Author: Ed

After tweaking the OMTech laser’s axis scale calibration, it seemed like a good idea to see whether the axes run perpendicular to each other:

A carpenter’s framing square isn’t the most precise instrument, but the pair in my collection agree on their right-angularity to within my ability to measure the difference.

Aligning the short arm with the Y axis showed the X axis was off by 1.2 mm in 21 inches = 530 mm, an angle of 0.13°, which is just about as good as it’s ever going to be.

The honeycomb frame is definitely not a precisely aligned unit, but the front edge is parallel to the X axis within an astonishing 0.03°, measured along the rear edge of the long arm pushed against the front of the frame. The aluminum frame has a distinct outward bow in the middle averaged out by the long arm.

Unfortunately, the honeycomb frame on the right side is nowhere near that nice. While I had the long scale aligned with the X axis travel, I sleazed a smaller square up against it:

It’s as bad as it looks:

The scale departs from the black square’s arm by 4 mm over 260 mm, for a 0.88° misalignment.

I think the honeycomb frame is, at best, a parallelogram (and likely a trapezoid), and each side is also bowed by a few millimeters along its length, so any misalignment will depend on where you stand and which way you look.

In all fairness, it was never intended as an alignment fixture and nobody really cares about angular misalignment as long as the puppy portrait comes out pretty much in the middle of the coaster.

Yes, yes I am.

It’s easy enough to make an alignment fixture:

The cut along the left edge is, by definition, parallel to the Y axis, so the left edge of the larger slice serves to align flat things to be cut and hold them in place:

The upper sheet (a simple chipboard rectangle) sits perpendicular (set with the short square) to the edge, held to the honeycomb with magnets, and kept in alignment with two adjustable stops snugged against it. A few smaller magnets can hold the sheet flat against the honeycomb as needed.

The sliver cut off the MDF is 7.85 mm at the top and 9.70 mm at the bottom, for an angle of 0.53° over its 210 mm length, a bit less than the angle measured above. It now lives in the tooling pile against future need.

Laying out my longest engraved scale on the honeycomb:

The zero-th step aligns the scale with the axis travel: slide one end of the scale to put the dot on the edge, jog to the other end, slide to put the dot on the edge, iterate until the dot is the same brightness on both ends.

The scale lines are a tidy 0.2 mm wide, the red laser dot might be 0.4 (it’s rectangular-ish), and a jog increment of 0.2 mm works well. I can manually align (pronounced “slide”) the scale on the honeycomb to center the dot within a line, whereupon moving the head a known distance to the other end of the scale and counting-while-jogging a few steps until the dot drops into the proper line gives the offset from the correct distance.

Jogging 590 mm along the X axis produced 589.8 mm of actual travel (one jog step short of the line 590 mm from the start), an error of -340 ppm.

Jogging 495 mm along the Y axis travels 494.4 mm, an error of 1212 ppm. That’s considerably more than I expected and required a few iterations until I believed it.

Both axes use steppers with 20 tooth pulleys and 3 mm pitch belts, so the laser head moves 60 mm per motor revolution. The stepper drivers are configured for 5000 steps/rev, so the axes should have a step length of 12 µm = 60 mm / 5000 step. Both axes arrived with Step Length values set to weird numbers very close to 12 µm, but, after a quick check showed incorrect travel distances, I reset them to 12 µm before making real measurements.

LightBurn provides access to the Ruida controller’s “Vendor Settings” (after a warning to not mess things up) and allows you to change them:

The values shown above come from multiplying 12 µm by the ratio of the actual to the intended distance:

• 11.9959 = 12 × 589.8 / 590
• 11.9855 = 12 × 494.4 / 495

Repeating the tests with those slightly smaller step sizes produces motions that are spot on to within my ability to measure them.

Neither of those changes was large enough to affect the outcome of cutting the Tek Circuit Computer decks, which are much smaller than the full extent of the axes and thus see much smaller errors.