Categories
How-to Trial and Error

Homemade-Stencil Advances, Paper Suggestion, and Spirit Duplicator Fluid Alternative

Stencils suitable for making at home

The creator of the YouTube channel @oldtypewritersandcalculators recently posted a video about making home-scale stencils that can be used with a stylus and file plate, much in the manner of the Japanese file-plate method (see Tomoko Kanzaki’s work, using this method, here and here). These stencils can presumably also be used on a Gestetner or AB Dick-type mimeograph if they have an appropriate header attached in order to secure the stencil to the drum.

Ingredients: paraffin wax, carnauba wax, and “vaseline oil,” which, in the US, is known as mineral oil. Additionally, you need thin, transparent, sturdy paper. Here it looks a bit like tissue or tracing paper, and the stated weight is 20gr/m2. You might have good luck with washi/Yoshino paper, though (see next stencil experiment, below)

Supplies: Heat source, scale, metal tray, paintbrush, and a metal can.

Method: Weigh out 3 parts paraffin, 3 parts mineral oil or “vaseline oil”, and 1 part carnauba wax, into the can. Melt over low heat. Heat the metal tray also on low to facilitate the waxing of the paper without the wax hardening too fast. Use the paintbrush to spread a thin layer of the melted mixture onto the paper (or conversely, onto the tray itself, setting the paper into the wax), and set aside each sheet to harden.

Stencils suitable for making in your garage or secret lab

Recently Mimeomania (facebook group) member Sam Davisson was able to tinker around with a recipe for stencil coating available from a 1979 patent.

Sam’s process, comments, and photos follow:

Homemade Impact Stencils!!!

After some trial and error, I happened upon a coating recipe that worked amazing. This is from a 1979 Gestetner patent, US 4,180,621. This is the recipe found in Example 1, Main Coating.

This is based on nitrocellulose plastic, which has several plasticizers and lubricants mixed with it, along with solvents, allowing everything to be dissolved together, have paper dipped in it, and hug to dry.
******************

Recipe, as in the patent:
(Parts by weight)

Nitrocellulose – 10
Coconut oil – 4.2
Diethylene Glycol – 2.8
Butyl Stearate – 16.2
Oleic Acid – 81.7
Microlith Blue 4GA (a blue dye) – 3.8 — Didn’t include in mine
Nonoxol DCP (antioxidant and bactericide) — Didn’t include in mine
Ethyl Acetate – 46
Methylated Spirit (denatured alcohol) – 139
******************

I’ll be working with this recipe to see what else can be substituted and left out, to make it easier to recreate for others. Below is my best guesses as to what each ingredient does, in 3 essential categories (base, plasticizer/lubricant/distender/elasticizer, and solvent):

Nitrocellulose – base plastic – this is what photographic film used to be made from
Coconut oil – plasticizer
dithylene glycol – plasticizer
butyl stearate – plasticizer
Oleic acid – plasticizer
Microlith Blue – blue dye, used for legibility when stencilizing
Nonoxol DCP – preservative for oils so they won’t oxidize, also a bactericide
Ethly Acetate – allows nitrocellulose and oils to be soluble in alcohol
Methylated spirit – primary solvent, AKA denatured alcohol
******************
!!WARNING!!

If you plan to recreate this, know that there are a lot of volatile chemicals involved – my house still stinks from mixing this this morning. ALSO, nitrocellulose is EXTREMELY flammable – that’s why they stopped making film with it. It is shipped wet. It must be dried before mixing into solution.”

The collected ingredients:

Prior to mixing:

Jar of coating solution on left. Coating pan on bottom. Yoshino paper on cardboard drip tray, top.

Stencil hung to dry:

The stencil after being typed and written upon. See * below for details about the dark tone on the background and for more info on how to achieve quality imprints on stencils.

And the results!

Kevin asked, “Sam, there seems to be a light gray cast to the background on these prints. Do you know what is causing that? Is ink seeping through the stencil?”

Sam said, “Its not the ink, I needed a backing sheet that contrasted, so I spray painted a sheet of paper black but didn’t let it dry enough, so it rubbed off on the stencil (as seen in the picture holding it to the light) and transferred to the paper when printing. If you use black construction paper or something as a backing, this shouldn’t happen. I also need to add a colorant to the coating (titanium white, when used with a black backing) for contrast of stenciled letters.”

