Hi Steve, this is a very good and interesting video. You have explained it very well. Only at your 4th myth, you are not wrong, but also not completely correct. If you shine the light of multiple lasers through several partially transparent mirrors, you will notice that the first laser (the top one in your diagram) experiences the least amount of loss. As you mentioned, this mirror is not partially transparent, so the loss is not significant at this point. However, what does come into play is that if it is a glass mirror, diffraction and loss of intensity occurs. I don't believe a glass mirror has been chosen here, but that doesn't matter for the rest of my explanation. The laser below it must shine through a partially transparent mirror because the light from the laser above it must pass through. To start with, there is some loss from the upper laser because glass, no matter how clear, converts light into heat and changes the intensity of the light. As long as we can see glass, it absorbs light intensity; it's as simple as that. Additionally, there's a problem where light enters the back of the glass at an angle and, due to diffraction, exits at a slightly shifted angle, which depends on the thickness of the glass used. The laser shining from the other side of this glass enters at a different angle and must pass through the glass surface twice - once towards the back of the glass where the foil or deposited metal is that reflects the light, and then back out at a 90-degree angle. So, there are two instances of diffraction and loss of intensity due to the brightness of the glass. By now, the beam of light has become broader, and this broader beam continues downward to the next laser. This effect repeats several times, and when you compare the differences between the first stacked lasers and the current generation, you'll see that there are significant variations in the amount of loss. It's not a standard 4% per glass piece, but the loss increases as you go through multiple layers of glass. This loss is partly due to the glass absorbing heat and thus, lowering intensity and partly due to diffraction, causing some of the emitted light to simply not reach the final lens. As technology has improved, laser developers have started using better diffraction gratings to minimize this loss in intensity instead of caring about optical focus. However, you'll only find this in very few consumer diode lasers because it's an expensive and difficult technique and is also sensitive to impacts. In the consumer laser diodes used in most of our laser engravers, much more attention is paid to the final lenses that focus the light into a usable beam than to the light path leading to the final lenses. As said, you are absolutely not wrong, but you can't say it's a 4 percent loss per element. Greetings, Brian.
Yes, this is all correct, but I was trying to keep the description as simple as possible.😉 The beam coming off each diode is also quite large compared to what I've shown, and there is actually a concentrator optic between the last diode and the lens. They do this to minimize a lot of the things you mention above (e.g. if a beam gets slightly diffracted passing through an optic, that shift would be negligible once the beam from all diode are concentrated down to a smaller single beam. This might make the beam a bit larger over all but wouldn't account for the 50%+ larger beam size that people think is caused by trying to line up the beams from different lasers
You are without a doubt one of the smartest people I've come across on TH-cam and certainly in this community. I'm pretty good at technical stuff but I don't know that much about lasers and how they work. Now I do. I have a little 5 W Hobby laser That I got as a birthday present. Definitely looking to upgrade in the very near future. My partner and I plan to do all custom engraving and we have a good contact for doing custom motorcycle and car parts (chrome accessories). You have helped make some of our buying decisions a whole lot easier. Thank you sir,you now have a new subscriber.
In our area, there is a high fluctuation of power because of this. I can't engrave photos properly, and the machine is not starting from its stopped position. What should I do to resolve this issue . Please help me, Steve
@SteveMakesEverything it is laser tree and I am not saying the homing position..while I am working on my project suddenly the light goes off because it loses the power from the station but when the power gets back the laser will not proced the project from its stopped position rather it shifts the position and proced
@@bereketsimon-ql8jt Hello,for home and start position need to review your controller, you not say what app you use and what controller.As i know Laser tree make only head modules without frame. These modules have a high temperature defence and overheating is one of reasons to not work.
@@bereketsimon-ql8jt you must install ups power supply with some big battery to avoid power fluctuations, most of lasers can't resume the job after power off. Wish you success and fun with your future projects.
Hi, Steve, just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for all the amazing videos you do! On another note (and somewhat off topic), I'm looking to purchase a 40w-50w CO2 laser in order to cut clear acrylic. Would you be able to make a recommendation of brand/type to buy? I would really appreciate it!
From a hardware perspective I still like the the Muse 3D from FSL, but I don’t really like that it uses its own software rather than Lightburn. So look at Thunder laser or maybe OMTech if you are looking for the lowest price. There are many you could look at.
@@SteveMakesEverything Steve, thanks for your reply! I was hoping you might recommend OMTech as I've heard good reviews about this manufacturer and is reasonably priced.
One important thing you kept stating was OPTICAL focus, lasers work on INTENSITY focus which is slightly different to optical focus. While I understand you were working on the basis of what manufacturers were GENERALLY stating as their specs, they are now starting to move more toward quoting relevant specs. Using Optical calculations is where a lot of these myths originated, if you were to work on intensity focus by doing a ramp test on each and using those results to recreate the results you will notice some very surprising differences in the results. I am forever trying to explain to people these things so they can get more predictable results from their lasers.
