Pangolin ScannerMax

[Pangolin]

Faster speeds mean that you can scan wider at a given speed.

I think the big deal with faster scanners, as planters has already said, is the ability to scan the existing patterns larger.

Yes, and there are a few aspects to this. One aspect is called "power limiting", where the scanner amp must reduce current to the scanner in order to prevent overheating and eventually demagnetizing.

Most people reading this will recognize the formula for Power -- "eye squared are" (I^2 * R). Our scanners have coil resistance anywhere between 1/3 and 1/5 of conventional scanners serving this market, so it means the heat inside our scanners is 1/3 to 1/5 that of others. Because of this, the amp won't need to limit the current going to the scanner.

Playing along with Norty's and Chad's comment is what I call the "square law". Heat inside a scanner is proportional to the SQUARE of size. This means that if you want to scan twice as wide, you'll generate four times the heat! This is why scanner amps must limit the RMS current delivered to the scanner.

[Pangolin]

Patent pending on the datasheet is hype to make stupid people believe these are totally new

No, the words Patent Pending on a datasheet are intended to allow potential competitors to know that they should not copy the novel aspects of a design! Our writeup provides, in detail, a full description of all conventional galvanometers, as well as a full description of our own. So far we have five pending patents on this new scanner design.

(By the way, some of you may have heard of the Ronco Showtime Rotisserie and Grill. This simple-looking oven has so many unique features, it was eventually granted 21 patents!)

[Pangolin]

Now, about performance, the new ScannerMax promises 100usec small step and 500usec full step times (you can find this in their brochure). Our scanners deliver just the same.

One thing about the specs on our datasheet. In many cases, we are seeing significantly better performance than what we are advertising.

For example, our coil resistance is less than 1 ohm, Our thermal conductivity is nearly double what we are showing. We routinely test with 50% higher than the max current we spec on the datasheet.

And there are (unfortunately) a lot of ways to specify and test step times. We test from the input of the command signal until the mirror has come to a complete rest. I suppose others test from 10% to 90% of mirror motion (as if it were a digital signal). And being a skeptical guy I wouldn't believe anything written or stated anyway, and would want to verify everything for myself. I encourage everyone here to do the same!

[Pangolin]

But I guess, at least, it does 'prove' these aren't "ready by PhoWest"..

Who said what would be ready by when, and for whom? The only thing we ever said (at SELEM, and generally not since) is that we had booked a tradeshow booth at Photonics West, and it would be awfully embarrassing if we had the booth but nothing to show. Well, clearly we had something to show, along with a complete datasheet (more than I can say for some companies) and a web site.

then-again, I'm quite certain if my meager-Co. had P's 'wallet' / staff-count behind-it, such would not be the case...

I'm always amused when I read that people can run Pangolin better than we're running it... It seems few CEOs can boast double the sales in two years and a whole host of new products. How about if you apply for a job as Apple's CEO, Jon?

..as for 'me / my household', we're quite happy with an arsenal of 6215s, EMS 7Ks (..stoked to hear of the 7.1s, cool! and 4Ks..

Right. Or shall I say Egg-zactly! These scanners aren't for people who are satisfied with the current state of the art, but rather for people who are absolutely dissatisfied with what's out there now. With that in mind, we'll see to it that you're among the last of people to acquire them...

Still, will be keen to give these lil' 6215-cloneish-lookin pups

One thing that amazes me is that people have only looked for similarities. As I mentioned in a previous post, we're making a write-up on current galvanometer technology and that of ours. So far we're up to 44 pages, and we haven't yet gotten to the shape of the mirrors (yep, that's different), the X-Y mounting scheme (yep, even though the poor-quality iPhone photo showed a vague similarity with the 6215 mount, the way we do it is different too) or the bearing preload which is also different. Once the write-up is complete, then it will become obvious that these scanners have almost nothing in common with conventional galvo construction.

lo and beho-busted..

Perhaps if you spent less time trying to beho-bust things and more time asking questions, you'd actually learn something!

In the mean time, anyone looking for differences can certainly find them -- even in the crappy photos shown so far. As I look at these crappy photos, the differences are obvious in both the scanners, the mount, and yes even the amps (although everyone has, so far, only talked about the similarities)...

[Pangolin]

Hi folks,

I am still in the San Francisco area after Photonics West. I don't have much time to respond, and also only get to PL on rare occasions these days, but I have responded to a few posts above.

By the way, we've setup a forum for the ScannerMAX scanners, and it can be found here: http://pangolin.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24

At this point, if you want to come directly to the source, and forego any speculation we'll be happy to answer any questions you have on that forum.

Best regards,

William Benner

[planters]

Bill,

So, I see you do get a little down time now and again.

I don't doubt your engineer considered the mass of the mirror and that as a small component of the rotational mass the effect of reducing outboard inertia may prove to be "not worth the effort", But lightening the mirror in the way I describe will not induce resonances that were not present in the monolithic design. The bending occurs at the hub and that is one of the reasons that support your reinforcement of this region of the mirror. With your relatively small mirrors the benefit of the weight reduction would be to compensate for the off axis movement of the mirror's mass when a thicker mirror is used.The mirrors I am working on are the large 14mm wide slow scan mirrors for the 9mm aperture Eye Magic 4000's. With these mirrors the mass is not trivial. My approach is very similar to the complex engendered mirrors for industrial scanners which are often fabricated from SiC and pressed to give a centrally rigid and peripherally light weight structure. The trapezoid cross section I suggest, although less ambitious, is a lot less complex than a ribbed design. I'll keep you posted.

