern tho. LMAO

But, even as I type, it struck me. I wonder how a white wash coat would work, to iron the pattern down on. Then, sand after, to take the wash off. Possibly shellac first, then the wash, so the wash doesn't soak into the wood, so excessive sanding isn't needed, to remove it. I'm thinking the wash would make the lines show up a lot better. May check that one day, just in case.

JOAT What we see depends mainly on what we look for.

- Sir John Lubbock