Well, at the end of the day, a user doesn't think about optical focus. But that's what allows the intensity to be focused in the first place - this is a very subtle difference and I'm not sure this is the source of most of these myths. Users will typically do exactly what you suggest and run a focus test on the material. The optical issues only really come into play when beating down myths around beam size.
Thanks for all your good comments. I got a question for you. I am not sure if this is a myth or not but, I am using NEJE E40 laser (10W) thinking of upgrading to a E80 (20W) I seen comments saying that all diode laser should not be used at 100% . When used at 100%, the life of the laser is reduced drastically. Is this true? I see lots of youtube example using the laser at 100%. NEJE offers a 2 year warranty but will lt last this long if used at 100%?
No matter what, all lasers are consumable. If you baby the laser, then it might last incrementally longer, but I don’t put a lot of stock not the 100% power claim. Diode lasers vary the output power by pulsing the power and varying the duration that the laser is turned on. The actual voltage applied to the laser is constant while it is on, regardless of the power output.
Likely not assuming this is wood of some sort. Note that you'd be better to use higher speed and multiple passes rather than a brute-force single pass anyway. This will help prevent your cut material from looking like something you'd use to start a BBQ. I've been meaning to do a video about this - some day😏
Thanks for the info. I learned a lot. I especially appreciate the power and cutting depth info. I almost paid more money for a 48w laser that could be switched to 24wfor finer engraving. Sounds like that would have been a waste of money based on your info. Instead I opted for a 24w at half the price with a motorized x axis that can automatically step down for multiple passes on deeper cuts. Sounds like I made the best choice without knowing it. The cuts may take longer, but will still be possible and with a better kerf, and I won’t lose anything in fine engraving.
20-30W lasers are in the sweet spot for both cutting and engraving. However, you will hear a lot of people say that a 40W laser can't get detailed engraving because the beam is "huge." Keep in mind that we are talking about small fractions of millimeters, which is beyond the limits of most peoples' eyes anyway. A typical 20W laser will have a beam size of 0.8mm to 0.1mm, while a 40W laser size is usually around 0.15-0.18mm. Can anyone really see a 0.05mm difference??🤔
Hi Steve, Which do you thing is a better laser.longer ray 33 watt or acmer p2 33 watt.Having troublemaking a decision. Longer has good support. Not sure about acmer. THANK YOU
Tough choice since both are great choices. Both companies seem to have decent support, though the Ray 5 is an older design. All things being equal, I would probably lean to the ACMER P2, but you won’t go wrong with either
I bought a creality 2 12W and watching this now acknowledge I bought the dud. Its a pity I didn't see this video before wasting the money. Keep up the good work and thanks for the info. Unfortunately I can't afford $1500 to $2000 AU for a reasonable laser at this stage. Time to start saving :(
Sorry to hear that. I don’t think the Falcon 2 is a dud, but I do want to tell people if there things to be aware of. Creality generally makes solid products and I think the Falcon 2 falls into this category. As a laser with less than 40W, this should be an excellent laser. Even at 40w, I just think Creality squandered an opportunity to lead the market. Are you having a particular issue?
They are all run from the same PWM signal so they should be in phase. In most diode laser modules, the diode out puts aren’t stack, so the phase won’t matter anyway. But there lasers where they are at least partially stacked so the manufacturers has figured this out for us
Thank you for the video. Watching this make me think of a question of beam shape and size. If I want to creat a 1”x1” black block, engraving. If I execute the burn on various laser with different beam sizes and shapes, will the shading be different? Does lightburn take into account beam size/shape?
These are interesting questions. First the color shading may not even be the same between to units of the same laser. Certainly between different brands, laser powers etc, the shading is likely to be different. Lightburn doesn’t know the beam size but it can compensation for kerf if you enter it into the settings.
So in your chart the 10w is listed as a higher energy density than the 20w, but you stated the data clearly shows an increase in energy density as wattage increases. Are the data points accidentally swapped?
The energy density is less connected to power and more tightly coupled to beam size. Modules with fewer diodes tend to have smaller beams - this is due to how the manufactures stacks the diode outputs. One exception is the AlgoLaser Delta which has a different diode arrangement allowing a 24W laser to have an almost square beam with higher energy density, yet can still cut like a 30+w laser.
That makes sense. So I guess the part I hadn't considered is that the 20w has a significantly larger beam thus more overall energy at the surface. At 45yo following a year of being out of work with a back injury I'm diving into the world of CNC lasers. I programmed and setup CNC mills and lathes for about six years a decade ago and have always wanted to get back into the field. My xtool S1 will be here this week and for the past week I've been relearning all my software. Your videos have been very interesting, much appreciated. This channel is a welcomed break from the overwhelming number of videos that are simply paid advertisements!
@@pkupmanvt Almost all of my equipment reviews are unpaid, so I can retain an unbiased view, and on the couple where I have been paid, I'm clear with the manufacturer that I work for my channel viewers, not them. I won't actively try to destroy a company's product, but if I don't like some aspect of it, you will hear about it. Most companies are actually OK with that.
I’d appreciate your thoughts on the idea that running a diode laser regularly at 100% can significantly reduce the lifespan vs consistently running it at something closer to 85 or 90% power. Thank you!
