Full Version: Pricing Correctly / YAG vs CO2
From: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#14]
19 Mar 2005
To: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#13] 19 Mar 2005
As the field size increases , the spot size does so too.
Max field sizes are 8"x 8", practically a 140mm or a 100mm field size is as far as you want to go.
Theres a guy here who bought a YAG which works the same as our machines ( xy tables) Waste of time as far as i'm concerned cos there is very little he can do that I can't and the metal marking is not nice and black like when we use cerdec , its a sort of dirty brown.
I do a ton of promotional item branding tho , thats why we are looking into the fibre or pumped diode YAG , sometimes qtys run into the multiple 1000's and its taking way too long on our Co2's.
Probably gonna get a machine from China , they quite reasonable and pretty well made these days , for $25k you get a decent unit. GCC have a Galvo Co2 and YAG in their line up , but theirs are a little too pricey for us - the local importers are adding on hefty margins.
From: Jim (JEARMAN) [#15]
19 Mar 2005
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#14] 19 Mar 2005
5X5 inch field sizes are typical for steered beam YAG lasers but 12 X 12 field sizes are available by changing lenses. It is absolutely true that spot size grows as field size grows but the trick is to get a YAG laser with lots of "low order mode" power(something you don't need to know or worry about with CO2 lasers). Not all YAGs are created equal but each manufacturer wantsyou to think that their laser is the best thing since sliced bread. Do your homework before you spend your money.
The guy is NJ most likely had a steered beam YAG which is the perfect tool for engraving anodized aluminum. Flying optics systems (YAG or CO2) can't compete with the speed or quality. The only issues with YAG markers are the price and the field size.
Jim
From: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#16]
19 Mar 2005
To: Jim (JEARMAN) [#15] 19 Mar 2005
From: Jim (JEARMAN) [#17]
19 Mar 2005
To: Ken D. (KDEVORY) [#16] 19 Mar 2005
Yes
Jim
From: Cindy (CINDYM) [#18]
21 Mar 2005
To: Engravin' Dave (DATAKES) [#10] 21 Mar 2005
If there is anyone in Oregon with a YAG laser I have yet to meet them. None I know of within 200 miles. From what I'm reading here, the 5" would be fine, but the 8" would push the limits of a YAG - is that right?
I don't know if a YAG laser is what the NJ place is using. They are not very common. I would doubt it in this area, but perhaps that area has the industrial capacity to make one worth having.
It is my understanding that a YAG laser and a regular laser are not interchangable in regards to what they would be used for - you would buy the YAG for specific uses and the other for other specific uses - am I right?
Cindy
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#19]
21 Mar 2005
To: Cindy (CINDYM) [#18] 21 Mar 2005
To my understanding, (what I have heard and not necessarily accurate), the YAG cannot do glass, and the CO2 cannot cut metals, (which the YAG can). Other than that it is machine design that makes the difference.
From: Cindy (CINDYM) [#20]
21 Mar 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#19] 21 Mar 2005
And it is the YAG that does the inside of the acrylics where you see the detailed art designs isn't it? Which a regular laser can not do if I remember that right.
Cindy
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#21]
21 Mar 2005
To: Cindy (CINDYM) [#20] 22 Mar 2005
The claim is that is a dual beam engraver. True or not, who knows?
The system must be fast for the price that I see it selling for. YAG would make sense because no matter what you do with a CO2, the light is stopped at the surface by absorption.
From: LaZerDude (C_BURKE) [#22]
21 Mar 2005
To: Cindy (CINDYM) [#5] 22 Mar 2005
Cindy,
As you mentioned, perhaps they are not comparing apples to apple. There is a method of doing what you are talking about using a silkscreen process of some sort. I have no idea what the cost comparison between silkscreening industrial panels or lasering them would be, but maybe that is the reason for the disparagy (sp?)
On another note, DON'T sell yourself, your service or your quality short. Sometimes ( I learned this from my other business) it is simply better to walk away.
