Hi Jim
thanks for the reference, I've tracked down the book and will look it up after the football! I've done some crude repeatability tests using the Silhouette Portrait set to score on setting 2, speed 1 and 33 "thickness". A couple of (not very good) photos are attached. I compared two sets of score marks (inked in for visibility) one on 0.25 plastikard and one on 0.5 pk since these thicknesses are the panel layer and base (main side) layer thicknesses. Scoring rather than cutting produced a small difference much as I found with the cutting a few days ago. I also compared two sets of score marks both on 0.5 pk and found a small variability within the length of the test (crosses against the non-aligned marks). Your Jenkinson method will overcome these small differences - I guess the trick is knowing that they can occur, For the All First, I chopped up the 0.25 layers compartment by compartment and set them on separately. On the next one, I'll try the bending approach.
Kaidhuri
Hi Jim
thanks for the reference, I've tracked down the book and will look it up after the football! I've done some crude repeatability tests using the Silhouette Portrait set to score on setting 2, speed 1 and 33 "thickness". A couple of (not very good) photos are attached. I compared two sets of score marks (inked in for visibility) one on 0.25 plastikard and one on 0.5 pk since these thicknesses are the panel layer and base (main side) layer thicknesses. Scoring rather than cutting produced a small difference much as I found with the cutting a few days ago. I also compared two sets of score marks both on 0.5 pk and found a small variability within the length of the test (crosses against the non-aligned marks). Your Jenkinson method will overcome these small differences - I guess the trick is knowing that they can occur, For the All First, I chopped up the 0.25 layers compartment by compartment and set them on separately. On the next one, I'll try the bending approach.
Kaidhuri