I hear the comments about running at 100% but I’m skeptical of the claim that it shortens the life in a disproportionate way. Of course using more power means more wear and tear on the laser but is 100% more than twice as bad as 50%. I don’t see it.
Thanks for this video. I am considering purchasing a laser and this certainly answered a couple of questions that I have had in mind in trying to determine what would be the most useable for me. Economics become a central question: “If I spend more for a higher power laser, what benefit will that provide?” This video helps me understand. Good job.
@@robmills4709 Agreed - I know Rich and have joined him on his Sunday live stream. He is both a gentleman and well-versed in Lightburn, among many other things.
The biggest issue is prefocus collimation and integration of the optical power. The most efficient systems use FAC mucrolenses on the diodes, a series of knife edge mirrors and a polarized beam combiner followed with a collimation lens. Such syatems can give a final focal spot of 0.1 to 0.02 mm. Use the dodes to pumpa fiber optic and you can get down to 0.001mm. In essence the tradeoff is brute force power for a cleaner beam spot at your workpiece. ❤
Very interesting... and useful information (I'll have to admit that I knew most of this already). I do, however, have a few suggestions for future tests that might give some interesting results. This test involved CUTTING... and of one specific material... 1. It might be interesting to see the results with different materials. One example is that I would expect less dense materials to require less power to cut - which is going to affect the kerf and the possible cutting depth. The power density in the beam is higher where the cone is narrower... Therefore we would expect to be able to cut "heat resistant" materials only at a distance close to the focal point... But we would expect to be able to cut softer materials, with less heat resistance, over a much larger depth range. (So, for a given power, and the same focal length, I would expect to be able to cut much thicker balsa wood than walnut, at the "expense" of a wider kerf.) 2. It would be interesting to see how multiple cuts affect the overall "capacity"... and how much you gain by repeated passes. (I assume that, due to focus depth, and potential build up of charcoal residue, you gain less depth with each repeated cut.) (I've also seen commentary about making multiple cuts... and advancing the focus lower with each one...) 3. It would be interesting to see the effect of air assist under various conditions. 4. This test involved cutting and presumably the ability to do clean cuts. HOWEVER, the situation will be different when it comes to ENGRAVING. For example, a finer beam is going to be able to engrave finer lines. 5. I've heard some people discuss the idea of deliberately de-focusing the beam to achieve "shading" on some materials. I suspect this would be largely impractical with the power of most diode LASERs... but an interesting thought. 6. I just ordered an XTools F1, which is galvanometer based... This means that the beam is directed in a different way... For example, with pictures I've seen of the LASER Pecker, it looks like the beam exits a relatively small lens, resulting in its hitting the surface at an angle when away from center. I've also seen videos of some fiber LASER engravers that seem to direct the beam from a VERY small lens aperture... I would expect this to result in an angled cut when cutting - with the cut at 90 degrees at the center and an angle that increases with distance from the center. (unlike gantry-type diode LASERs). I would also expect that this might not occur to the same degree with my new F1 (which looks like it has a larger lower lens). I have never heard this mentioned in a review... (I KNOW that the 10w LASER in my new F1 isn't going to be cutting 2x4's... But I do wonder if it will be adding a variable angle to cuts in thin plywood - UNLIKE a gantry-style LASER - or not.) Obviously I'm going to test some of this for myself when I get my new unit set up... But it seems like it all might make worthwhile content for a few test videos :)
Clearly, this is a hot topic for people, and I'll note the contents of your message for some possible future work. I planning to include some engraving tests, but this would have turned this video into a feature film. So maybe I'll do some follow-up The one point I will respond to, though is #6. since it raises an interesting question. Lasers positioned by galovs will definitely be cutting at an angle, so they will realistically be more tuned to engraving, where this is less of a problem. The F1 has a fairly large lens, as do most fiber lasers, but I wouldn't use any of these for cutting.
What I did in the video was draw a rectangle and in side it I drew 8 lines across it to make a total of 10 cuts. After cutting this out, push all the internal squares together an measure the gap that’s left over. Divide this by 10 you will get the kerf (or more accurately, the width of the laser when it is cutting)
1 thing that stands out to me is as you move up in laser wattage the power does not increase that same multiplier...i.e. 10w to 30w does not have a 3x improvement. Just a neat thing I saw in the chart. Would love to see a 40 (48) watt lasers numbers. Just one question that I don't know if you covered and I missed or not but did you actually measure the beam size or go from the manufacturers' statement? Honestly just curious as I can't remember you saying anything about it when I watched (re-watching to see if I did indeed miss it).
I wanted to include a 40w laser but I was having an issue with my D1Pro this week. I will follow up on this once I resolve my issue or get a different 40w+ laser to review.
