400x400mm which results in 350x350mm usable which in reality, due to the limitations of the machine, results in X-350 x Y-320 (if I remember correctly)
I know that some of my texts are long and… probably the translation is not the best. (This is an excuse not to mention that some of you read what I wrote earlier diagonally)
I’m joking!!!
What I intend to use the table for is essentially this:
What about using ‘Tabs’…in the settings? If they are placed correctly it should prevent Lifting, Flying away etc.
The material could be secured around the perimeter with ‘Masking tape’ which is low cost and easy to remove.
The tabs could then be cut using no air assist…or with a sharp modeling knife.
This is a smart approach. Smart because I also remembered and tried but it didn’t work 100%
In the case of thin material, this will work in most cases, but you need to “guess” where the material will lift to place a “tab” there. Otherwise, if the material lifts more than 2mm (height between the UV protection and the material), the protection touches the lifted material and either drags the entire material or, if the material is fixed, tears or damages the material in some way. That’s why I want these types of materials (very thin and very light) to remain “attached” to the honeycomb. (maybe with some “kind of vacuum”)
In the case of K-line, which is a “thick” material (5 to 6 mm currently), the problem is different. In addition to the issue of the height of the protection to the material, it continues to be a problem that in this case is even worse because to try to locate the center of focus in the middle of the thickness of the material I have to reduce the distance of the protection to the material from 2mm to about 0.5mm. . I have already come to the conclusion that my machine is not suitable for this type of thickness and I am just trying to find a workaround or some kind of miracle that results in an acceptable cut.
But going back to the issue of tabs in K-line, I believe it works better because it won’t lift like thin and light material.
In the file I attached somewhere (probably in the other topic) you can see that there are tabs in the sub layer. The idea is to make the complete cut (without tabs) on one side, turn the material over and make the cut with tabs again. This way I could have much thinner tabs (in terms of thickness) than tabs with the same thickness as the material.
Thank you very much for the approach, it is not new to me but it allows me to share the result of the experience I obtained.
Thanks Kuth the issue is much clearer now!
It does seem like the machine type is a problem for this application. If it is a profitable aplication and long term, it would save a lot of time and materials to change machine and you would still be able to do the work that the current machine can do. You already know this of course!
If it were me! I would save up the difference in price between what I want and the selling price of what I have…and do alternative work in the meantime.
A quick fix or workaround still leaves you at a disadvantage…in the long term.
It will still be interesting to think of this problem and see if a solution can be found.
Yes, I completely agree.
I will have to understand how far I can go with the laser machine and limit myself to that, but exploring the limitations as much as possible.