McEtcher on Acrylic

I used the 90 degree McEtcher on Acrylic.

This is what you do not want to do

Content - Have too much detail. The blank areas are just as important as the etched areas.
Image work - I used the Paint.NET → Effects → Ink sketch
Tracing - This is using the standard tracing in InkScape/CC. This will create a path AROUND the pixels.

Cutting
Plow the McEtcher through the material. 2 1/2 turns and .030 deep.
The detail is lost due to over running.

CC - 4.6 million lines of GCode an 15 hrs of actual run time . Ouch

This worked better for me.

Content - Reduced detail by changed Image work and changed Tracing to Center Line
Image work - Paint.NET twice.

  • Majority of the content was using Effects → Ink sketch but I allowed detail to be removed.
  • Second pass using Artistic → Edge detect ( this created a harder edge only )

Tracing - Inkscape

  • Both images were traced in InkScape using the CenterLine option. This creates a single path along the chain of pixels, significantly reducing path generation.
  • I saved two SVG files with a box border around the extents so they would align in CC

CC

  • I used the McEtcher for the data from the Effects - Ink sketch derived SVG. One turn on the tool and standard settings in CC. 1.6 million lines of gcode. 6 hours of actual runtime.
  • I used the #501 engraving tool for the Artistic -Edge detect derived SVG. Standard CC settings at .010 deep

Now to find a edge lighting system.

Note:
The run times for the McEtcher content that CC and CM report are off by a factor of 3.
I set the Feed rate to 100 IPM and the retract to .05 inches .
I watched the Velocity in CM and it never above 33% of the Feed rate setting. I assume this is because of the short path segments, the machine never gets a change to come up to speed.strong text

9 Likes

Looks good.

I noticed the runtimes with the McEtcher were off by a lot while engraving some small brass plates. The estimate was about 3
Minutes and it was more like 10. I wondered at the time if it had to do with all the retracts maybe not getting figured in.

what most likely is not figured in the runtime estimate are the acceleration and de-acceleration rates of the machine. And if your curves are a series of small line segments, your runtime really goes up as James mentions.

This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.