I have a sculptfun s30 pro 10w. And I have damaged 2 laser motherboards. I don't know why this is happening to my laser. I don't know whether the temperature in my room is causing problems with the motherboard or something else. even though I only use this laser for 2 hours a day
I think they are saying the same thing differently. At least as far as I have noticed. I have never heard someone say that adding a diode decreases the output of the end result, or at least I had never thought thats what they were saying. Just exactly what you showed... and Stacking 4 6w lasers will not give you the full power of all of them at the same time but 20w instead of 24w. I know it will be stronger than 2x6w lasers. I just watched a reaction video to this and i really feel like everyone is saying the same thing and misunderstanding each other. At least as it comes down to the power output.
@@SteveMakesEverything Yes they do. They give the wavelength of laser, the focal length of lens and if one assumes something about beam quality the size of beam after collimator is enough to calculate it. I agree though that any supplier of a laser system should have listed it in clear text.
@@1kreature Wavelength is pretty easy since it's printed on the module, but focal length of the lens is not always available - especially for older lasers, and some of the ones used in this video are 2 years old. The easiest way to determine this would be to measure from the lens to the material when it is in focus, but the best power isn't necessarily available with perfect focus because plano-convex lenses don't bring the beam to a single point but rather a series of foci at different distances from the lens (This is what makes the height of the blue rectangle in the diagram I showed in this video). Measuring would get you close, though.
@@SteveMakesEverything It would be amazing comparing the results of the same laser with a Plano-convex lens Vs Miniscus lens, but to do this you would need to almost totally rebuid the module. Probably easier to do with a Co2 than a diode
Thanks a lot Steve, just what i was asking for, it will sure help me decide on my next upgrade. Didn’t quite understand how it happens that between 5w and 33w the power intensity is only 4 times more, (less than i expected) while the speed is 10 times greater (more than i expected). Intuition buffling… At the end of the day whay i really care about is getting a faster time-saving machine, so i am pretty happy with the data. Still, i am curious why it is so.
Some of the difference is because of system loss, some is related to focal length, but as you’ve noted, the real difference is the time it takes to run a job. A higher power laser is just much more capable.
There is no question that for the foreseeable future, a CO2 laser with comparable rated power will be 2-3 times faster than a diode laser, but CO2 lasers come with a different set of issues (e.g. portability, size, and usually cost).
excellent video and explanation.. but I have one major problem and this is not with cutting but engraving! I moved from a 5w to a 10w and my engravings are nowhere as near dark as my 5w.. I have tried every possible change to settings with speed and power.. also another thing is that the engravings on the 10w keeps fading off when I stain them with a foam brush.. please see my problem and if you have a solution it would mean so much!
@@SteveMakesEverything I think it might have to do with the high degree of carbonization, that's why it is easy to fall.. that would be awsome if you do some tests with your experience! Noone have tested this.. also please if you do it test vector images.. thank you very much!
@@Georgeprospero It's worth a look. You should get less carbonization (a.k.a charring) with a 10W laser, unless you are applying needless power, of course. I'd suggest running a material cut test on your laser to find the optimal cut settings, though I have to assume you've already done this.
would it be worth investing in a Inferred laser of just save my pennies and buy a CO2 ? I have a 10w and a 5.5w and a 2.5w now and replace the 2.5w with the Inferred .
Your diagram showing short versus long focal length is misleading, or worse yet, a lie. Light does not flatten out into a cylinder the way you show, There is ALWAYS a conical shape to the light both up to and past the point of focus. The cone will be wider or narrower depending on the focal length, but it will always be conical. Furthermore, you are using lasers from four different manufacturers. For a truly accurate test, you would need to use identical machines with only the laser heads swapped and with those lasers being from the same manufacturer.
So having spent several years working in laser and optics research, I won't disagree you. But keep in mind that most people who watch this channel are first-time laser users who probably don't care a bit about physics, so I attempt to simplify things as much as possible. If you want a perfect understanding of laser physics, then I'd recommend watching Russ Sadler's channel (@SarbarMultimedia). He and I have had many conversations about lasers and optics and have even helped each other a few times. He knows his stuff and his curious mind is meticulous in learning about what he doesn't know. As far as a more accurate test, yes, it would be nice to have a laser where swapping 4-5 different modules was possible. Any laser where this is an option usually involves other major changes at some point, so it's not really practical. When I upgraded my D1Pro to 40W, I had to change controllers and all of the cabling, for example, and it's now effectively a different laser. But again, many people on this channel wouldn't care about the effort for more accuracy since they would be happier if their laser worked more like a toaster than a scientific instrument.
@@ChippWalters I actually DID watch the video, thank you very much. I was commenting on his diagram, which shows a PERFECTLY parallel beam, which is NOT TRUE. You can simp for the guy all you want. He responded to me; agreed that the graphic COULD be construed as misleading; and we're all good. I don't know who yanked your chain, but this has nothing to do with you.
@@rebeltaz123 OK let's not go to war here over a simple diagram. This channel is about helping not arguing, and the diagram I created, albeit simple, got the point across. But, FWIW, true laser light is very close to laminar and parallel. The intent is for the beam to be parallel, though, in a $0.39 laser diode, you aren't going to achieve that. But I can certainly tell you about a laser I helped design and build for "someone" where the beam is parallel for well over a mile. I can't show it to you, though, unless you have level 5 or better security clearance. 🤐
Wow. You should be ashamed about spreading disinformation like this. The dot size definitely increases with the number of diodes used. A simple low power defocused beam test will show you why. To prevent damaging the optics the beams are aligned parallel. They do not overlap on top of one another.
