I preordered the new 10W laser and i am just wondering if this statement is just an advise or mandatory.
“This is a class 4 laser product. You should always operate the 10W High Power Laser Module with the Snapmaker 2.0 Enclosure covered.”
Are the provided laser goggles with the NEW laser enough protection? (without the enclosure)
How about the old goggles?
The old module has a wavelength of 450nm and the new one of 450-460nm.
FYI, the 1.6 laser is also a Class 4 laser product - can cause eye damage and burn skin or material.
There has always been some debate as to whether the enclosure is adequate for even the 1.6. (search the threads) The acrylic being used is/was not safety certified and SM has never really adequately responded to concerns and questions about it’s OD rating. It also has gaps where one can see through. I wouldn’t be very confident in it’s ability to handle the 10w and I can see why SM is recommending to cover it. It might also be perfectly fine and they’re just covering their a$$es. But I personally wouldn’t chance it. Even with the 1.6 and safety acrylic I still put up some covers around mine when working in my garage. (1/4" thick dry erase board panels from Lowes work perfectly) Better safe than sorry.
The OD and protection of goggles will always be better than an enclosure. So one should always use goggles as primary protection as secondary. Even with goggles or enclosure you shouldn’t be staring directly at the beam.
-S
I contacted the support once to clarify this. This was their answer:
The enclosure could filter the laser but it could not be measured with the OD definition. It is recommended to wear safety goggles when using the laser within or without the enclosure.
Therefore, it is safe to assume that the enclosure provides no laser protection.
It definitely doesn’t provide no laser protection. Inherently amber acrylic is appropriate for the wavelength of the SM. It should provide between 1 and 2 OD at minimum. Which is still less than is recommended.
There’s no reason it can’t be measured.
Now there are several reasons why they may be declining to give an OD definition:
The quality of the acrylic they source is inconsistent so that the OD varies from enclosure to enclosure.
They have had it measured and don’t want to admit it falls below what they had promised/implied in their sales material.
They haven’t had it measured because they know it will fall below what they had promised/implied in their sales material.
Originally the enclosure description included wording about protection. Now it just says ‘filtering’.
-S
From a user’s point of view this makes no difference. If the safety function cannot be assured it is the same as having none at all. Therefore, always make sure that everyone is wearing appropriate safety goggles when operating the laser and keep your eyes away from it.
Seems to be an industry issue to be fair not just SM, that said. It is still not really good enough.
The eStop really get me as there is no standard used or quoted for its operation.
In real life, as a machinist. It is law to have the appropriate eStop in place.
Wouldn’t be trusting the enclosure perspex or supplied goggles without a standards sticker on it…
Does help to just not look at it 
Some commercial lasers have a metacrylate screen covering just the laser ‘nozzle’. I think this should be feasible to implement in the snapmaker laser head.
Something like:
Did someone try something like this?
Unless you removed it, there is the black shroud on the laser head already. And in my case it is only 2-3mm or so above the work surface when focused.
No different than the see through versions from other vendors. I would even argue that black non transparent plastic will be better than anything you can see through…
Most of the pictures from different vendors I shown, let just a small gap between the engraving surface and the protection cover. In addition, the cover creates a shield many millimeters far from the laser center. This greatly reduces the angle at which laser light can be reflected from the surface (acting in fact like a nano-enclosure).
The protection cylinder in the Snapmaker can not be adjusted and I need to remove it to be able to reach focus. This probably is the case for many people because Snapmaker also recommends to take it out if there are focusing problems. On the other hand, even when used, the Snapmaker protection cylinder is just some millimeters of diameter, maybe 1 centimeter (I’m now away from the SnapMaker), allowing reflection of the laser light at high angles.
Interesting, they changed their standard reply. When I asked ages ago, they said that the acrylic of the enclosure had OD 1.16 (I think - something with a 1 in front of the dot anyhow). I’m of the opinion that this is not enough, since it would not reduce a laser beam to safe intensity if the beam gets reflected directly (e.g. from a piece of shiny metal). It is OK for scattered radiation - except for the gaps that exist. So goggles recommended, and since the “old” ones never had any rating published (to my knowledge), I’d recommend to only use the ones they will provide with the 10W laser, which I understand are OD6+ rated/certified.
