Good Evening, I wondered if any Atomstack users could help me with a data cable/lead problem, I have an Atomstack A12 Pro and Acer laptop which has Lightburn Installed. My problem is that the usb data lead from laptop to laser is far too short. Upon purchasing a 3 meter lead/cable the laptop refused to transfer the data across the cable to my atomstack A12 Pro Laser. Obviously the seller had no idea. Photo’s of the current lead are attached,
It’s just an USB A to C cable and yours should work too.
Before you buy another one, did you check that you have correct port for the machine selected (COM3 most likely)? Lightburn doesn’t detect the machine if it is turned on after you launch the program, you have to manually select the comm port.
Here’s the cable you need. They come in 6, 10, and 15 foot. Its a USB A to USB C cable. And the gentleman above is correct. If the shorter cable doesn’t work you are doing something wrong and a longer cable will not fix the issue.
The max length specification for a USB cable between 2 devices is 15 feet. You can extend this range with a powered hub. Somebody got lucky.
A 2-pack for $7 is no better than those cables supplied with the lasers. A better choice is a USB cable that is shielded and has a noise suppresion ferrite on it.
If you did not use a quality USB cable (see #2 above), then the longer cable is likely your problem. Cables are wires and longer wires make better antennas.
That’s incorrect. The maximum length depends on USB type (and is mainly defined to ensure the transfer speed stays as specified and best possible signal quality and speed rather than physical maximum the data can travel):
USB Version
Max Length (Standard Cable)
Max Length (Active Extension Cable)
USB 2.0
5 meters (16.4 feet)
Up to 30 meters (98 feet)
USB 3.0
3 meters (9.8 feet)
Up to 18 meters (59 feet)
USB 3.1
3 meters (9.8 feet)
Up to 18 meters (59 feet)
USB 3.2
0.8 meter (2.6 feet)
Up to 3 meters (9.8 feet)
USB4
0.8 meter (2.6 feet)
Up to 3 meters (9.8 feet)
High quality cables reduce the signal loss and interference that is the reason for the maximum length specification.
I am pretty sure the controllers are USB 2.0, so that is what I based my recommendation on.
Where did you get “Up to 30 meters (98 feet)” from? I did find this for a fiber version…
Tripp Lite Long Distance USB-A to USB-C Cable, 98 Feet / 30 Meters, 10 Gbps Data, Charging , Fiber Active Cable, Supports only USB 3.2 Gen 2, Male-to-Male
USB 3 ports are default nowadays, neither of us know what type of port person using the cable has. USB standard is backwards compatible and you can use any common USB cable on any type of USB connector. If the port is lower standard than the cable is capable of handling, it just downgrades to the lower standard, it doesn’t stop working. It’s no different from ethernet cables and connections, you can happily use CAT6 cable on CAT5 connection, you just aren’t getting CAT6 performance out of it.
Well, you can make assumptions what the person has, but even if you do, your recommendation was wrong because the maximum lengths are defined to guarantee the speed and signal quality as per the standard, not the maximum distance the signal can travel. The speed is irrelevant in the connection because there is no megabytes of data transferred between the computer and laser, only issue there can be is the signal quality which can be mitigated with a high quality cable. Of course, there is a limit how far you can stretch the cable without active cables or hubs, but anything under 10 metres with quality cable isn’t a problem unless you need the maximum bandwidth and signal quality.
For some engraving jobs, “megabytes” will be on the low side.
One assumption that has proven true, over and over again, is that the laser controller’s USB hardware is borderline inadequate, driven by relentless cost optimization.
In addition, the USB standards were never intended to cope with low-budget PCBs switching high-current lasers using MOSFET drivers and marginal power supplies.
Mash that together with the cheapest possible USB cable and you get all the USB-related problems washing ashore around here.
Maximum lengths were determined in ideal laboratory conditions.
Speed is relevant. that is why as the speed goes up, the max length goes down.
I am just going to say it: This is way wrong. Data transmission to the laser is digital, or square waves, at typically 115,200 Baud. Research what the bandwidth for square waves should be.
Tell that to the late model MAC users that have USB-C connectors on their computers. The normal solution is to use a hub and USB-A connectors in the middle to force the MAC do downshift from USB 3.0 to USB 2.0 for the laser.
You are doing a disservice to uneducated users with these half-truths created by A.I. means. I do not normally do this, but I am going to illustrate where I am coming from…
USAF Intercept Radar Technician
5 years Classroom Instructor for Electronics
25 years Industrial Electronics Technician.
25 years Computer Programmer, PC’s and AS-400
20 years Web Applications Developer
Amateur Radio Extra Class License
@ednisley covered the other relevant points, so I believe this Thread has been exhausted and should be closed. We should be arguing about how to help other users, not about what electrical standards apply to USB cable.
The total amount of data transferred is not related to the amount of data transferred per second. If you can provide source that proves that the data transferred per second exceeds 480Mb (USB 2 maximum), then I am more than willing to admit I am wrong.
A) it’s still an assumption and b) what’s the relevance here?
What’s the relevance?
Well, isn’t that true with everything? Skimp on quality and you have problems. Use quality somewhere along the way and there are fewer problems and the cause becomes easier to find.
How else could they? What’s the relevance here? A setup with high quality components in the real world will still be able to reach them.
Stating the obvious, what’s your point?
You understand that that translates to 6.5Mb per second, USB 2 maximum transfer speed is 480Mb/s, so you just proved my point that the speed is irrelevant (relatively speaking to the capability of the USB 2 transfer speeds). And we are talking about the actual amount of data being transferred every second, not the theoretical amount that can be transferred.
Are you now saying that the standards and technical specifications and actual facts how the technology operates is wrong?
WOW! That’s way out of line. Resorting to ad hominem is always so pathetic. Maybe you should read the standards rather than make unwarranted accusations.
Yes we should, and providing misleading information as you did in your original response to the topic doesn’t help at all.
