[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: B&W xerox transfer
- To: BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
- Subject: Re: B&W xerox transfer
- From: Kim Nickens <nickinpa@SGI.NET>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 21:26:19 -0500
- Message-Id: <199803250226.SAA14898@SUL-Server-2.Stanford.edu>
- Sender: "Book_Arts-L: The list for all the book arts!" <BOOK_ARTS-L@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
I have done a limited comparison and the output from my laser
printer works far better than the xerox copy that I did at Kinko's.
Both transferred, but the laser copy worked quicker, better and
produced a darker transfer.
From: Ken Ingraham[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: B&W xerox transfer
I am not familiar with all Xerox toners or their compositions, but the
ones I worked with were essentially minute plastic particulates. (Toner
is a health hazard when in its powdered, raw form.) The majority of
copiers today work by electrostatically charging a transfer belt onto
which the powdered toner adhers according to where the charges have been
applied to the belt, which then transfers the toner to a paper where it
is "fixed", essentially melted in place on the paper using pressure and
heat. ( much like an iron!) It would seem to make sense then that an
iron could work as an agent of transfer for photo-copies.
-first time post from a lurker, hope it isn't too off topic.
Kim Nickens wrote:
> Barbara and all,
> I have had great success with black and white laser and xerox
> copies using no chemicals -
> Place your copy face down onto the paper that you would like to
> receive the image.
> Press the back of the copy with a hot iron. Move the iron around,
> making sure that you are heating up the entire image. You can
> lift a corner to see how the transfer is progressing. You can reuse
> the copy to create another transfer. So far, the second one has been
> good, the third is faint, etc.