An update, I’ve clarified with the guy who prints it and the pricing actually works out that it is the same cost for subsequent prints on different days. The discounted rate applies for objects printed at the same time (literally multiple of the objects on the printing platform). So if anyone is interested (after I get the new version printed/tests done), I would aim to print multiple of them at the same time to reduce costs per piece. Although, I will share the STL files once completed & you could just arrange to get printed by a printer that is more local (or print your own if you have a 3D printer).
@Yuusuf_Sallahuddin_Y
If you have any idea what shipping might cost to US, I am, and I’d think they are probably others interested on this side of the water.
Don’t discount “grandpas” old tools, probably better than what you can by today short of commercial grade stuff. I’ll bet it’s all cast iron, and rigid as you know what. If you add the center jet, I think the others will be less critical as to direction.
Your setup will use more air (maybe a twin aquarium pump?), but the advantage I expect it to provide in an outward ‘wash’ in all directions, keeping smoke staining from streaking toward the main exhaust point this is my big problem cutting and engraving plywood, and think the center jet would clear the kerf, and the 18 will wash away the smoke before it sticks, hence NO taping, untaping.
The newfangled gadget was the printer.
I’ve got a couple of posts that would be good to sticky, if you get a chance, drop me a line on how-to. or at least how to send to you so you can do it. Haven’t had time to have a look at the links you sent yet. Got a ton of stuff going her, and having a hard time getting any of it done.
I’ll get it, eventually.
Scott
@Scott_Marshall
Regarding shipping, I’d have to verify the final weight, but you’d probably be looking at say 200-250g (although could be heavier, just feels like it weighs nothing). Which using auspost calculator, suggests au$15.85 for economy air postage (eta 6 business days). Anywhere up to au$82 (express courier). Standard (eta 5 business days) with tracking would be au$23.72 for up to 500g. So could probably send a couple at once using that method & whoever is on that side of the pond can redistribute locally (probably a lot cheaper that way).
Definitely not discounting grandad’s old tools. They are 1000000% better than anything you can buy today. There is one old hand-drill, weighs about 5kg, body is made of solid metal. Extremely good tool. Probably older than me (i.e. > 32 years). Most of what you can buy today is plastic junk that will break in a few years time. Not built to last for sure.
Actually, if you check the video that I posted on youtube (there is a link on my page or on K40 group in Modifications category) you will see that it does exactly that, dispersing the smoke both directions (left & right) that the camera can see. I assume, but may be wrong, that it is also dispersing front & back too. It does seem to minimise the staining in 1 direction (to the back of machine) & spread out that staining on all sides. So it went from what used to be about 5-10mm of stain at the back, to about 1mm concentric staining around the cut. With higher pressure (more than my weak aquarium pump at least) it would probably clear all the smoke a lot better (as you suggested) & a conical nozzle would be great to focus directly downwards to hit the cut area & cool it, disperse the smoke under the piece too. I think the conical would be great for cutting, whilst the conical is nearly pointless for engraving (as the smoke can’t pass through because it isn’t being cut all the way through). Thus the ring would work better on engraves as you previously mentioned. Awesome idea & we should definitely nut out some ideas for a design using those principles. Next idea would be to have the outlet nozzles somehow adjustable angle to cater for the different focal length lenses. Lol… more work.
I haven’t had much time to work on anything much as regards to the forum stuff yet, too many other things going on & me getting side-tracked (as usual). I’ve decided that in order to work on it, I need to schedule a specific day that has some hours to work solely on it (else I will do what I always do & move onto the newest idea in my head). In regards to stickying it, I don’t think a “standard” user is able to set things to be sticky/pinned to top. But if you post it & put something like “pls sticky” into the title, I assume an admin (HalfNormal or myself) can set it to sticky/pinned. May be wrong, but I could sort it out afterwards. So anything you want stickied, just add something like that to the title & an admin can review it & sort it out.
Yuusuf.
Just thinking, at an angle these nozzles create a focus point. Does that mean that the actual pattern at the surface is different with different lenses set at different heights? The LO approach does not have that problem?
@donkjr Yes it does mean that with different lenses (i.e. with different focal points) & different distances away from the material the focal point of the beams of air would be off. If the LO approach you are referring to is the conical air assist head, then you would be correct in that. I have a few reasons why I don’t like their approach, primary being the size of the LO cone. The one I designed is partially for low-height-profile, as I sometimes work with uneven materials (e.g. shape formed leather). If I had an adjustable z-axis or adjustable lens height it could relieve the issues associated with that. But this is a solution for me for the meantime.
Interesting, are you saying that the LO cone is longer than your shortest focal length? What lens are you using. One for sure advantage of your approach is that it will be easier to align as the cone demands that the beam be very perpendicular to the light path, then again that may be a good thing. The onlyway I could get it aligned exactly in the center of the cones output was to make an alignment fixture.
@donkjr I don’t know for certain as I don’t have the LO Cone, but I just don’t like the way it protrudes down below the lens. I am still using the stock lens & mounts. Sometimes pieces I work on are variable in height of the material (i.e. some parts sitting at 10-20mm higher than the part I want to cut; I don’t cut/engrave on the higher areas but I need to be able to clear them without hitting them). That is another point of the LO head that concerns me, getting it spot on with alignment. Probably not the biggest issue as I have mine aligned fairly close to spot on. You are correct that it is probably a good thing that LO head forces you to do this. Why have it out of alignment if you can align it precisely (giving better cutting/engraving results). Personally I can’t warrant spending the price on the LO air-assist head as shipping to Australia is always ridiculous (although LO may not be too bad, I haven’t checked) & the height issue that I’ve mentioned. I figured somewhere local can 3D print my design for cheaper & I can pick it up in person, making it overall cheaper for me & more suitable for clearance of odd height objects that I tend to work on. I do however believe that the LO head is probably much more suitable for certain purposes (e.g. if you are working with more level height materials), however another member here has had issues with moisture build-up on his lens (requiring him to add extra water traps on his air compressor) due to the air coming into direct contact with the lens. All in all, depends how much money you want to spend, what your purposes are, etc. I’m definitely not of the opinion that the LO head is bad, since a lot of people who have it seem to be producing great results, just it is unsuitable for majority of my cutting/engraving tasks.