Full Version: Pricing Correctly / YAG vs CO2
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#34]
21 Mar 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#32] 21 Mar 2005
Harvey,
To do it efficiently 250 to 500 watts You can do it with less but it is a slow process and you need to have an oxygen assist in order to do it at all.
There are Plasma cutters that work much better for cutting metals than lasers do and they are one third the price.
There are even water jets that will cut metals better than laser. The guy's who do a lot of metal cutting with laser are usually using 1.5 kilo watts minimum.
These companies also own 40 percent of the electric companies because they use serious amounts of it in order to operate and they also use flowing oxygen to assist with metal
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#35]
21 Mar 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#33] 22 Mar 2005
David,
Typically AD specialty markets, There has been a large growth in the aerospace industry as well.
What used to be chemical etched is now getting laser etched.
From: bobkat [#36]
21 Mar 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#30] 22 Mar 2005
From: bobkat [#37]
21 Mar 2005
To: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#32] 22 Mar 2005
From: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#38]
21 Mar 2005
To: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#35] 22 Mar 2005
Throughput is dependant on a lot of things , for example a pen with cerdec in a jig on a C02 is way way slower than any galvo YAG can be , apart from engraving speed , there is coating and uncoating etc.
In terms of employees , you need 2 people for this with a co2 , a coater/uncoater and a loader/watcher. You might be lucky and get about 30-40 pens per hr using a co2 and a coating.
There are risks to doing multiples in jigs too , if something goes wrong and the process is unattended , then you potentially have an expense far greater than the engraving cost in that one might have to replace many ruined items. For a simple logo on a wood pen it might be a different story.
I have 3 Co2 lasers , 2 operator/designers ONLY for these , a further designer for these and other machines and never use any of them for packing , unpacking , coating etc - I could not se my way to getting any decent thruput with a single operator - we do run high production here , most of my lasers are busy or fully occupied 8 hrs a day.
As to pricing , I don't know the exact quality of the system , but we can get a ND yag , with a 50 w av power , 7000m/sec . 11cm x 11 cm marking field , with chillers , positioning tables etc - from china , at about $25 000. From the same co there is a diode pumped laser , nd3 yag , also 50 w complete with computer , chiller , positioning table for $40k.
These are FOB prices and I have NO idea of the quality of the system , backup etc. We have been qoted higher prices locally for lesser power. Around $100k for a zenith 25 w installed with positioning systems etc. Gcc , a chinese co whose CO2 lasers I use , have a galvo yag marker in their line up
http://www.laserproi.com/en/mark_prod_model_detail.php?ID=English_040920042129#spec
and the local guys have quoted us $53 000 installed.
I suspect in this field you get what you pay for as with most things.
For $50k , we could get 2 1/2 x 30 w explorers or for $100k a medium powered largish format cutting system.
As to power , well that too seems a sort of you cant compare apples to apples field, I have seen all sorts of measurements like peak powers , average powers , tem beam quality etc etc and am totally confused
I have also seen some variance in what power is required to cut stainless , beam dynamics offer a 500w and dont really intimate it would cut more than 1.5mm stainless steel?
The real reason we would get a yag is to be able to mark metals , pvcs and various plastic etc with very high speed and compete in the ad specialities branding market concentrating on high volumes.
This is a seasonal industry and is pretty much cut throat in that there are cheaper ways of branding with far lesser captial costs (pad printing etc)
As david says , at least this is a very interesting discussion and I have not seen any definitive discussion on any forum with the specifics of YAG vs CO2 in these terms.
Regards
Rodney
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#39]
22 Mar 2005
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#38] 22 Mar 2005
Rodney,
My times were done on Wood pens not applying Cerdec. There is no comparison to doing it that way Versus the Yag simply because you don't have to apply any secondary material.
