I split the following question from the thread on raising membership dues:
Both of our laser beds are 24"x36". We could not fit a 40" board on either laser bed.
I believe the Lasersaur is 610 by 1220 cm. So it should handle 24 by 48 inch parts.
1 Like
That is correct, 2’x4’ on the Lasersaur as opposed to 2’x3’ on the fullspectrum laser.
Depending on how detailed your cuts are etc., it’s possible the CNC router (Multicam) would do what you want. Just have to keep the size of the bit in mind in regard to inside corners and distance between cuts.
1 Like
That may be the bed size, but is that also the cut area? I vaguely recall that our Lasersaur cut area is smaller than our bed size.
From the manual for the lasersaur it says its ‘work area’ is 24"x48", which I would presume to mean its cutting area.
As always, it is best for these types of questions to look at the manual. Most of which are available online with a google search.
That would be the generic manual that comes from the people who designed the Lasersaur? My understanding–and I may be incorrect about this–is that we modified the plans on this particular specification.
Richard, both the manual AND the class I took with Luke say the machine can cut 24x48.
Frankly, if it can’t do a larger piece then the other machine, why would we have wasted the money on it… It certainly has no other advantages, and LOTS of disadvantages.
My understanding is the primary reason for the second laser is we needed a second laser. The FS laser was booked all the time and breaking down a lot under the strain. Laser Committee bounced around several ideas for a solution, before deciding on Lasersaur. If it has any expanded capabilities beyond FS, that’s icing on the cake.
A second commercial laser would have been more cost effective given all of the lasersaur’s problems.
Its only advantage is its ability to deal with larger material.
Oi vey…here we go again! Get a room!!!
2 Likes
The Lasersaur has a cutting area of 24" by 48" and the actual bed size is a bit larger than that.
That’s a bold statement coming from someone that as far as I know has never spent a single minute fixing the Full Spectrum Laser machine. The laser committee has spent over $1,000 thus far just keeping the auto focus switches working. That’s not at all what I’d call cost effective.
It is based on a video you posted that spent 45+ minutes going through the problems with the design.
Maybe I missed it but the video doesn’t discuss cost effectiveness, it discusses design flaws which we’re taking into consideration and trying to improve upon. If it would be helpful I can do a 45 minute lecture on what sucks about the Full Spectrum Laser machine.
It’s over $2,000 that the laser committee has spent keeping the auto focus working. William corrected me in the laser committee hangout. I hadn’t realized how much money we’ve shoveled into the Full Spectrum Laser machine. Again, not what I’d call cost effective.
In case you missed the hint in my previous post I’ll spell it out. You have an opinion on almost everything at the makerspace. Most of them don’t line up with reality. Either you’re grossly misinformed or you’re just trolling. I’m guessing trolling because you seem like a smart guy. Either way what you say matters as much as what you don’t say. Consider using your intellect for greater things?
Sorry you feel that way, but we clearly have a different view of what reality is. You also seemto have misunderstood my original statement, which was that if Richard was correct that your lasersaur only had the same capacity as the FSL then it wasnt a cost effective option. A statement I would gladly discuss in detail with you if you want and if you can discuss the lasersaur unemotionally.