I have been pondering better nozzle designs as part of my monocle project and came up with a substantially different design concept than this, but did include an attempt at laminar flow in my concept (no models yet to share).
I don’t have a resin printer so this particular nozzle probably isn’t the one for me; to me it’s more that it validates that it’s worth continuing to think about my different design for different constraints.
Interesting. I wouldn’t have thought that laminar vs turbulent flow would make that much of a difference.
From a k40 perspective I would be hesitant to to add a nonmetal nozzle (at least one with that much material) since it’s easy to get a non perpendicular beam coming through the lens with the cheap optic mount on the K40. This could then be a fire hazard if your alignment isn’t spot on.
Unfortunately there is a lot of diversity in the perspectives of considering air assist for lasers. It seems the type of material that is being used has the most influence followed by the pluses and minuses of the air stream, such as origination, angle and PSI. I have also seen arguments of using/not using air assist through the nozzle because it can cause contamination of the lens since it is causing a venturi effect. Of course there are lots of papers written on the subject each having its own merits.
I’ve seen this reasoning before as well. Not sure it’s really a real effect though. With the air being introduced perpendicular under lens it’s going to be, at least initially, turbulent which should cause a bit of an over pressure. The venturi effect should only be prominent under somewhat smooth or laminar flow.
What I saw was blamed on condensation so I wanted to concentrate airflow away from the lens and laminar flow seemed a likely part of the solution. I didn’t think it was due to venturi effect but definitely have seen complaints about air assist being associated with lens contamination.