I was rather surprised when watching this video at 12 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyfNgecRoLY&t=12s - it says basically: We reduce Class 4 to Class 1 - I doubt it…
Snapmaker stated quite a while back that the reason for the goggle requirement when using the enclosure is solely due to the fact that the enclosure has gaps between the panels, and laser energy can escape through those gaps and is enough to do harm, or cause damage. The enclosure panels themselves do provide an adequate level of support from the laser energy that is emitted, but the gaps are the reason for the goggle requirement.
1.6 W with OD 1 would still mean 160 mW on direct beam reflection. That is not safe, so the enclosure will only be good for scattered light. I think the argument of those that say the enclosure is safe is that the likelihood of direct beam reflection is marginal with the module pointing down and the small gap between the module and the material. So you only get scattered radiation. This discussion is a bit yes-no-yes-no - so I guess everyone has to make up their mind themselves 
@Snapmaker-Support & @Melitta_Snapmaker what is the OD rating of the amber panels on the Snapmaker 2.0 panels? If you have the OD ratings for the different laser goggles that have been provided, that would be helpful as well. People are throwing around numbers, saying “I think it is …”, but inaccurate information can lead to poor decisions.
If you don’t have the exact information, what is the lowest rating that these items meet? No information at all means a 0 (zero) rating, which is no protection at all.
If you’re willing to make a mark in your enclosure you can do the tissue paper test:
Take a panel and lay it on top of a piece of tissue paper. Focus for tissue. Run laser slow at 100% and see if it leaves a mark. If you try this with 2422 amber acrylic it only burns the top layer of the acrylic. If you do it with clear glass or acrylic it burns the tissue paper.
I don’t make any claims as to the validity of this testing method. I’ve seen it suggested in a few forums with people making their own home built high powered lasers. It at least gives a starting point to see if the enclosure is doing anything.
-S
I browsed through my old mails - here’s the thread:
My request:
Dear Snapmaker Support,
I ordered the Enclosure for the A350 in the BackerKit Survey. Now on Facebook a disussion is ongoing if the Acrylic glass is truly a safety measure. People claim that it only has OD 1, still letting 10% of the light through. With a 1.6 W laser this would mean ~160 mW still get through, which in a worst case scenario would be still dangerous to the eye. OD 4+ seems to be the demand to have it really safe. Can you confirm the optical density of the acrylic? Can you say how you reckon the safety of the glass is? What were your considerations, why do you claim on the updates/shop that the enclosure will make it safe for children and pets?
Thanks for additional information!
Let me take this opportunity to say a big THANK YOU for making Snapmaker 2 become reality! I am eagerly awaiting my A350, really looking forward to the opportunities it will give me!
All the best & kind regards
Hauke
Snapmaker Reply:
Hi Hauke,
Sorry for the late reply.
The optical transmittance of the acrylic is 9% and the OCD is about 1.04575.
The formula is 
If you have any other questions, please feel free to contact us.
Best regards
Edwin
My next one:
Hi Edwin,
thanks for the clarification, and no worries about reply time - I’m not in a hurry
Would you mind to explain why you chose this Acrylic? I’d have more expected something better than OCD 3 or 0.1% transmittance to bring down a potential beam reflection down to safe levels. I must admit that I’m a bit disappointed, since I expected the enclosure to be really safe, but perhaps I uderstand something wrong?
Thanks for your support!
Kind regards
Hauke
Hi Huake,
Thank you for your reply.
I need to explain this issue clearly. The laser module face down when it is working, so the laser beam is much weaker than 1.6W laser beam. We have not measured the OCD of the dispersed laser beam as you can imagine how weak the transmitted light is.
We are going to do some tests on it and want to get a real value of OCD.
I will keep you updated about the OCD test result.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Have a good day
That was back in June 2020.
So 1 1/2 year later still no answer on this very important topic.
It’s really a shame and highly critical that snapmaker don’t take higher priorities on such important safety issues.