I would not personally do any pens that way using the Co2's
From: Jim (JEARMAN) [#40]
22 Mar 2005
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#38] 22 Mar 2005
Rodney,
Power in YAG lasers for marking and engraving applications isn't as confusing as it seems. A problem with YAG salesmen and literature is that it seems as though everyone is trying to "outspec" their competion by making their system seem so much superior because they are usually presenting their information to an audience that doesn't understand (and really should not be overly concerned with) things like peak power vs average power vs pulsewidth and so on and so on.
The same thing is true with things like top galvo speed. You are not going to engrave anything at 7000 m second because at that speed the laser doesn't have enough time to work on the material.
YAG laser markers aren't necessarily intuitive but nor are they that mysterious. The information just has to be presented in layman's terms.
Jim
From: Jim (JEARMAN) [#41]
22 Mar 2005
To: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#27] 23 Mar 2005
Hi Mike,
Nice to meet you.
I was waiting before I responded hoping that I would get some thru-put feedback from others but I guess not.
I suppose that the comparisons could go on and on regarding efficiencies of steered beam vs flying optics systems. A lot of it just comes down to what you're used to or what you already have and what tricks you've come up with to make the jobs faster. My laser career has been almost exclusively with steered beam systems so that's what I've built my bag of tricks around.
An application that is cumbersome for me is one that you mentioned...large panels. We process many of them and in order to do them we have to break the information up into segments that fit inside the marking field. On one particaular panel, for example, we break it into 4 segments therefore requiring 4 setups. I would be really curious to know if the time for the multiple setups outweighs the speed advantage of a steered beam system when compared to a slower flying optics system but with only one setup.
Any idea about how we could determine that? This is an ongoing job for us and we mark 500 to 700 panels a month.
From: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#42]
22 Mar 2005
To: Cindy (CINDYM) [#20] 23 Mar 2005
Cindy,
Are you talking about the 3-D images inside optic crystal?
If so, I'm not sure what type of laser is used, but it's more a (probably not the proper term) a "Timed-Pulse" which makes the laser fire at a pre-specified depth within the glass.
David "The Stunt Engraver" Lavaneri
DGL Engraving
Port Hueneme, CA
From: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#43]
22 Mar 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#42] 23 Mar 2005
You can sort of work out how long a flying optic laser would take to do a panel.
It scans left to right at a set speed and the dpi you use determines the top to bottom speed.
There are accellerations and decellerations and various optimising strategies that some drivers have , but lets say you run on average 45 inches per second left to right. (that would probably be the average speed of a 60-80 ips machine with accel and stopping and the overrun and thats a fast machine)
Lets say you have a 15" x 15" graphic
Being real optimisitc lets assume the laser can scan l-r in .3 secs
You would use 300 dpi or so (more likely 500) , so the laser can do a 15" x 1" swathe in 0.3x300 seconds or about 100 seconds.
15" - 1500 seconds or about 25 mins
Depending on whether the laser can skip white space etc , it might be quicker and if one has to run at less than 100% speed , it might be slower.
Some laser drivers will estimate time beforehand , our doesn't (Or I havent seen it) but it does report time taken afterwards
We often use this feature for costing and production , do one and then extrapolate for the whole job.
What REALLY takes time is packing and unpacking , espcially if the customer is fussy and wants the product to look like it was shipped with the branding from the factory as you have to re wrap very carefully.
From: Jim (JEARMAN) [#44]
23 Mar 2005
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#43] 23 Mar 2005
I assume that your posting was in response to my panel engraving time question because it referenced a 3 d engraving post.
Do flying optics systems normally engrave in a raster file mode as opposed to a vector file mode? Unless you are doing something like a photograph or an image that has grey scaling, why is raster mode preferable to vector mode on flying optics systems?
From: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#45]
23 Mar 2005
To: Jim (JEARMAN) [#44] 23 Mar 2005
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#46]
23 Mar 2005
To: Jim (JEARMAN) [#44] 23 Mar 2005
Raster is the only way to get a filled area. If you do enough vector lines to simulate a fill, you are basically doing a raster anyway.