I am in the market for some improved scanners and so I have spoken to a distributor of Eye Magic and Cambridge models who states the sales have dried up in anticipation of the release of these new "super scanners" from Pangolin.

I really doubt that this could be the case. What I have seen from people who complain about sales is that the reason why people can't sell something is because they're bad salespeople in the first place! But there's an easy fix for that. There are sales training companies all around the world who teach people how to sell.

Sorry, Bill but I do not doubt this. This is why I have waited to upgrade. Think about it. Without pricing and availability, but with the anticipated release right around the corner and in your own words, "by Photonics West" why not hold off and in order to save the opportunity to upgrade to the ScannerMax scanners. And, the ad hominem? Come on. This is the same sales company that has been around for years. They didn't just now become "bad salespeople".

Hire me? Hmm... I am coming down to Florida at the end of this month to visit family I guess I could stop by... But seriously, I still would like a tour of the skunk works if and when that's possible.

In any case, thanks for responding.


P.S. Do you have a release date and price These are the two burning questions that are on everyone's mind.

[ImageLight]

Oohhh ouch... Been called to the office and Spanked

[dsli_jon]

Heya Bill! Good to hear from ya..

Who said what would be ready by when, and for whom?..

Oh, I merely went by what the 'crowd' of people following these was saying was-said, that's why I 'questioned-myself' ("is that what was said?") etc, etc.. It would only seem a 'fair volley', considering the arse-sheering Tom from EMS was given, here, about 'the deliverable being different from the promise', even-if people were only-initially concerned with the 'promise' of availability to check-out / test, etc. I guess I was mis-guided as to what 'the promise' was, my bad..

I'm always amused when I read that people can run Pangolin better than we're running it...

Woah, woah, there Cap'n - you wholly mis-read what I was saying.. I said *MY* meager little Co. would-have little trouble 'being behind' if it had your Co's 'wallet' (resources / staff / engineers, etc..) to get things done - comment had nothing to-do with with 'running pangolin', ya missed on that one..

How about if you apply for a job as Apple's CEO, Jon?

I might if I could see over the receptionists' desk!

With that in mind, we'll see to it that you're among the last of people to acquire them...

Ouch! Well, you know I always 'measure twice, cut once', so we'd probably-not push to be among the first in the 'shopping line', anyway... We'll prefer to 'give these some time to breathe' / glean feedback from others in the industry, etc, because as you say, for what we do, the 'current state' seems to be fine - we've never, ie: 'not-been paid because of scanner flicker', etc.. Does this mean that we'd not like to 'beta-test' / 'give 'em a spank', as I teased? Of course not, especially with the largest-aperture mirrors, and/or with 5mm mirs, and feeding them some of the most-grueling frames we've had to deal with, etc, and 'see how they do', compared to the 'current-state'. But, it sounds like - out of 'punishment' for posting a pic of the CT-amp (?) we'll not get that chance.. Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait till we can buy a pair..... if we're allowed-to.

Perhaps if you spent less time trying to beho-bust things and more time asking questions, you'd actually learn something!

I'm sure you're right, but it didn't take long to snap / post that pic of the amp, and that was really more about 'proving my recollection', since I went and posted-about it looking identical to the 6215 dual..

..and yes even the amps...

Hmm, so, besides the 2x resistor-mods on the back.. You're not saying these *are* the 'new amps', are you? I would really-find that puzzling..

Bill, you've got to-expect that this community, in-particular, would be rather tenacious about any 'availability and performance-forecasts' for these, after we all watched the 'Bill beats-up Tom' show.. not that you didn't have good / valid points / food for thought, etc, but the way it was 'handled' simply felt like 'bad form' to a lot of people, especially since the best-way to 'trounce competition' would simply be to let the products' performance 'speak for themselves'. So, yeah, many here are gonna 'whip their loupes out', on these / the 'promise vs deliverable', just like was-done to the EMS 7K's. And, as was correctly-stated, no one's suggesting 'conspiracy', etc, just that it would-seem these are 'not yet as-ready for prime-time', as many here believed / hoped / thought, etc, etc.

Anyhoo, this is really wasting both of our time, so perhaps just answer the one clarifying question about the amp - cuz, yeah, people here are interested in 'learning something new', including me, and several do-have the aptitude to appreciate the deep-tech in the guts, and 'what that means' / why these will be so different and magical. That is, if I'm deemed worthy of a reply.

ciao
j

[Pangolin]

Hi guys,

I am writing from San Francisco airport on an iPhone, so I will be brief.

You guys make some good points, and I will respond in detail later.

For now I will agree that I made valid tech points on the EMS but that these points were not handled in the best way, and the technical points got lost in what looked like me beating up on Tom. For what it's worth, I quickly changed my tone and edited posts. In any event, I think it would be worthwhile for people to take a very close look at all products -- no matter who made them -- and post realistic comments. Even today there are unrealistic things being advertised by others. I have no problem with the scrutinization on our products as we do this ourselves.

Let's say that when any vendor -- no matter who -- puts out an advertisement with false claims it makes me upset... This has nothing to do with individual people and everything to do with my passion for facts and details.

And I do not intend to punish you or anyone else, but the ideal customers for these scanners are those who are passionately dissatisfied with what's out there now. If that's not you, then I have no problem counting you out as good candidate for now. It's no hard feelings -- we're just looking for people who we can immediately help the most and make a big difference.

Bill

[planters]

Bill,

Nicely put. Keep in touch.