That is to say where the spacing has the same percentage increase between steps, rather than the same amount increase between steps.
It will help if you can illustrate why your application needs this. The input boxes can accept some regular expressions, like “contents * 1.5”. Try something like “2^1.5”. Maybe someone can give a better answer in the morning.
The first replies seem to have missed the important part of your post (which is only in the topic, not the body): in material tests.
Spacing the values as the same multiple between steps, e.g. 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600,…, is called logarithmic spacing and is certainly more useful than LightBurn’s current linear spacing, e.g. 100, 200, 300,…, in many real-world scenarios.
I wrote up a whole post about how logarithmic spacing would be extremely helpful in material tests. Alas, I got no traction (or any official response) when last I tried to put forth this suggestion, but I still wholeheartedly support it for obvious mathematical reasons. For reference, here is my now-locked thread from November 2024:
If you’d like, please hop over to the feature suggestions portal and give the existing request a vote:
I would gladly resume my crusade for this obviously useful feature if there’s anyone to crusade with, so why don’t we see if maybe we can get at least enough traction to be noticed this time. 
No, I did not miss that detail. I just question whether or not expressions would work in the material test.
In my experience with diode lasers, I did not see an advantage for exponential steps in the Material test. We usually have approximate values to start with based on experience, which is your most valuable tool working with lasers. I did not see a need for a wide scale test range.
Then I read your posting again. This time I spotted the mention of a galvo laser. With all the possible controls, like frequency, I can see where there would be no experience factor to get you in the ball park.
I also want to commend you on the very thorough writeup.
That’s completely correct, it’s always an advantage to be able to read 
Apologies. I seem to have still been half asleep (or perhaps a bit more than half).
Even if the material test input boxes would allow expressions, I’m rather certain that as they are only the bounds, the spacing within those bounds would be unaffected.
1 Like
if the spacing is 10,20,30,49….70,80,90 note that the increase between the first two steps is a doubling of power, but the increase between the last two is only about 10%. This ils not a useful way to present this information.
Of course not, that is not exponential. That is more like parabolic, or a bell curve.