New EYEMAGIC Scanners EMS7000

[mixedgas]

I am quite willing to provide a "HOP MAP" of jump times vs position. I will be pleased to add in a FFT of the position output to 512 Khz during a jump. I will verify the calibration constant of the position sensor using optical techniques, and then depend on the position sensor inside the galvo. 3db rolloff is easy.

What I'm proposing is reproducable any where in the world, and while I do have access to LDV at times, I think the position sensor inside the galvo is sufficient for test purposes on PL, once so verified. While it will not give the "factory" constants obtained with a vibrometer and LDV, it will give quite a picture of the response analysis.

I can also do scope shots of "turnaround time" and "Impulse response".

My conditions are simple. Tune your galvo at the factory, put some Hysol C1 white epoxy on the potentiometer bases and adjustment screws to shield me of any accusations of tampering, and point out where the scanner derived position signal is on accessable on the amp board.

I am not a scanner engineer, but I do not buy the argument that only a room full of Lecroy scopes and vibrometers is the only way to test a scanner on a intermediate level.

I have ways of having my trig confirmed. A wise move by any individual running tests.

Steve

[Pangolin]

UNTIL THAT DATE, WE HAVE SHIPPED ONLY BETA VERSIONS OF OUR SCANNERS, TO SELECTED COMPANIES, FOR TESTING AND FEEDBACK. THE SCANNERS WERE SENT WITH THE INSTRUCTION ''NOT FOR SALE''

Convenient excuse Tom but unfortunately not entirely true... You didn't simply ship an evaluation version of scanners to this particular company. Instead you sold it to them! There was no such instruction in the box or anywhere else.

Moreover, the testing was done at the time that the advertisement existed. The advertisement did not have the words "Preliminary" or "Subject to improvement" or anything else.

Moreover, in our numerous private emails, you insisted that "the scanners perform as advertised".

Nevertheless, thanks for the feedback. I'll revise the report based on this new information.

If Pangolin motive was in good faith, THIS ''REPORT'', SHOULD HAVE COME FIRSTLY TO US, before sent out to the public.

Not true again Tom! I offered on numerous occasions to review the scanners and send only you the report! It wasn't until you refused that I had another client buy the scanners and send them to us, and it wasn't until my own tests were called into question that I published the report.

In any event, given what you wrote above, we'll make arrangements to return this particular evaluation system for a newer evaluation system...

Bill

[andyf97]

http://everythinggolf.blogs.heraldtr...r2-600x401.jpg

[LaNeK779]

If you send me a pair of your latest scanners, I'll remove the report (something I have the power to do since it's hosted on our web site)

this doesn't sound too good you know... it rings more like a "do this, or else..." statement to me. At the moment your website is hosting some highly subjective and wierdly phrased personnal views about a product that could or could not be an evaluation copy, which you could have tampered with prior to taking the pictures or not.

Your quest for FACTS is not convincing me, you obviously have your own reasons to be pissed with eyemagic and tom personnaly.

That's how my simple and uneducated mind sees things, filtered through my complete lack of knowledge of more or less anything.

So what i have to ask, is what is the point in all of this?

[andyf97]

Moreover, the testing was done at the time that the advertisement existed. The advertisement did not have the words "Preliminary" or "Subject to improvement" or anything else.

When you buy LD2000, does it say on the box it's got bugs ????

Get of Toms back Mr Benner till you have your own scanners to compare, instead of using this forum as your own personal free support/marketing/tool for slagging people off and promoting your ego.

[Pangolin]

it rings more like a "do this, or else..." statement to me.

I genuinely appreciate the feedback, but t's not really meant so sound like that. It's more like -- if you've got high confidence in your product, here's your chance to send a new evaluation version and prove that they do what you say they do...

Newspapers offer to post a retraction if they've printed a false story. The report isn't false, but since there is indeed new information, I'm happy to revise the report. No problem.

At the moment your website is hosting some highly subjective

Subjective means that it is a matter of opinion. Objective means that if a number of other people were to do the SAME evaluation, they would come to the same conclusion.

Everything in the report is FACT. I'd be happy to ship this scanning system to any third parties and have them repeat the tests and confirm my results. This is an open invitation.

about a product that could or could not be an evaluation copy

It certainly wasn't represented that "this is an evaluation copy" during the time of sale. Nevertheless, we'd be happy to send them back in exchange for a real copy, if that's the representation that is being made.

hich you could have tampered with prior to taking the pictures or not.

In other words, I may or may not have done something?

You can take my word for it that one scanner remains unchanged, and the only thing that happened to the other scanner was disassemble and re-assembly. The reassembled scanner performs exactly like the untouched scanner, so it doesn't seem that this was a factor.

Your quest for FACTS is not convincing me, you obviously have your own reasons to be pissed with eyemagic and tom personnaly.

Well, again, I genuinely appreciate your feedback. It seems some people believe that this is a matter of opinion or a matter of a personal feud between me and Tom. I can see that, and appreciate this viewpoint.

I only hope people can look at the facts. We received this scanning system, we did an evaluation, and it did not live up to the promise. We reported our results. Now we'll wait for a new version and repeat the tests.

That's how my simple and uneducated mind sees things, filtered through my complete lack of knowledge of more or less anything.