Kevin commented, “I see. It is good to know that the ink was not seeping through. From the factory, the stencils came with a sheet of carbon paper between the stencil paper and the backer sheet. It is a waxy carbon paper, not solvent carbon, and it offsets onto the stencil a bit when you type, so that you can clearly read what you have typed. It was referred to as a ‚cushion sheet’ by some manufacturers, because the softer, waxy surface of the carbon paper allows the type to cut a bit deeper into the stencil. Putting an ordinary sheet of wax carbon paper that you buy at Staples, carbon side up, behind the stencil paper should achieve the same effect. On blue stencils, this waxy carbon sheet is white, in order to create a good contrast.”

The paper used for the stencil is the classic Yoshino, available here. The nitrocellulose is from here.

Mimeograph Paper Option

Kevin, who is very actively using mimeograph and spirit duplicator machines, is always on the lookout for supplies available today that can replace the no-longer-produced versions of the past. He recently found that the Crayola brand lightweight construction paper that’s available in Canada makes a nice replacement for AB Dick Mimeotone paper. That brand, if it’s available wherever you, dear reader, happen to be, you might see if it’s similar in quality.

He says, “It has the same weight and texture and absorbs mimeo ink very well.  I think it is groundwood paper, which is what Mimeotone was.  I found that the grain on the construction paper is short, and normal paper (mimeo or any other copy paper) has a long grain, but it doesn’t seem to make a huge difference.  It feeds on the machines fine as long as you don‘t run it too fast (and Riso ink needs to be run slow anyway), and it folds without breaking at the folds when run through the paper folder.  (AB Dick Mimeotone cracks on the folds when folded).”

Alternative Spirit-Duplicator Fluid

Kevin also reports on his experiments with developing a less noxious fluid for use in spirit duplicators.

“Making a non-toxic spirit fluid is very simple.  Mix 85-90% propylene glycol and 10-15% distilled water (by volume).  But do note that with machines that do not use a pump to distribute fluid, it requires a more absorbent wick.  Such a wick can be made using soft, pure wool shoe felt, about 1/4“ thick.  It needs to be a material that absorbs very quickly.  An absorbent upholstery foam may work as well.

“There is a tendency for some papers to curl with this fluid, but I found if you run the paper with the top side as it comes from the package up, then the curl occurs toward the bottom and is not much of an issue for most things I duplicate.”

Categories
How-to Trial and Error

Functional Fax, Finally

-plus tips to ensure that you get a good machine-

With a new Brother Intellifax 775, I am now in thermal-stencil-making business. I prepped my Riso master sheet, inserted it into the paper feed tray, put my original into the scanner feed tray, hit copy, and voila, a thermal stencil with good resolution and no marring of the thermal paper.

It was pointed out to me that I could easily apply tape over the cartridge sensor lever to trick the machine into thinking a cartridge was in place (see photo below). Thermal paper could then be taped to a sheet of paper and, when run through the paper feed mechanism, the thermal printer would print directly on the thermal paper. That trick prevents the massive hassle of winding thermal paper onto cartridge rolls.

Should you wish to use a thermal fax machine to print stencils, I recommend the following:

  • Get the newest machine you can.
  • If you get one that is “new in box” make sure it’s NOT a model that has been sitting in its box since the 1980s. Or even the 1990s… and maybe not even since the early 2000s. Really, get the newest machine you can. Unfortunately you’ll likely be guessing when any particular fax machine was made – I have had no luck figuring out the manufacture dates of particular models; that information doesn’t seem to be publicly available. Still, you can kind of tell by brands’ model numbers that, in many cases, increase in relation to later release dates.
  • If the fax machine is used, ask the seller to test the copy function and send you proof that the output is clean. Ideally see a photo of both the original and the copy. If the seller says they can’t do that because they don’t have a cartridge installed, think long and hard about the purchase.
  • Purchase only from sellers who accept returns.
  • Test the fax machine immediately upon receipt – I waited too long with my first one because I was busy with other things and missed the chance to get a refund for its being non-functional.

Had I done those things, I could’ve saved myself some trouble. Oh well, at least I gained the experience with which I can help you make a better fax-purchase decision.

Here is what you want to look for:

  • A plain-paper thermal fax machine* – this prints on regular (letter or A4 depending on your location) copy paper with a thermal-printer mechanism.

Avoid laser, laserjet, and inkjet fax machines. They do not have the thermal printer unit that Riso master paper requires.

