New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[Displaser]

Brad,

I didn't know what brand supply that you purchased - as I understand it, the one you purchased had the option for +/- from the same supply, so you are likely in good shape.

If you were using the more commonly available switcher supplies, like Mean Well, you would likely need a pair to provide both feeds.

Greg

[Bradfo69]

Thanks! I guess to use a proper pun for the thread, ... "It's all (still) Greek to me!"

[LaNeK779]

Thanks! I guess to use a proper pun for the thread, ... "It's all (still) Greek to me!"

why don't you ask a greek guy then??
i'm with displaser and badpip on this one. You need one of these per scanner pair you have

[planters]

I've been eagerly waiting for a review of these scanners. Has anyone actually set one of these up and tested/compared it? Once the power supply has been selected these are supposed to be reasonably simple drop in upgrades.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for an exhaustive work thru, it just seems strangely silent after the initial intensity.

[Solarfire]

I've been eagerly waiting for a review of these scanners. Has anyone actually set one of these up and tested/compared it? Once the power supply has been selected these are supposed to be reasonably simple drop in upgrades.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for an exhaustive work thru, it just seems strangely silent after the initial intensity.

Still waiting on my PSUs, well at least they're @ customs now...

[Pangolin]

I did a motion study to visualise it for myself and here are some pics. Is this an accurate representation of what is going on?

Your motion study is a bit off, that's for sure. Since I'm going to be leaving the office tomorrow for the rest of the month, I don't have time to mock up your specific scenario. However, below you will see what *we* do in SolidWorks, and the degree of detail we get into when analyzing this stuff.



Here you'll see a mirror set we came up with for a larger aperture system. The point of me attaching this picture is just to show what is done, how it is done, and what you can see as a result. We do this when we are designing a mirror set.

With this having been said, I'd like you to take a look at this link:
http://www.camtech.com/images/produc...ror%20diag.pdf

It shows you the mirrors that come with Cambridge model 6800, 6210 and 6215 scanners. This is their standard mirror set for projecting a 3mm beam through +/-60 optical degrees on both X and Y axis.

Now I'd like you to consider the size of Tom's mirrors (5.34mm wide by 12.11mm long), which are only 0.26mm wider than the Cambridge Y mirror, and not even as long as a Cambridge mirror... So the question is -- how is Tom proposing that a 3.8mm beam can be projected through mirrors that are only 0.26mm wider than a Cambridge mirror made for 3mm? Is it new math? Similarly, you'll note that Tom's mirror isn't even as wide as a Cambridge X mirror...

But wait there's more! In the case of Cambridge, they can get away with using a mirror that is only 5.08mm wide because their X-Y mount has a "15 degree set-back". If you're not familiar with this, take a look at this drawing. You will see that the X scanner has an angle with respect the Y mirror. (The angle is not specified, but you can trust me -- in most cases it is 15 degrees.)

http://www.camtech.com/images/produc...ce_D03793E.pdf

Tom's mount (and all of the Chinese I've ever seen) doesn't have a set back at all. Therefore the tangential error creeps up on Tom (and also all of the Chinese scanners) much faster than it would on a Cambridge mirror. Bottom line -- without a set-back, Tom's mirror can't even be used to reliably project a 3mm beam through +/-30 vertical degrees, let alone a 3.8mm beam.

Right now I don't have time to mock up Tom's mirror set in SolidWorks and show you guys what it really does. But it's certainly way less than +/-60 degrees, that's for sure!

Best regards,

William Benner

[logsquared]

I had wondered about the mirror size vs beam dia. as well.

cos 45 X 5.3mm = 3.747mm

cos 45 X 6.8mm = 4.808mm

So even at 0 deg scan angle a 3.8 and 5mm beam would spill.

I don't see anywhere on the specs that state the beam diameter vs. scan angle. Is it assumed that the mirrors should accommodate the beam at the motors mechanical angle limit?

[Solarfire]

That sucks!
I explicitly asked Tom if the 3.8mm aperture applied @ the rated scan angle of ± 30°. After doing the math a max aperture of approximately 2.2mm @ the rated scan angle of ± 30° is more the case.

[kecked]

I am soooo happy I went with 6215's. You get what you pay for. Now if only I could afford opsl..................

[Bradfo69]

Best regards,

William Benner

PS: I realize that there are many participants here who might not know who I am. For example Kit, with whom I've only just started interacting. If you're curious, you can go to Google and type "William R. Benner, Jr.". When I do the experiment I find that nearly every single link on the first 10 pages is related to me. You'll find that I have 14 patents, many related to optical scanning technologies.

Yes, but....

The mythical Pangolin scanners we've been *patiently* waiting for have yet to surface. Geez... with all that "free time" on your hands and everything... you'd THINK a set of world class scanners would be a simple order... LOL