Hehe, well I'm sure you're not giving yourself enough credit. And in any event, I appreciate your views.



Bill

[absolom7691]

Tom, can you provide your own tests, yes or no?

If people are going to criticize and say that he doesn't have to, then that is the equivalent of me saying "I have the fastest scanners in the galaxy" and not offering any shred of proof. I am not supporting Bill here, but he published a report. If it is true, then these are not the galvos of the century. If it isn't true, I need someone to show me why. This is a tangible product. Surely someone else can provide some technical feedback. If they can't, then everything they are saying is speculation.

Why does Bill need a marketable scanner before he is allowed to criticize the EMS7000 scanners???? This is like saying that no one can criticize Laserworld unless they market their own projector. For the record, everyone has been on the "shit on Laserworld" bandwagon. Why is that? It is because everyone who tested Laserworld projectors found that they didn't meet specs. When Laserworld posted on here to try and defend, they gave the same lame excuses that Tom is giving. Bill tested these galvos and is asking to have someone else test, or to be sent a different set to test.

People all seem to think that Bill is trying to slam EMS so that he can market his scanners. Why, then, does Bill not slam CT, or GSI or Sonima???? They will all be a competitor at that point. It doesn't add up.

Bill has provided data. Until Tom provides his own, this is how I will view these scanners.

[Pangolin]

I am not supporting Bill here, but he published a report. If it is true, then these are not the galvos of the century. If it isn't true, I need someone to show me why.

The report is FACT based on the scanners I received. Nothing in the report can be dis-proven by anyone, and I invite any third parties to do their own examination of these scanners.

In any event, there is indeed a third possibility, which is that Tom's newer scanners are better. I would not question the possibility that things get better with time.

I'll be happy to remove/revise the report at such a time as I receive newer scanners.

Why does Bill need a marketable scanner before he is allowed to criticize the EMS7000 scanners????

CORRECT. Moreover I really want to focus the discussion as it relates to me. I am not criticizing the scanners per se. I am comparing them with the advertisement.

As I have said repeatedly, had the advertisement taken a more moderate tone, and contained nothing but facts, you wouldn't even see so much as a single post from me about this topic.

People all seem to think that Bill is trying to slam EMS so that he can market his scanners. Why, then, does Bill not slam CT, or GSI or Sonima???? It doesn't add up.

Correct!! This should not be viewed as "Bill against Tom". This should be viewed as "Bill upset when misrepresentations are made".

As proof, I will once again point out this discussion:
http://www.laserfx.com/Backstage.Las...LFX99scan.html

At the 1999 LaserFX meeting, Cambridge stated that they had a 60K scanner. I doubted it... I asked them for specifications which (unlike Tom) they provided. BUT, their specifications showed that the 6210 was actually *slower* than a 6800, so I got pissed... Cambridge was pushed to provide answers -- why is it that you believe the 6210 is a faster scanner when it actually has worst specs than the 6800? They never actually answered this question, so I remained pissed. Not only me, but many other people also doubted the 6210 as a result, and their adoption was slowed for years. The lesson: TELL PEOPLE WHY THEY ARE FASTER!!!

In the case of the 6210, it was finally revealed that the reason why Cambridge believed that it was a faster scanner was because the mirror was made thicker (1mm instead of 0.82mm). Indeed this makes a difference in resonances (remember that this is one of the four criteria for "speed" I mentioned in the past and in my report), but torque to inertia ratio actually went down and all other parameters remained the same. It wasn't until years later when the 6210 design was changed (now called the 6210H) and now indeed it is a faster scanner -- quite possibly the fastest on earth under some circumstances... But you don't see Cambridge claiming "hey we have the fastest on earth".

If these scanners do indeed live up to the advertisements, then it's great news for the industry. No doubt about it! But if it doesn't, then all I'd reasonably ask is that the advertisement be changed.

Bill

[White-Light]

When you buy LD2000, does it say on the box it's got bugs ????

Get of Toms back Mr Benner till you have your own scanners to compare, instead of using this forum as your own personal free support/marketing/tool for slagging people off and promoting your ego.

Pot and kettle Andy?

Is this the 3rd or 4th thread you've trawled to make anti-Pangolin attacks in the last few days. Not just the Eyemagic one.

Not even involved in the debate 1/2 the time just posting provocative pictures.

At least the other people in this and the other threads are involved in active discussion of the topics.

[andyf97]

Pot and kettle Andy?

Is this the 3rd or 4th thread you've trawled to make anti-Pangolin attacks in the last few days. Not just the Eyemagic one.

Not even involved in the debate 1/2 the time just posting provocative pictures.

eg. from the sales thread:



Really?

That was a nice speech about honesty and integrity....

..and as you said, you've been testing Beyond 2.0 to provide your honest opinion...

Interesting since my information is you were refused a licence.

That being the case, just how did you test?

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

HAHAHA, refused a licence, I had beyond for a long time, so much to your knowledge, I also have all variants of pheonix and others software for evaluation. I also have 25 qm2000 and 40+ Lasers.. Not that it is anything to do with you.

I could go thru many posts where you are going out of your way to ass kiss pangolin but no need, its more funny to read them.

Its always funny to see jesters running around the king.

I cannot stop laughing at what you wrote.