New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[taggalucci]

Hmmm, perhaps some tests could be devised...

[p1t8ull]

Hmmm, perhaps some tests could be devised...

If anyone has any suggestions for tests or test frames other than the obvious ones, then please bring forward and we'll see what we can do.
Home made scanner test frames full of random points, any form of destruction test, or requests to grab the EMS mirrors with pliers while scanning, will be casually ignored!

Oh Crap!, I hope I haven't let the cat out

No worries Jem, all going to plan at the moment
Seems this LEM is a really good chance to see how the EMS' compare with the CT's, so even in the unlikely event something holds up the projector I'll make sure there's a running set of 7k's there for testing.
Looking forward to this

[taggalucci]

Raster graphics performance is always interesting.

[dsli_jon]

Raster graphics performance is always interesting.

Indeed... and, that's one 'area' that, imo, the CTs (6215s) seem to produce nicer-looking ('smoother') results.. at least vs the EMS 4Ks...

I'd prpopose testing each, side / side, with several-different of the 'standard' test patterns - one good one is known as the 'Aura Tech' one - with the large-circle, inside a box, with an 'x' from corner-to-corner, thru the center, with 'X' and 'Y' drawn-out, designating each-axis.. The other one that's a 'goodie', is the 'interlaced Grid', with the 'RYGB' / circle, in the center...

..try those two, at 'spec'd' scan-speed / angles.... then try the same side / side.. at 150%-scale.. ..then, slowly-past 150%... and see which still has the 'guts' to continue / at-what %, w/o going into 'freak-out' / collapse-mode... The EMS 4Ks just never 'collapse' / shut-down, into a 'static-beam' like the CTs, when being driven too-hard / large...

Very-keen to see how the 7Ks do in that regard, specifically...

cheers, Guys..
j

[Jem]

... then try the same side / side.. at 150%-scale.. ..then, slowly-past 150%... and see which still has the 'guts' to continue / at-what %, w/o going into 'freak-out' / collapse-mode... The EMS 4Ks just never 'collapse' / shut-down, into a 'static-beam' like the CTs, when being driven too-hard / large...

And the person who made the suggestion buys me a new set of CT6215's (or EMS7000's) when they get f*cked up

[dsli_jon]

And the person who made the suggestion buys me a new set of CT6215's (or EMS7000's) when they get...

Haha... I said "CT"s, Jem, not 'DT's...

G'nite..
j

[kitatit]

Indeed... and, that's one 'area' that, imo, the CTs (6215s) seem to produce nicer-looking ('smoother') results.. at least vs the EMS 4Ks...

I'd prpopose testing each, side / side, with several-different of the 'standard' test patterns - one good one is known as the 'Aura Tech' one - with the large-circle, inside a box, with an 'x' from corner-to-corner, thru the center, with 'X' and 'Y' drawn-out, designating each-axis.. The other one that's a 'goodie', is the 'interlaced Grid', with the 'RYGB' / circle, in the center...

..try those two, at 'spec'd' scan-speed / angles.... then try the same side / side.. at 150%-scale.. ..then, slowly-past 150%... and see which still has the 'guts' to continue / at-what %, w/o going into 'freak-out' / collapse-mode... The EMS 4Ks just never 'collapse' / shut-down, into a 'static-beam' like the CTs, when being driven too-hard / large...

Very-keen to see how the 7Ks do in that regard, specifically...

cheers, Guys..
j

Hey guys,

When planters and I asked Tom if they did larger mirrors than the 3.8 and 5mm aperture mirrors he said this;

"The new model EMS 7000*is designed for the 5,3 and 6,8mm mirrors. This design, although faster, cannot be ''overloaded'' as the EMS 4000 can."

I'm not sure if he meant overloaded as in larger mirrors or being pushed to the extreme of scan angle.

It will be interesting to see.

[Jem]

Haha... I said "CT"s, Jem, not 'DT's...

G'nite..
j

Haha... Point taken

[sbk]

Hey guys,

When planters and I asked Tom if they did larger mirrors than the 3.8 and 5mm aperture mirrors he said this;

"The new model EMS 7000*is designed for the 5,3 and 6,8mm mirrors. This design, although faster, cannot be ''overloaded'' as the EMS 4000 can."

I'm not sure if he meant overloaded as in larger mirrors or being pushed to the extreme of scan angle.

It will be interesting to see.

I believe he was rather speaking of overloaded "with oversized mirrors", a reason can be that unlike the 4000, the 7000 uses a monobloc mount and so limits the space between mirrors... Don't know why but it could be due to the big amount of heat generated by the galvos when drived at 60k (EMS4000 mounts doesn't really act as a heat pipe).

That's what Tom said me : a 60K scanner scanning the ILDA test at 60K @8 deg needs 8 times more power than a 30K scanner scanning the ILDA test at 30K @8 deg. Furthermore the 6.8mm mirror has twice the inertia of the 5mm mirror... So a lot of heat generated !

As far as overloading the 7000 with excessive size/speed, mine supported my tests pretty well

[Bradfo69]

This references post #99

I bit the bullet and ordered mine too. Got the two supplies and, the Soft Start as well. Now... to find someone knowledgeable about electronics.......

Not bad. 1 month and 4 days. First dumb question... I ordered 2 supplies, figuring I ordered 2 sets of the Eye Magics but... I still don't know anything more about electronics than I did a month ago. Does one use 1 supply for a set of scanners or, do you use two supplies (one for each amp)? I did a trade deal for one of the sets of Eye Magics so, if I only need one supply, then I can list the other in the general Buy/Sell thread unless somone that bought the EMS 7000's is still searching for a supply and doesn't want a 5 week wait. We'll deal with the whole issue of that fact I have no clue what I'm looking at in this box later! I may need some hand holding on how to hook these up!

[Displaser]

Does one use 1 supply for a set of scanners or, do you use two supplies (one for each amp)?

Brad,

Unless you have a +/- supply (unlikely), you will need a pair of supplies tied together to provide positive and negative 24VDC to the EMS-7000 amps. Each amp will be powered from this pair of power supplies.

[Bradfo69]

That would explain OSLS's offer of $125 for a power supply to accompany the Eye Magics when we bought them. In retrospect, might have been an easier solution.

[Badpip]

This references post #99



Not bad. 1 month and 4 days. First dumb question... I ordered 2 supplies, figuring I ordered 2 sets of the Eye Magics but... I still don't know anything more about electronics than I did a month ago. Does one use 1 supply for a set of scanners or, do you use two supplies (one for each amp)? I did a trade deal for one of the sets of Eye Magics so, if I only need one supply, then I can list the other in the general Buy/Sell thread unless somone that bought the EMS 7000's is still searching for a supply and doesn't want a 5 week wait. We'll deal with the whole issue of that fact I have no clue what I'm looking at in this box later! I may need some hand holding on how to hook these up!

What power supplies did you get? The ones meant for audio amplifiers?

If you got the +/-24V version you only need one supply per scanner set.

/Thomas

[planters]

It's been a couple of months since the group buy and I'm wondering if there has been a review of the performance of these scanners.

[Bradfo69]

What power supplies did you get? The ones meant for audio amplifiers?

If you got the +/-24V version you only need one supply per scanner set.

/Thomas

Yes, I got the ones mentioned earlier in this thread: http://connexelectronic.com/product_...roducts_id/123

Greg said I need two. You're indicating I'm going to be o.k. with one. 'Tis a puzzlement!

[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.

screen 7.jpg

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