@@SteveMakesEverything yes you did, your "myth 2". 8:17. It's not about the focal length, the beams are aligned beside each other, not on top of each other. Also this definitely affects kerf and engraving resolution.
@@-vermin- To be clear, I'm not arguing with you and I certainly wasn't suggesting that the diodes aren't stacked side-by-side, but rather that I heard a comment claiming that the reason the beam is bigger is because manufacturers can't easily align the diodes and that's what was making the beam bigger. Regarding the diode output being stacked side-by-side though, there are lasers coming very soon where this is no longer true. I have one in my possession right now where a 22W laser produces an almost square beam that is comparable to a 10W laser in size, yet it cuts like a 33W laser. The current beam arrangement is a choice not a technical limitation.
Hi Steve, this is a very good and interesting video. You have explained it very well.
Only at your 4th myth, you are not wrong, but also not completely correct.
If you shine the light of multiple lasers through several partially transparent mirrors, you will notice that the first laser (the top one in your diagram) experiences the least amount of loss. As you mentioned, this mirror is not partially transparent, so the loss is not significant at this point. However, what does come into play is that if it is a glass mirror, diffraction and loss of intensity occurs. I don't believe a glass mirror has been chosen here, but that doesn't matter for the rest of my explanation.
The laser below it must shine through a partially transparent mirror because the light from the laser above it must pass through. To start with, there is some loss from the upper laser because glass, no matter how clear, converts light into heat and changes the intensity of the light. As long as we can see glass, it absorbs light intensity; it's as simple as that. Additionally, there's a problem where light enters the back of the glass at an angle and, due to diffraction, exits at a slightly shifted angle, which depends on the thickness of the glass used. The laser shining from the other side of this glass enters at a different angle and must pass through the glass surface twice - once towards the back of the glass where the foil or deposited metal is that reflects the light, and then back out at a 90-degree angle. So, there are two instances of diffraction and loss of intensity due to the brightness of the glass.
By now, the beam of light has become broader, and this broader beam continues downward to the next laser. This effect repeats several times, and when you compare the differences between the first stacked lasers and the current generation, you'll see that there are significant variations in the amount of loss. It's not a standard 4% per glass piece, but the loss increases as you go through multiple layers of glass. This loss is partly due to the glass absorbing heat and thus, lowering intensity and partly due to diffraction, causing some of the emitted light to simply not reach the final lens.
As technology has improved, laser developers have started using better diffraction gratings to minimize this loss in intensity instead of caring about optical focus. However, you'll only find this in very few consumer diode lasers because it's an expensive and difficult technique and is also sensitive to impacts. In the consumer laser diodes used in most of our laser engravers, much more attention is paid to the final lenses that focus the light into a usable beam than to the light path leading to the final lenses.
As said, you are absolutely not wrong, but you can't say it's a 4 percent loss per element.
Greetings,
Brian.
Yes, this is all correct, but I was trying to keep the description as simple as possible.😉
The beam coming off each diode is also quite large compared to what I've shown, and there is actually a concentrator optic between the last diode and the lens. They do this to minimize a lot of the things you mention above (e.g. if a beam gets slightly diffracted passing through an optic, that shift would be negligible once the beam from all diode are concentrated down to a smaller single beam. This might make the beam a bit larger over all but wouldn't account for the 50%+ larger beam size that people think is caused by trying to line up the beams from different lasers
You are without a doubt one of the smartest people I've come across on TH-cam and certainly in this community. I'm pretty good at technical stuff but I don't know that much about lasers and how they work. Now I do. I have a little 5 W Hobby laser That I got as a birthday present. Definitely looking to upgrade in the very near future. My partner and I plan to do all custom engraving and we have a good contact for doing custom motorcycle and car parts (chrome accessories). You have helped make some of our buying decisions a whole lot easier. Thank you sir,you now have a new subscriber.
Thanks for the kind words. I’m just want to inform and grow the next generation of makers. 😁
In our area, there is a high fluctuation of power because of this. I can't engrave photos properly, and the machine is not starting from its stopped position. What should I do to resolve this issue . Please help me, Steve
What laser is this? When you refer to the stopped position, do you mean the home position? Or is the laser not moving at all
@SteveMakesEverything it is laser tree and I am not saying the homing position..while I am working on my project suddenly the light goes off because it loses the power from the station but when the power gets back the laser will not proced the project from its stopped position rather it shifts the position and proced
@@bereketsimon-ql8jt Hello,for home and start position need to review your controller, you not say what app you use and what controller.As i know Laser tree make only head modules without frame.
These modules have a high temperature defence and overheating is one of reasons to not work.
@@bereketsimon-ql8jt you must install ups power supply with some big battery to avoid power fluctuations, most of lasers can't resume the job after power off.
