Fine Tuning 50W Fiber/EZCad2

[Tim Bateson]

Trying to fine tune my 50W Fiber/EZCad2. Rather than open an old thread:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread....ng-with-EZCad2

Anyone made more progress with the following:
Start TC
Laser Off
End TC
Polygon TC

[Kev Williams]

hey Tim...

Best advice I got is to read the manual--

In case you don't have it, linky to the 2.5 version : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...F4UHdjC0chtkvY

I've done some minimal testing myself and came up with some okay numbers, as I mentioned in the other thread. Because I'm still having overburn issues, around the edges mostly causing burrs and slag, I'm about to try the test procedure in the manual to see if I can fine tune it myself..

In the manual, the pertinent section starts on PDF page 125, (manual itself page 121), at about 2/3 down the 'Start TC' explanations begin... Get your brain in 'chinglish mode', read all that until the bottom of the next page where "now lets take it into practice" starts...

for fun I copied the test section pages below--

I haven't done this particular test myself yet, my testing involved mostly changing numbers and seeing what changes -so I'm curious myself.

Right in the middle of page 128 (124) it explains that all machines are different due to different lasers and scanheads, etc, then gets into more if-needed fine tuning. Just wanted to point out the 'all machines are different' thing which is one of my catchphrases -- whatever your settings or my settings end up being, they won't be the same... basic speed & power settings are okay to share, but no one should use another machine's flying-optics settings as a starting point!

Anyway, maybe you've already done all this, but if not, I hope this helps! I'm hoping it helps with my issues!

NOTE, for this test to work correctly, the uni-directional hatch must be used! Hatch setting should look like this:
testhatch.jpg

page pics:
ez1a.jpgez2a.jpgez3a.jpg

[Bill George]

EZCad is such a pain in the you know what. It takes so much time to figure anything out which should be Easy.... CAD...

[Scott Shepherd]

EZCad is such a pain in the you know what. It takes so much time to figure anything out which should be Easy.... CAD...

Well, when you didn't write the code, it's kind of hard to explain what it does, isn't it? EZCAD is a knock off. Look at some high end lasers, look at the software they are running. It's not EZCAD but you'll notice exactly how much it looks like EZCAD. Maybe find the manual for THAT software, which was written in English, and you might have something. Figure out who got knocked off and find their manual.

[Tim Bateson]

...In case you don't have it, linky to the 2.5 version : https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...F4UHdjC0chtkvY
...

Thanks, I hadn't yet seen this PDF. As a guy, manuals/instructions are usually the last thing I think of looking at.

[Kev Williams]

Ok, so i did the testing last night, started with the suggested settings, and it was as if my machine was used for the PDF drawings! First stab I got the exact results as the PDF, with the lines on the left not touching...

Anyway-- note in their instructions that their suggested settings include StartTC, EndTC and PolygonTC, but doesn't include LaserOffTC? Well, with my machine, I had to substitute LaserOff for EndTC, because it doesn't matter WHAT numbers I put into the EndTC setting, nothing changes. But the LaserOff settings DID change the engraving, exactly as the PDF states to do with EndTC. Not sure what's up with that, but I found it interesting and thought I'd share. It could be the EndTC WILL come into effect with more complicated engraving, but I haven't gotten that far yet.

I was able to dial in the numbers to where the points ever so barely connected to the rectangle on both sides. The final tweaks were based on the lower-left corner of the rectangle, because even when the horizontal lines appeared to just touch the edges of the rectangle, the lower left corner showed a non-engraved gap. Under magnification, it was noticeable that both the start and end points were a snick short, a few adjustments to both start & stop settings closed the gap...

The polygon adjustment went just like the PDF too, wrong numbers resulted in either ever-so-slightly rounded corners on the rectangle, or short, faint tails at the leading or trailing edge of the next line. These things don't necessarily draw simple continuous rectangles, triangles, etc, they draw individual lines with start and end points that are strictly based on these laser-timing settings, which compensate for the speed of the mirrors... Pretty fascinating--

So once dialed in, I test engraved one of my steel bars and found the same old slag I got before -- BUT, because of the tests, I now know for sure what the settings do, and by adjusting the start and end times, I can purposely leave a gap at the connection points, which may help with reducing the concentration of heat at the edges, resulting in less slag!

For the test I used some old (not 'laserable') bright purple trophy aluminum, it worked great- first run (top left) was done at 30% power, 50% was used afterward...
tc.jpg

this was the first test, lots of gap on the left edges
tc1.jpg

several tests later, got a bit of gap on the right edge, and the bottom left. The rectangle runs CCW so the vertical line is short... the corner and edge gaps are about the same...
Check out how the ends of the lines are beveled, I'm assuming this indicates that the mirrors are in motion just as the beam is coming on and shutting off- I couldn't see this with my 10x loupe, but the camera picked it up! Pretty cool
tc2.jpg

top right corner is barely rounded, top left corner after adjusting the polygon, much sharper...
tc3.jpg

These machines just amaze me