Alternatively, you can try one of these:

  • An Older-style thermal fax machine that prints on rolls of thermal “fax paper.” If you try this, make sure that the rolls are the same width as the Riso master rolls you wish to use. In some cases you can just swap out the thermal paper with the Riso master roll.

*Today I spent some time looking for the latest in thermal fax machines. I hate to break it to you, but there isn’t one. Most (all?) thermal fax machines have been discontinued. I checked the following manufacturers: Brother, HP, and Sharp. Likewise, neither Amazon, Walmart, Staples, OfficeDepot, nor Best Buy are carrying new thermal fax machines. Ah, the poignant sound of another obsolete technology slipping out of reach.

Your best bet is your local used-goods market/garage sale circuit, or online via ebay or facebook marketplace.

If you don’t need to make stencils from originals that are already on paper and are willing to produce directly from your computer, you can try a “pocket printer” that uses thermal printing technology. A Mimeomania member reports good results with a Paperang A4 printer (300dpi) and a quick search shows several such things for sale on various sites. Looks like A4 size is cheaper than letter size – but, since Riso paper is most easily found in A4 size, Americans don’t have to aim for letter-sized since stencil size can be flexible.

If you’d rather have a plain-paper fax machine, I can attest that the Brother Intellifax 775 works for this purpose. In addition, I’ve seen videos with the Intellifax 575 making thermal tattoo stencils, and of course Stampalofi uses a Philips (model unknown).

Categories
Trial and Error

Crazy mimeographing guinea pig, at your service

I have run into all sorts of either “dumb luck” or “this is reality” with my ongoing experiments. I try take the sting out of it a little bit by accepting that I am doing these experiments in the service of a greater good – but gee, is it somewhat discouraging to keep hitting one dead end after another.

But, you know, I’m failing so that eventually you won’t have to, because someday I’ll be able (fingers crossed) to point out a path toward accessible, affordable, and somewhat fool-proof duplicating. Or at least that’s what I hope.

You may recall my first foray into thermal stencil-making with the impressively sturdy Pitney Bowes 8050 fax machine that nobody had ever heard of:

Ok, that’s not exactly true. One person had heard of it, but I’ll get to that in a minute. When I got around to plugging it in and found that something was haywire in its internal workings (a result of it sitting around, new-in-box, for too many years), I looked high and low for a repair manual or other information on it. None of the fax repair companies I contacted had even heard of this model. In the end, fellow mimeo-enthusiast Plaugolt SatzWechsler (or psw), the one person in the world who knew this model, and who was using this same machine to produce mimeograph stencils contacted me. Her own PB8050 had seen heavy use and was starting to falter. So, for the cost of shipping it to Germany, I gave her mine. She and a circuit-board-savvy friend figured out what ailed it, repaired it and are now putting it to good use.

My second fax machine, a Sharp UX-108 was incapable of printing stencils. My guess is there was something wrong with the thermal printer – very spotty results and lots of blank space where there ought to have been print. Thankfully the seller accepted a return.

At this point, I thought it might be best to give up on fax machines even though psw and stampalofi were having good luck with them.

So, I caved in and bought one of those darned Chinese-made thermal tattoo-stencil printers. You know:

I started using it not long after I purchased it – that was how I made my very basic stencil-header stencil.

(Shhh, don’t tell anyone, but the reason the print quality looked so gloppy was because I installed the stencil backward! Word to the wise – the shiny side faces the paper you’re printing on!!)

Anyway, I then attempted to print stencils for more complex things. Apparently too complex?… maybe the font size was too small, or the image resolution too much for the machine to handle? Maybe the humidity was interfering (more on that below)? I wasn’t sure what the issue was, but I was seeing lots of “shredding” on the stencil (more on that below as well). This put me in front of my computer for far more time than I wanted, manipulating text and images to try to get something workable. It didn’t work.

I gave up for a while and mulled over what my next step would be.

The next step ended up unrelated to the general point of this post – the purchasing of some old-style stencils – shipped all the way from Japan. But, before I figured out how I wanted to approach the use of this very limited resource, Mimeomania member Arnø Jürgen van Matendouce kindly shared a print test page drawn by his friend TYST (it’s on the resources page, just scroll down until you see it), and that inspired my next move:

I decided to try the tattoo stencil printer again, to see if I could figure out what the issue was:

And it turned out that those copies weren’t half bad. There was obviously a learning curve – and some sections couldn’t be rendered by the thermal printer at all, but it seemed like I was heading in the right direction. There was no shredding.

