Laser Cuts
Martin Klang
This evening I tried a comparative cut of something I've done in the past.
In short: there's no longer any noticeable scaling error on the x or y axis, and the alignment now seems very stable (thanks mattv!).
However there are some other problems which I'm not sure how to fix.
Details:
4mm perspex, 130x60mm cut and engrave.
The first attempt I oriented the design along the top side of the bed (looking at the cutter).
It managed to cut very well, but the engraving had serious problems.
Also the whole job took much longer (22 as opposed to 12mins) than it has done in the past. Not sure why that is.
I then tried orienting the other way: some way (<15cm) from the top side the cut no longer goes through.
Is it possible that there are system settings which might have been messed up over the last few weeks of troubleshooting and fixing? Is a reset to Charles' defaults perhaps in order?
I will update the logbook with these details and some before/after pics showing the issues with the engraving.
/m
asc
> The first attempt I oriented the design along the top side of the bed (looking at the cutter).
> It managed to cut very well, but the engraving had serious problems.
> Also the whole job took much longer (22 as opposed to 12mins) than it has done in the past. Not sure why that is.
The problems you experience are known and are explained because of the
power issues (see below) and that the granularity of engraving has
been set low to aid with testing. This shows how good or bad
everything is with alignment. Lower granularity = bigger distance
between engrave passes.
As Mark details in the log book, power is all over the place. Cutting
3mm mdf, 100% at speed 5 fails, charring and only partially cut.
Whereas dropping speed power to 70%, 40% and even 30% succeeds with
better cuts and no charring. Power source issues have been suggested -
any ideas from anyone more familiar?
To clarify: 22 mins rather than 12: from the log book that shows one
entry, but in your photo and email it indicates two cuts. Is that 22
minutes both combined cuts or just one? The engraving with the lower
granularity should have made the cuts and engraving quicker.
Martin Klang
okay thanks for clarification and cheers for updating the logbook.
> Whereas dropping speed power to 70%, 40% and even 30% succeeds
dropping speed and power? or dropping power?
> To clarify: 22 mins rather than 12
the photo doesn't show the whole (first) job. I compared how long it took to complete a certain job to how long it had taken in the past. However I had to redo the .ecp (?) files and it is possible that the design program has generated something differently, resulting in the longer time. Unfortunately I couldn't compare using a known .ecp.
/m
asc
On Sep 8, 2:42 pm, Martin Klang <m...@pingdynasty.com> wrote:
> okay thanks for clarification and cheers for updating the logbook.
>
> > Whereas dropping speed power to 70%, 40% and even 30% succeeds
>
> dropping speed and power? or dropping power?
>
Martin Klang
On 7 Sep 2011, at 23:35, asc wrote:
> Lower granularity = bigger distance
> between engrave passes.
so where do you change engraving granularity, and what is the 'standard' setting?
cheers,
/m