Wish you success and fun with your future projects.
So much great information. Thanks Steve
Glad it was helpful!
thank you steve i will have some kerf questions
Any time
Hi, Steve, just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for all the amazing videos you do! On another note (and somewhat off topic), I'm looking to purchase a 40w-50w CO2 laser in order to cut clear acrylic. Would you be able to make a recommendation of brand/type to buy? I would really appreciate it!
From a hardware perspective I still like the the Muse 3D from FSL, but I don’t really like that it uses its own software rather than Lightburn. So look at Thunder laser or maybe OMTech if you are looking for the lowest price. There are many you could look at.
@@SteveMakesEverything Steve, thanks for your reply! I was hoping you might recommend OMTech as I've heard good reviews about this manufacturer and is reasonably priced.
Thank you ! Very informative
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you so much for sharing these knowledge Steve, learn a lot from it
You’re welcome Kobe 😁
Thanks Steve! You videos are explaining a lot.
Glad you think so!
One important thing you kept stating was OPTICAL focus, lasers work on INTENSITY focus which is slightly different to optical focus. While I understand you were working on the basis of what manufacturers were GENERALLY stating as their specs, they are now starting to move more toward quoting relevant specs. Using Optical calculations is where a lot of these myths originated, if you were to work on intensity focus by doing a ramp test on each and using those results to recreate the results you will notice some very surprising differences in the results. I am forever trying to explain to people these things so they can get more predictable results from their lasers.
Well, at the end of the day, a user doesn't think about optical focus. But that's what allows the intensity to be focused in the first place - this is a very subtle difference and I'm not sure this is the source of most of these myths.
Users will typically do exactly what you suggest and run a focus test on the material. The optical issues only really come into play when beating down myths around beam size.
Thanks for all your good comments. I got a question for you. I am not sure if this is a myth or not but, I am using NEJE E40 laser
(10W) thinking of upgrading to a E80 (20W) I seen comments saying that all diode laser should not be used at 100% . When used at 100%, the life of the laser is reduced drastically. Is this true? I see lots of youtube example using the laser at 100%. NEJE offers a 2 year warranty but will lt last this long if used at 100%?
No matter what, all lasers are consumable. If you baby the laser, then it might last incrementally longer, but I don’t put a lot of stock not the 100% power claim. Diode lasers vary the output power by pulsing the power and varying the duration that the laser is turned on. The actual voltage applied to the laser is constant while it is on, regardless of the power output.
My 33~36 w laser only cut at 10mm/m speed and only at 70% power and above, is that anything wrong with my laser?
Likely not assuming this is wood of some sort. Note that you'd be better to use higher speed and multiple passes rather than a brute-force single pass anyway. This will help prevent your cut material from looking like something you'd use to start a BBQ. I've been meaning to do a video about this - some day😏
Thanks for the info. I learned a lot. I especially appreciate the power and cutting depth info. I almost paid more money for a 48w laser that could be switched to 24wfor finer engraving. Sounds like that would have been a waste of money based on your info. Instead I opted for a 24w at half the price with a motorized x axis that can automatically step down for multiple passes on deeper cuts. Sounds like I made the best choice without knowing it. The cuts may take longer, but will still be possible and with a better kerf, and I won’t lose anything in fine engraving.
20-30W lasers are in the sweet spot for both cutting and engraving. However, you will hear a lot of people say that a 40W laser can't get detailed engraving because the beam is "huge." Keep in mind that we are talking about small fractions of millimeters, which is beyond the limits of most peoples' eyes anyway. A typical 20W laser will have a beam size of 0.8mm to 0.1mm, while a 40W laser size is usually around 0.15-0.18mm. Can anyone really see a 0.05mm difference??🤔
Hi Steve, Which do you thing is a better laser.longer ray 33 watt or acmer p2 33 watt.Having troublemaking a decision. Longer has good support. Not sure about acmer. THANK YOU
Tough choice since both are great choices. Both companies seem to have decent support, though the Ray 5 is an older design. All things being equal, I would probably lean to the ACMER P2, but you won’t go wrong with either
Thanks steve
Thank you for all the work you do.
Just trying to help 😁
I bought a creality 2 12W and watching this now acknowledge I bought the dud. Its a pity I didn't see this video before wasting the money.
Keep up the good work and thanks for the info. Unfortunately I can't afford $1500 to $2000 AU for a reasonable laser at this stage. Time to start saving :(
Sorry to hear that. I don’t think the Falcon 2 is a dud, but I do want to tell people if there things to be aware of. Creality generally makes solid products and I think the Falcon 2 falls into this category. As a laser with less than 40W, this should be an excellent laser. Even at 40w, I just think Creality squandered an opportunity to lead the market.
Are you having a particular issue?
It seems that multiple diodes diodes will not be in exact phase and will effect coherence. Could you comment on that? Thanks
They are all run from the same PWM signal so they should be in phase. In most diode laser modules, the diode out puts aren’t stack, so the phase won’t matter anyway. But there lasers where they are at least partially stacked so the manufacturers has figured this out for us
thank you, terrific explanation.!
