The original Muse marketing had things like cooling and rotary attachment as extras. I wonder if that is the case with the prices listed?
That engraving area does seem small. Unless they have an issue with larger engraves and have artificially restricted the engrave area, but still have a 20"x12" cut area?? At this point I’m still thinking typo.
What jumps out to me is the up to 3mm wood or acrylic. The proofgrade medium is about 3.3mm. Shouldn’t a 40W tube be advertising up to 6mm? 6mm isn’t even a quarter-inch.
Did anyone see the Emblaser 2 is listing cuts of up 6 mm (laser ply) with a (wait for it) 5w laser… Wishful thinking much? I have no idea how they’re getting away with that.
Exactly my point. Who has ever heard of a marketing department making a safe, reasonable or remotely valid claim (unless required to do so by law, and even then they grab extra wiggle room.)
Spot size is hard to quantify because there is no hard boundary. So more power will make a bigger spot. I burnt holes in the thin paint layer of DiBond and measured that with a microscope.
Interesting. No info on operating temperatures and the hex box cooler isn’t very large so I wouldn’t expect specs much different than the GF Pro maybe. They seem to have replicated the GF on the hardware side. Too bad they weren’t on the forum so they could have hooked up with someone like Palmer so they could have fixed all the basic things he’s identified instead of just the connectivity ones. They’ve also reduced some of the specs over the GF or the Muse.
The software looks good. I expect that’s where a lot of their attention went. But until it’s in the wild, hard to know what its issues will be. Dremel seems to be targeting this to a market that’s less “crafty” oriented though. Big focus on the education segment.
From a post above, the hex box is just a heat exchanger, no active cooling, so maybe not GF Pro equivalent. I would also assume they use limit switches like the muse did (IIRC), which would address the homing/calibration/absolute positioning issues.
Before everyone comments, there are pluses and minuses in comparing this unit and the GF. Doesn’t make sense to claim one is clearly better than the other. I like my GF but am not the type of person that falls in love with a company or has brand loyalty. Other than the cloud vs. local argument, would have a hard time choosing if I had the funds. Everyone’s needs will be different. And this review is a snapshot in time. There are functions that are locked into the design and there are S/W functions that will be improved over time.
I did find it interesting that the reviewers said it was a Class IV laser. Since it is a closed unit like the GF Basic, I’m wondering why.
i definitely prefer the manual focusing. same thing i use on the universal (although on the universal, you use a button to raise/lower the bed, not a screw to raise/lower the head). very quick and easy. and i also like the “hit the check button that says you focused before the go button will work.” i wish the universal did that. every once in a while, i do a seriously defocused cut because the person before me was cutting 1/2" acrylic and i’m cutting 1/8" birch.
there are definitely quirks on both systems.
their comments about how EVERY system does so much stuff differently is so true (and really annoying if you use more than one). i have to change mentality depending on whether i’m cutting at work or cutting at home. or whether i’m designing for home or designing for work. basic designing is the same, but file setup for the machine to recognize cuts/engraves/scores is different.
LOL