Good luck. I wish I could be of more help.
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#23]
21 Mar 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#12] 21 Mar 2005
David,
Replying to this a little late, However I just wanted to let everyone know that ULS has a YAG system with an 18x32 field size. It is set-up like the Co2's with flying optics and is not as fast as the steered optics or galvo heads. But it has a definite niche that it fills.
The one thing that people don't factor into speed is the manual labor of changing the parts that are engraved or marked. By utilizing the large field and the 65+ Inches per second marking speed your actual labor costs are probably less.
All you do is load and unload a tray with 100 pcs. Versus one at a time every 5 seconds.
Depending on the quantity of parts the cost to operate the small field Yag system would probably be more that the cost to operate the large field. Unless you have employees that only get paid $5.00 per HR.
The other plus with a large field Yag is "Large Parts". We have a lot of aerospace companies using our systems for there machine panels.
and other larger parts that would be difficult to do on the small field Yags.
With all this said I believe there is a definite niche for these systems and for the price you pay for the small field Yag markers you can have a large field Yag marker
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#24]
21 Mar 2005
To: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#23] 21 Mar 2005
Mike,
The good point you make, with respect to speed, is being able to walk away from a machine, while it engraves (whatever number of pieces) is particulalry useful to shops with a limited number of people.
Being a one-man-band myself, I often feel like a short order cook.
If the workflow is choreographed properly, it's possible to have multiple machines running, including printers for sublimation, UV curing unit for epoxy doming etc., etc. with the final result being an incredible amount of work getting done, by one person.
Machines set up with long running times can (sounds strange) be better than those which run at the speed of sound, but require constant attention.
In some cases = Speed Kills :-)
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
From: Jim (JEARMAN) [#25]
21 Mar 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#24] 21 Mar 2005
David,
Although I understand the "one man band" problem, I would be hard pressed to accept the argument that less speed translates to higher thru-put and therefore more $$/hour.
Using Laserman's example of 100 pieces loaded into a fixture onto a flying optics system vs: a 5 second cycle time per piece on a steered beam system:
Wood pens might be a good example of such a job. I assume that the bed of a flying optics marker could accept a fixture containing 100 wooden pens to be decorated with a logo. A 5 second cycle time might be a pretty good estimate for a steered beam system to mark a wood pen with a 1/4 to 3/8 inch high logo: 3 seconds of mark time and 2 seconds of unload/load time for a new pen. That translates to 12 pens a minute or 720 pens per hour on a steered beam marker. Is this realistic? Well, I've actually done it myself. But I don't expect my marker operators to work at the same pace as the owner of the company so I tone down my expectations from them. On this type of job I would realisticly expect to see 500 pens per hour and a run of 2000 pens should be finished in 4 hours. I would bid the job on that basis and make my margins.
Since I have no actual hands on experience with flying optics systems I must defer to the experts with this question: For something like wooden pens with a 1/4 to 3/8 inch high logo, is 500 parts an hour an achievable thru-put and would one expect a 2000 piece run to be completed in 4 hours assuming the machine was attended those entire 4 hours.
An often ignored benefit or one at a time, high speed parts marking is that I don't have to have fixtures made to hold 100 or so parts for every item that comes into our shop for engraving.
One might argue that 2000 pieces is not a typical sized order and I would respond by saying that the argument for high speed, one part at a time marking becomes even more compelling for small runs of parts.
I really don't know what are typical per hour thruputs for small parts on flying optics laser systems and would be interested in feedback.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#26]
21 Mar 2005
To: Jim (JEARMAN) [#25] 21 Mar 2005
Jim,
I look forward to feedback from your "Thru-Put" question. You'll find Mike Mackenzie (ULS) very knowledgeable and willing to offer his input.
I also wish to thank you (and all participating forum members) for taking time from your hectic schedule(s) to share such valuable knowledge from your respective area(s) of expertise.