Glad it was helpful!
A great explanation. Thank you ☺
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you for the video. Watching this make me think of a question of beam shape and size. If I want to creat a 1”x1” black block, engraving. If I execute the burn on various laser with different beam sizes and shapes, will the shading be different? Does lightburn take into account beam size/shape?
These are interesting questions. First the color shading may not even be the same between to units of the same laser. Certainly between different brands, laser powers etc, the shading is likely to be different. Lightburn doesn’t know the beam size but it can compensation for kerf if you enter it into the settings.
Thank you Love facts!! I'm pretty new to lasers and I got a 5 watt laser trying to add some income to add to my retirement
You can do it! You will likely need to aim to upgrade to 20w laser in the future if you are doing business. A 5W is fairly slow and time is money.
So in your chart the 10w is listed as a higher energy density than the 20w, but you stated the data clearly shows an increase in energy density as wattage increases. Are the data points accidentally swapped?
The energy density is less connected to power and more tightly coupled to beam size. Modules with fewer diodes tend to have smaller beams - this is due to how the manufactures stacks the diode outputs. One exception is the AlgoLaser Delta which has a different diode arrangement allowing a 24W laser to have an almost square beam with higher energy density, yet can still cut like a 30+w laser.
That makes sense. So I guess the part I hadn't considered is that the 20w has a significantly larger beam thus more overall energy at the surface.
At 45yo following a year of being out of work with a back injury I'm diving into the world of CNC lasers. I programmed and setup CNC mills and lathes for about six years a decade ago and have always wanted to get back into the field. My xtool S1 will be here this week and for the past week I've been relearning all my software. Your videos have been very interesting, much appreciated. This channel is a welcomed break from the overwhelming number of videos that are simply paid advertisements!
@@pkupmanvt Almost all of my equipment reviews are unpaid, so I can retain an unbiased view, and on the couple where I have been paid, I'm clear with the manufacturer that I work for my channel viewers, not them. I won't actively try to destroy a company's product, but if I don't like some aspect of it, you will hear about it. Most companies are actually OK with that.
I’d appreciate your thoughts on the idea that running a diode laser regularly at 100% can significantly reduce the lifespan vs consistently running it at something closer to 85 or 90% power.
Thank you!
I hear the comments about running at 100% but I’m skeptical of the claim that it shortens the life in a disproportionate way. Of course using more power means more wear and tear on the laser but is 100% more than twice as bad as 50%. I don’t see it.
Thank you.
Thanks for this video. I am considering purchasing a laser and this certainly answered a couple of questions that I have had in mind in trying to determine what would be the most useable for me. Economics become a central question: “If I spend more for a higher power laser, what benefit will that provide?” This video helps me understand. Good job.
Glad it was helpful! In the end power is king so buy the highest power laser you can afford because it will allow you to cut or engrave faster
@@robmills4709 Agreed - I know Rich and have joined him on his Sunday live stream. He is both a gentleman and well-versed in Lightburn, among many other things.
Nice work Steve 👍😊
Thanks 👍
The biggest issue is prefocus collimation and integration of the optical power. The most efficient systems use FAC mucrolenses on the diodes, a series of knife edge mirrors and a polarized beam combiner followed with a collimation lens. Such syatems can give a final focal spot of 0.1 to 0.02 mm. Use the dodes to pumpa fiber optic and you can get down to 0.001mm. In essence the tradeoff is brute force power for a cleaner beam spot at your workpiece. ❤
…and price 😉
Very interesting... and useful information (I'll have to admit that I knew most of this already).
I do, however, have a few suggestions for future tests that might give some interesting results.
This test involved CUTTING... and of one specific material...
1.
It might be interesting to see the results with different materials.
One example is that I would expect less dense materials to require less power to cut - which is going to affect the kerf and the possible cutting depth.
The power density in the beam is higher where the cone is narrower...
Therefore we would expect to be able to cut "heat resistant" materials only at a distance close to the focal point...
But we would expect to be able to cut softer materials, with less heat resistance, over a much larger depth range.
(So, for a given power, and the same focal length, I would expect to be able to cut much thicker balsa wood than walnut, at the "expense" of a wider kerf.)
2.
It would be interesting to see how multiple cuts affect the overall "capacity"... and how much you gain by repeated passes.
(I assume that, due to focus depth, and potential build up of charcoal residue, you gain less depth with each repeated cut.)
(I've also seen commentary about making multiple cuts... and advancing the focus lower with each one...)
3.
It would be interesting to see the effect of air assist under various conditions.
4.
This test involved cutting and presumably the ability to do clean cuts.
HOWEVER, the situation will be different when it comes to ENGRAVING.
For example, a finer beam is going to be able to engrave finer lines.
5.
I've heard some people discuss the idea of deliberately de-focusing the beam to achieve "shading" on some materials.
I suspect this would be largely impractical with the power of most diode LASERs... but an interesting thought.
6.
I just ordered an XTools F1, which is galvanometer based...
This means that the beam is directed in a different way...
