I already said I would happily run a few batches of inductions but felt shunned because I wasn’t laser tech any more.
I personally feel that the @roles in general have gone too far in becoming seen as in charge rather than responsible, and that this doesn’t mesh well with the community own and run aspect.
However we’re massively off topic.
I would have thought there will only ever be more demand for laser cutting, it’s a small machine so not take up a huge amount of space. The lower power doesn’t seem like a problem as it will still cut most materials used here and probably engrave just as well. It would even be useful as a spare next time the trotec breaks down and doesn’t get fixed for months.
No brainer to me. We can always pass it on later if it doesn’t turn out to be useful.
agreed, i use the trotec for making templates for the router, and another machine would be handy soo i can cut while the inspiration is there…before i forget!
Ethically, I think this should go to a proto-makerspace. The gift of this could make the difference between a group of people talking about a Makerspace in a pub, to having the shared project and resource to actually make a Makerspace real.
Pragmatically, I think we should just focus on what we have. This is a distraction, and if the Trotec goes down, all our attention should go on getting it back up ASAP, not getting to grips with a scrappy thing that will undoubtedly have a thousand quirks and might not actually work at all.
Let someone else have a scrappy thing that might not work? I don’t like the sound of that. I still feel it would be nice to have a second laser cutter since it is clearly popular and as people have expressed above, it would be used. I’m not convinced by any argument so far that it would be worthless, time, or space consuming.
It will work, how ever it will take more effort to use it and train people on two completely different laser cutters.
It’s pretty much the default laser cutter for new makerspaces these days.
If you really decide you don’t want it and there isn’t a startup makerspace that wants it, then the ‘special needs’ school I work at would love it.
(Or I’d swap for my own Denford Microrouter but that probably isn’t the CNC you are looking for!)
I would much rather see the space used as part of the foot print for as big a CNC as we can make.
If we’re going to go down this route it’s going to make conversations about a decent CNC harder for which the more space we have the better machine we can get. With decent CNC size is everything.
People, including directors, are already forgotting that the laser storage was never agreed to and was done so with the caviate that it was temporary (replaced at any time). If we do the same with this laser cutter the same will probably happen.
We’ll lose space for the CNC and it will get forgotten for a small machine that’s not that great.
I think we need to remember we’re a space for hobbiest to try out stuff and do personal projects. I don’t think any thing we do within these rules can’t “wait for an hour” or “wait until tomorrow”. This seems like we’re trying to cater to people that want gaurenteed laser access, when there are plenty of places you can go if you really need it “today”.
This ethos would suggest diversity of tools not multiplication.
One solution for the CNC (I’m quoting someone elses idea here) maybe to put it in the snug at the far end in effect behind the woodshop.
Keep the members storage as it is and don’t expand it in to a room of abandoned projects.
This really has no bearing on a CNC machine. Shall I split these comments off… Also we’re starting to go over the desktop CMC vs woodshop CNC conversation…
I’m gonna try and sum up:
We’ve been offered a laser cutter bought 7 years ago and never used if we collect it from Dulwich.
Some folks expressed support for this as they are concerned about the demand making it hard for them to use the existing laser cutter.
Some folks expressed concern against this because they see it encroaching on the CNC machine space.
Myself and a couple others were concerned about the need for extra training as it is a completely different machine in very many ways.
Myself and others thought it would be nice to accept the donation and pay it forward to a new space with similar principals to us.
Folks suggested it would be great for the down time during repairs on the Trotec.
Or that it could be a drop-in service with the main laser cutter being bookable.
tl;dr: Store it in the snug and, and hold a poll to ask members to prioritise which activities are most important to them, like this post if you agree.
My proposal is based off of what was agreed at the last members meeting and @courty’s idea, and I’d suggest people show support to this idea by liking the post…
People are very divided, and no one is objecting to us taking the machine either to use or pass it to someone else, so for now let’s follow @Courty’s proposal that we store it in the snug for now under the understanding that it’s use is subject to a members poll…
During the last members meeting myself and @pip talked about holding a poll to find out from members what activities they wanted to do in the space most:
Stage 1 we asked people to put together a list of new and existing activities they wanted in the space.
Stage 2 we asked people to sort these by preference/priority.
We were then able to see the top activities and allocate resources accordingly, if we do this again now and see what the majority of members want the most.
I meant it will eat into space already assigned to a CNC.
I’m talking about how getter this laser cutter would effect that by taking up the space which some people may be unaware that is ear marked for that.
Okay… There was a strong proposal for having the CNC at mid height in the laser storage tower. I has that in my head. I don’t know what’s been planned for the space between the storage and the Trotec. @pip?
Folks what I was saying here is perhaps we focus less on the details of how and why we should or should not get it, no one objects to us storing it with a view to donation or use in the space, so let’s do that and put some energy into this poll.
Now we’re getting into the details of the CNC.
And that is a different conversation.
One worth having.
A decent sized CNC with good access could take up a large amount of room. It depends on how ambitious we are what scale we want. Isn’t accuracy better with a metal frame screwed to the floor rather than something on a shelf.
But a CNC is way off probably…
I think you’re talking about a woodwork CNC? And I’m taking about a desktop machine. A woodshop CNC is a highly advanced tool with a two day induction (at places that have shorter inductions for most tools than we do). It’s not currently on our horizon. A desktop mill is probably what we’re after – like the Roland ones at Makerversity. So it’s not about size, but function and reliability.
I’ll split this tapestry into separate threads tomorrow…
As part of the previously agreed review of space use, rather than in a conversation about a laser cutter.
My opinion (lasertech hat on) is that if we feel there’s a need for a 2nd laser cutter, we should avoid getting one of these machines. I used the old LHS one and it was a real pain to use. A very different workflow (so would require a separate induction session) and much more limited in capability. If the laser cutter queue is unwieldy, then we should work on a system to manage that queue and make better use of the cutter’s down time (of which there is plenty, by my infrequent observation)
(director hat on)
I also just don’t think we have the space. The precious remaining space in Messy that is currently “unclamined” should be used to support activities/tools that we don’t have yet.
Also having experience of these machines at LHS and also uni - they’re quite inferior to the Trotec in a number of ways. Although I heard you can get replacement controller boards which make them a fair bit better.
If you have nothing better, then it’s fine. I’d support the idea of taking it, but using our connections to put it to good use somewhere else - if the donor is happy with that arrangement.