Full Version: Large Format CNC Engravers
From: clay (CLAY_J1955) [#5]
9 Apr 2007
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#4] 10 Apr 2007
I have to disagree with that Rodney. The place i used to work had a 24x24 inch multicam router with a colombo 3hp spindle, it had to weigh 20 pounds mabe more. It was the same set up used on the larger 4ft, 5ft and 10ft machines. i cant remember ever having inertia problems. Was it as fast as the smaller machines, no!!, but with the rigidity and bite one of these can take it turns out being faster on lots of things. There is a high school in the area thats has a 5ftx5ft machine. I helped the shop teacher early on with it. never saw any problems there either.
clay
From: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#6]
10 Apr 2007
To: clay (CLAY_J1955) [#5] 10 Apr 2007
Well, I was really talking about engraving and detailed engraving at that.
I run engravers form simple stuff like manual pantographs etc right thru to the large format 3d overhead routers and cover all the stuff between those levels
My experience has been that there is no product out there that does it all effectively otherwise we would just have a few of those.
There is an optimal feed and speed rate for any substrate. That will assure perfect cuts or routing or whatever. The problem with the big machines used as engravers of fine detail is that they cannot possibly come near these rates and you end up having to slow the machine to a point where your engraving is not optimal. Its not to say that they cant engrave , it's to say that as engravers , the generally do as well as engravers used as routers.
From: Pedaler (ROYBREWER) [#7]
10 Apr 2007
To: clay (CLAY_J1955) [#5] 10 Apr 2007
My experience forces me to agree with Rodney. Routers are much better at routing than engravers. Engravers are much better at engraving than routers.
I have a MultiCAM MT22 in my warehouse with the MultiCAM engraving spindle attachment(which is certainly better than trying to engrave with the 2hp spindle!). I suspect you might be able to show me how to improve it, I've never been able to approach the quality of the smallest, lightest duty Xenetech even after slowing it down to a fraction of the speed.
From: clay (CLAY_J1955) [#8]
10 Apr 2007
To: Pedaler (ROYBREWER) [#7] 11 Apr 2007
From: Pedaler (ROYBREWER) [#9]
11 Apr 2007
To: clay (CLAY_J1955) [#8] 11 Apr 2007
My son did some terrific 3d work on the MT22 with the original enRoute before he lost interest in it. I've never used anything but PLT files from Corel. I must say I've never done enough with it to even get comfortable.
I'd make you a deal on a an MT22 {;<)
From: clay (CLAY_J1955) [#10]
11 Apr 2007
To: Pedaler (ROYBREWER) [#9] 12 Apr 2007
Roy
Thats your quality problem...PLT files. I think PLT files are 2 decimal place accuracy at best. I bet it looked jaggy with overshoots. I used to import xenetech files into alphcam, the software we used, converted it to g-code with excellent results. you might try that with enroute and see what happens.
I'll check with engineering about that m22
clay
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#11]
12 Apr 2007
To: clay (CLAY_J1955) [#10] Unread
I have seen PLt files with 5-7 significant figures.
It all depends on the size of the image and the software that is sending it out. Also the setting of plotter units. A small thing with a low plotter unit setting can give really bad results. Making it larger before exporting or upping the plotter units will increase the definition. I generally use the default plotter units of 1016, (I think). [Plotter units are, again I think, the steps per inch.] [Maybe the steps per plotter size, I am a bit confused on this one. I have not fiddled with the hpgl in about 20 years.]
EDITED: 12 Apr 2007 by HARVEY-ONLY