The volume of posts and a higher level of technical discussion has really picked up.
Ya gotta love it!
I do :-)
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
ÂÂÂÂÂ
EDITED: 21 Mar 2005 by DGL
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#27]
21 Mar 2005
To: Jim (JEARMAN) [#25] 21 Mar 2005
Jim,
Realistically with rough numbers on a flying optic 12x24 system. you could produce between 1100 and 1800 pens in a 4 hour period. I am basing this off of an 8 to 12 second print time. There are several factors that would come into play to determine the final numbers, (Depth, Graphic, material, etc).
Just playing with numbers this is what I came up with.
12x24 work area = 48 pens x 8 seconds = 384 seconds / 6.4 minutes per run.
60 divided by 6.4 = 9.375 runs per hr.
9.375 x 48=450 pens per hr.
450x4 hours=1800
I am not saying that the galvo head lasers are slower what I am saying is you can utilize an employee for several other tasks other than loading and unloading.
That said the flying optic system has its benefits.
We also use the laser to cut all of our fixtures and with a set of identical fixtures you can keep the system running non stop.
Without Breaks/Lunch/holidays/sickness. When ever Its turned on and loaded they go to work. I classify the flying optic systems as the robotic employee.
Yes it does take someone to tell it what to do but it never asks for a raise and you pretty much no what you can expect to get from it.
Please I am not saying one is better than the other They both have there advantages and dis advantages.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#28]
21 Mar 2005
To: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#27] 21 Mar 2005
Mike,
What would an "Entry Level" flying optic YAG system cost? Not necessarily ULS. Industry wide.
I don't know if people realize how much the cost of a CO2 system has come down over the years. When I first saw 25 watt systems hit the awards and engraving industry, I think they were upwards of $50K.
Does a YAG system (flying optic) run at roughly the same speed as the CO2 systems?
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
From: bobkat [#29]
21 Mar 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#19] 21 Mar 2005
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#30]
21 Mar 2005
To: bobkat [#29] 21 Mar 2005
Bobkat,
Is that straight Co2, or a mixture of another gas?
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#31]
21 Mar 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#28] 21 Mar 2005
David,
First the price of an entry level Yag system is around 40K This depends on mfg and power and we are talking about galvo head Yag. The only price I can offer is for the ULS and it is a 18x32 Diode pumped system that lists for $69,000. What most people don't know is the cost of operation. Lamp Yag systems can cost 150 to 300 per month in just consumables, Diode pumped systems last much longer but can cost as much as $10,000.00 with the consumables however this would be approximately 5 to 7 years. If you break that down its about $2000 per year. the lamp systems could cost as much as 3,600.00 per year this is all depending on use.
There are no real entry level flying optics Yag systems. Until Trotec announced there dual co2/yag system in Las Vegas Universal was the only one of its size available (I am speaking within our industry) I am not sure how trotec is doing the dual mode system because with my understanding the two systems use different optics in order to operate.
At Las Vegas they did not do both processes at one time co2 first then Yag second and it was not very impressive. I Think they have a good Idea but really need to work out the Kinks.
As to the speed yes the ULS system uses the same platform as there co2's so the speed is the same. On the other hand we are talking about completely different materials so its not fair to compare they are not apples to apples.
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#32]
21 Mar 2005
To: bobkat [#29] 21 Mar 2005
How many watts would be needed in a YAG to cut the same thickness stainless as the 150 watt CO2?
I have always been told that metals reflect IR light. I do know that at minimum speed and max power my 25 watt unit will not touch the foiled labels that some materials have on them. (Oops, that darned label left a scrap!)
Always eager to learn.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#33]
21 Mar 2005
To: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#31] 21 Mar 2005
Mike,
Thank you for that info. With that rate of initial and sustained operating costs, where do you see the "Profit Pockets" for YAG equipment?
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
EDITED: 21 Mar 2005 by DGL
Show messages: 1-13 14-33 34-53 54-73 74-78