Відео

Yup, I machined the XYZ plate from a 10mm aluminum plate, to roughly match the specs of the $50-100 ones I see online. I got the G-code for the macro from this video that shows it in action, and has a link to the source code in the description: ua-cam.com/video/YRHsWt38QY8/v-deo.html The gist of the math is this: every circle is fully defined by any three points on it. So if you start the probe anywhere in the circle, and probe in 3 different directions, you will stop at 3 different points on the circle, which gives you enough information to compute the center and radius. The neat thing about this is that you don't even need to know the bit diameter. If you move the bit to the edge of the circle and trace it all the way around with any bit, you're just drawing a smaller circle that has the same center as the XYZ plate circle. So the larger the bit, the smaller the circle you're probing, but you'll still compute the same correct answer from the 3 points. The G-code has the equations in it. That's one reason I like CNC.js, because you can use variables and equations in macros, which makes it very versatile. For instance I made a macro for simply cutting out a rectangle. At the top of the macro I have the variables for the bit size, rectangle length, width, total depth, depth-per-pass, and max feedrate. I just have to tweak those few numbers at the top, put in a wood sheet, set the XYZ offsets where I want the bottom left corner, and run the macro.

@@ObsessiveEngineering Thanks for the explanation and for the source! I wonder if one adds additional circles At say (0,50) and (50,0), they could account for the stock's skew, like so: ua-cam.com/video/bhZdbgM6S70/v-deo.html

@@ObsessiveEngineering Thanks for the explanation and for the source! I wonder if one adds additional circles At say (0,50) and (50,0), they could account for the stock's skew, like so: ua-cam.com/video/bhZdbgM6S70/v-deo.html

They were printed flat. I believe the thinnest part was 3x 0.3mm layers, and I made sure that it printed with an orientation so the first and third layer were using lines directly perpendicular to the hinge.

@@ObsessiveEngineering Thanks! will be interesting to test live hinges durability, material and print patterns

Since my slicer is set to do infill at 45deg, I rotated the part 45 deg in the XY plane to match. Then I previewed the gcode to confirm the first layer was across the hinge. That said, having the first layer lines 45deg relative to the hinge may be totally fine with multiple layers. I did it this way because I've made living hinges for fun with a single layer and that is best if it's perpendicular. May not matter here. Let me know how it goes

This is the best comment I've seen all day

I’ve set my prints to 300% print speed and I have not seen a single print defect, like I’ve gotten less print defects after increasing the speed

@FirstNameLastName-gh9iw I actually realized after I did this that I forgot to reduce the line width and height, which means it was trying to extrude about 5x the upper limit of how much plastic the hotend can melt per second. That might have created the blobbing. I've done a 6.5min benchy on this printer, which is pretty impressive considering it's a huge printer (400mm^3). I simply botched this setup. Probably more fun for the kids that way 😄 Printing faster does sometimes help. Especially in reducing stringing and oozing.

Almost! You do need longer screws to get through the bottom printed fixture half and lead screw nut, instead of just through the nut. And you separately need screws to fix the top nut to the top fixture half. Then 4 more to hold them together after tightening. So yeah, it's a lot of M3 screws for this thing...

@@ObsessiveEngineering thanks!

Hah! Of all the filming I've done for videos on this channel, that clip is probably my favorite. I captured my genuine astonishment at just how badly Polypropylene can jam your extruder! Thanks for watching!

@@ObsessiveEngineering same here that was incredible. The extruder basically respooled the filament lol

Good to know! I rubbed it pretty hard and you can see that there was still quite a bit of unaltered squares left in the lower right corner where the most laser energy went into the markings. I assumed that it would come off eventually too, but maybe not. I will add this knowledge to my toolbox: cermark + aluminum + diode can work! I haven't spent that much time with lasers, most of my time has been 3D printing and CNC machining. If I were to get another one, I would definitely want to go CO2 so I can do acrylics. But for the price, I can live with the limitations of this machine, and the diode laser still achieves plenty of accuracy and reliability on things it does cut/engrave. Thanks for watching!

@@ObsessiveEngineering Yeah, for the price really can't beat it. Few issues but as you pointed out easy to get around.

You're right that there is additional error introduced by the printing process, on top of model error. It's possible that the error in the model was actually slightly more or slightly less than what I measured. However, I have calibrated that printer pretty rigorously, and I know it prints approx within 0.1-0.2mm of what I design. Even at max printing error, I think that the results I measured are still very favorable for this budget 3d scanner. I also know to scale up to 100.5% when printing with ABS, but I generally don't need model scaling with PLA or PETG. So, you're not wrong, I'm just on top of that, because I built that printer myself and gone to great lengths to figure out it's tolerances. Thanks for watching!

@@ObsessiveEngineering you can use tools like cloud compare to measure a distance on a cloud point.

Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of experience with consumer laser engravers, so I may not be the best person to debate this with you. I will say I'm surprised to see so many inexpensive 40W CO2 lasers out there. But it sounds like you ultimately ended up with a DIY laser machine build, which of course is going to lean cheaper. The Falcon2 required some assembly, but it's a complete machine. I wouldn't call it a DIY machine. It looks like the key differences are (at least compared to the OMTECH k40-based machine): * Falcon2's 22W can cut up to 10mm wood (20mm for 40W). K40 claims only 3mm cutting depth (probably really short depth of focus). I'm not 100% on this point thought * Integrated overhead camera in the Falcon2. * You say you put your laser into a frame, does it include the eye-safe panels? Is it "really" safe & sealed? Is it "really" enclosed so it's easy to vent? * There's a lot of safety features on the Falcon2 Pro -- particularly the door sensor that turns off the laser and pauses it when opened. Also, the e-stop button on the front, and the fire and lens obstruction detection directly on the laser module. * The volume on the Falcon2 is a bit more generous. I'm not trying to bash your system by any means, just pointing out that I believe there is an actual value proposition behind the Falcon2, as a mid-range laser option. You might be right to argue that it's still too expensive, but I'd argue it's not excessively overpriced. I also see plenty of CO2-based machines that cost way more.