It all depends on the size of the filled area compared to the total size as to if it pays to do the additional setup to vector fill an area. Usually it does not pay at all.
Lettering is raster or it looks like a drag engraving.
From: Jim (JEARMAN) [#47]
23 Mar 2005
To: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#45] 23 Mar 2005
Thanks to you and Harvey-Only for the info.
OK...another question regarding time and file type efficiencies: Don't raster files require that the laser has to traverse over white areas as well in order to get to the next pixel to be marked? Doesn't that consume a lot of time?
YAG lasers have an extremely important laser parameter called Q switch frequence that doesn't exist on CO2 lasers. For that reason raster files are more difficult and slower on steered beam YAGs. I have applied that same vector file philosophy to our steered beam CO2 markers and have never really investigated raster images on the steered beam CO2s that we have.
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#48]
23 Mar 2005
To: Jim (JEARMAN) [#41] 23 Mar 2005
Jim,
My only suggestion would be to run the panel and give you the spec's. Are you by chance going to Westec first week in April at the LA Convention center.
We will have our Yag system at this show and would have no problem doing the whole panel for you while you wait then you can see first hand the speeds and set-up Raster/Vector capabilities.
If you are not then maybe we can get a panel and run the file and give you all the specs. (time, power,etc.).
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#49]
23 Mar 2005
To: Stunt Engraver (DGL) [#42] 23 Mar 2005
Cindy / David
I believe that these systems use multiple beams that meet in the center
creating a micro explosion. Thus creating the 3D image on the inside of the crystal.
From: Rodney Gold (RODNEY_GOLD) [#50]
23 Mar 2005
To: Jim (JEARMAN) [#47] 23 Mar 2005
Some drivers enable you to skip white , IE will either move at max speed over white areas or will laser a single isolated graphic/word zithering back and forward just over the graphic or actually work out the most efficient lasering strategy.
Saves incredible amounts of time.
You still get fast rastering with steered beam , or the ones I have seen. Depends on software and driver but the beam travereses so much quicker without the inertia of a flying head and the limitations of the motion system draging huge weights around (compared to a galvo)
I cant see why raster should be a problem?
From: Harvey only (HARVEY-ONLY) [#51]
23 Mar 2005
To: Jim (JEARMAN) [#47] 23 Mar 2005
On most engraving systems the head jumps past any area that does not need anything engraved, including edges that are blank. It makes a huge difference in time on most files. 1/3 to 1/2 the time of a full image pass is the rule not the exception.
From: Jim (JEARMAN) [#52]
23 Mar 2005
To: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#48] 23 Mar 2005
Mike,
I am pretty interested in testing this because it is a long running job for us and I hope to be doing it for years.
This particular panel is on stainless steel and we put a very black mark on it. This is the type of mark that is referred to as a "stain mark" in the YAG marker business. Are you familiar with that type of mark?
I think that I could talk my customer out of a panel or two for testing and I could give you a file of the marking info. What format would you prefer? I could also give you a sample of the mark that we have to achieve. If you could then figure out laser parameters that would dulplicate the stain mark then it wouldn't even be necessary to actually mark an entire panel. Just load the graphic, set the laser parameters and time the job.
What do you think? Interested?
From: laserman (MIKEMAC) [#53]
23 Mar 2005
To: Jim (JEARMAN) [#52] 23 Mar 2005
Jim,
Absolutely! I can't or Won't promise anything but the test will prove or dis prove the capabilities of the system then you can compare the two processes.
A sample of the mark and an Autocad file (we have 2000i , 2005 and R14) along with the panel and we can do the test. If you want you can send it to my address below.
When you prepare the file make it to actual size one file. If you don't have Autocad capabilities we can use Corel, Illustrator, freehand, or export as a DXF out of other Cad programs.
As I mentioned we will be at the Westec show 4-3 - 4-7 and will have the yag there If you can get me the panel and file before that time I can run the sample at the show and send it back right after.
Show messages: 1-13 14-33 34-53 54-73 74-78