I went ahead and made a stencil for the title page of a little booklet I want to put together (part of a collection of some public domain works):

Honestly, this was the best quality print I’d gotten so far. It’s a little fuzzy around the letters’ edges, but it’s a pretty small font size (probably 9 or 10?). I could forgive it (the ghost image you see is just because there’s another page under the one I’ve photographed). A day or two later, I then went ahead and tried to make a stencil for one page in the booklet that really requires decent resolution and the “shredding” reappeared with a vengeance:

In the next image, you can see where the image is clear and sharp and where it simultaneously has shredded sections. It was really teasing me.

At this point, I’m realizing that these multiple failures are asking something of me. It seems I’m really having to be an intrepid and committed experimenter here, and that this isn’t just about whether or not I can duplicate something, it’s about how easy it’s going to be for anyone to do this. And thus far, the results have not been inspiring, to say the least!

But wait, it gets worse.

So, I make my decision. I am in this for the long haul. I want to figure out a way for regular people to engage in DIY, low-tech-if-possible, printing and duplicating. I’m inspired by the print quality Rachel Simone Weil achieves with a label printer, so I resolve to keep trying.

Having learned that a fax machine that uses a thermal printer to print on plain paper (rather than a roll of fax paper) might possibly work for this task, I purchase yet another used fax machine – this time a Brother Intellifax-775:

I quickly figure out that this machine will not work the way stampalofi’s Philips fax machine does. His prints on Risograph paper inserted through the paper feed channel. Nor does it do what psw’s does, which is directly feed the Risograph roll over the thermal printer from inside, as though it were fax paper. Mine requires the print cartridge to remain installed – in effect requiring that the Riso paper be carried through the cartridge. So I spend a good couple of hours, rewinding the cartridge to the beginning (so the machine doesn’t tell me I need to insert a new cartridge), cutting the Risograph thermal paper down to size (because I’m using a roll that would’ve fit in the larger Pitney Bowes feed mechanism but that’s wider than the letter-sized paper this cartridge fits) so that I can feed it onto the cartridge, then, taping and winding it in; finally I’m ready to give it a try.

First, though, because the thermal printer does not have a “mirror” option, like the tattoo stencil printer, I have to get onto my computer and reconfigure my original so that every page is a mirror image of the original, and change the page order so that the print layout is adjusted to accommodate that (it was complicated, you don’t want to know at this point. Just know that it was a little mind-bending). I do that and I run one page through the fax machine.

And my stencil has a fine, fine line right across it that’s not part of the original. I try again, and once or twice more – and they’ve all got the line. I then remove the Riso paper, wind the cartridge back away from the beginning to a section that’s unused, and make a standard copy. It looks like this (copy above, original below):

I’m completely thrilled about the resolution and really stinkin’ mad about the line.

I go at the inner workings of the machine with a microfiber cloth and rubbing alcohol. I test it – still a line. I clean it and wipe it and shine a very bright light inside it to try to ascertain the problem. Nothing looks amiss. I clean it again and fiddle around with the thermal unit’s alignment. It still doesn’t work.

The seller very kindly offers me a refund even though the fax function probably works.

I spend the next few days questioning my sanity. I tell myself that there’s no guarantee that my tinkering will work and I ask, “Do you still want to go ahead with this?” and the answer is still, “Yes.” I find myself daydreaming about finding an electronics nerd who’ll help me build a thermal printer that actually works as well as a (functioning) fax machine but without the hassle and all the extra apparatus.

I can’t fall asleep because I’m wondering how I can make a “printshop in a box” that isn’t reliant on way too many “outsourced” and weak-supply-chain-linked pieces (Hush! I’m not obsessed).

But I’m kind of obsessed. I’m waiting now for my area’s relative humidity to decrease a bit (having heard that the tattoo stencil printers don’t like humidity) – but in the meantime… yes… I’ve bought another fax machine to try (same model since I’m now intimately familiar with it). It’s on its way. It’s supposedly new, so perhaps there’s hope.

By golly, I hope there’s hope.

That’s all I have for today.

Signed,

your good guinea pig who will keep on trying.

P.S. there’ll be a follow-up post later that’s focused on fax/thermal-printer pitfalls and how to avoid them (if in fact they can be avoided).

Mimeograph Revival