For example, with pictures I've seen of the LASER Pecker, it looks like the beam exits a relatively small lens, resulting in its hitting the surface at an angle when away from center.
I've also seen videos of some fiber LASER engravers that seem to direct the beam from a VERY small lens aperture...
I would expect this to result in an angled cut when cutting - with the cut at 90 degrees at the center and an angle that increases with distance from the center.
(unlike gantry-type diode LASERs).
I would also expect that this might not occur to the same degree with my new F1 (which looks like it has a larger lower lens).
I have never heard this mentioned in a review...
(I KNOW that the 10w LASER in my new F1 isn't going to be cutting 2x4's...
But I do wonder if it will be adding a variable angle to cuts in thin plywood - UNLIKE a gantry-style LASER - or not.)
Obviously I'm going to test some of this for myself when I get my new unit set up...
But it seems like it all might make worthwhile content for a few test videos :)
Clearly, this is a hot topic for people, and I'll note the contents of your message for some possible future work. I planning to include some engraving tests, but this would have turned this video into a feature film. So maybe I'll do some follow-up
The one point I will respond to, though is #6. since it raises an interesting question. Lasers positioned by galovs will definitely be cutting at an angle, so they will realistically be more tuned to engraving, where this is less of a problem. The F1 has a fairly large lens, as do most fiber lasers, but I wouldn't use any of these for cutting.
Steve for president!🗽
I can’t handle that kind of chaos 😉
Steve, you spoke about a "kerf" test.... how do we do that?
What I did in the video was draw a rectangle and in side it I drew 8 lines across it to make a total of 10 cuts. After cutting this out, push all the internal squares together an measure the gap that’s left over. Divide this by 10 you will get the kerf (or more accurately, the width of the laser when it is cutting)
1 thing that stands out to me is as you move up in laser wattage the power does not increase that same multiplier...i.e. 10w to 30w does not have a 3x improvement. Just a neat thing I saw in the chart. Would love to see a 40 (48) watt lasers numbers. Just one question that I don't know if you covered and I missed or not but did you actually measure the beam size or go from the manufacturers' statement? Honestly just curious as I can't remember you saying anything about it when I watched (re-watching to see if I did indeed miss it).
I wanted to include a 40w laser but I was having an issue with my D1Pro this week. I will follow up on this once I resolve my issue or get a different 40w+ laser to review.
@@SteveMakesEverything cool thanx!
thanks for sharing
My pleasure
Great video, thanks 👍
Glad you enjoyed it
I have a sculptfun s30 pro 10w. And I have damaged 2 laser motherboards. I don't know why this is happening to my laser. I don't know whether the temperature in my room is causing problems with the motherboard or something else. even though I only use this laser for 2 hours a day
I wouldn’t say the it’s ambient temperature. I would guess it’s a power supply issue if anything. What kind of damage?
I think they are saying the same thing differently. At least as far as I have noticed. I have never heard someone say that adding a diode decreases the output of the end result, or at least I had never thought thats what they were saying. Just exactly what you showed... and Stacking 4 6w lasers will not give you the full power of all of them at the same time but 20w instead of 24w. I know it will be stronger than 2x6w lasers. I just watched a reaction video to this and i really feel like everyone is saying the same thing and misunderstanding each other. At least as it comes down to the power output.
Not decreases output but rather doesn’t increase output. And have certainly heard another TH-camr say this exact thing.
Your table really should have had each lasers depth of field to complete the specs.
That’s not something manufacturers usually include in their specs
@@SteveMakesEverything Yes they do. They give the wavelength of laser, the focal length of lens and if one assumes something about beam quality the size of beam after collimator is enough to calculate it. I agree though that any supplier of a laser system should have listed it in clear text.
@@1kreature Wavelength is pretty easy since it's printed on the module, but focal length of the lens is not always available - especially for older lasers, and some of the ones used in this video are 2 years old. The easiest way to determine this would be to measure from the lens to the material when it is in focus, but the best power isn't necessarily available with perfect focus because plano-convex lenses don't bring the beam to a single point but rather a series of foci at different distances from the lens (This is what makes the height of the blue rectangle in the diagram I showed in this video).
Measuring would get you close, though.
@@SteveMakesEverything It would be amazing comparing the results of the same laser with a Plano-convex lens Vs Miniscus lens, but to do this you would need to almost totally rebuid the module. Probably easier to do with a Co2 than a diode
@@chrisgallaher3899 Indeed. I'm not even sure where I could get a miniscus lens for a diode laser. Would be cool to see though
Thanks a lot Steve, just what i was asking for, it will sure help me decide on my next upgrade. Didn’t quite understand how it happens that between 5w and 33w the power intensity is only 4 times more, (less than i expected) while the speed is 10 times greater (more than i expected). Intuition buffling… At the end of the day whay i really care about is getting a faster time-saving machine, so i am pretty happy with the data. Still, i am curious why it is so.
Some of the difference is because of system loss, some is related to focal length, but as you’ve noted, the real difference is the time it takes to run a job. A higher power laser is just much more capable.
most of the time the diode laser is too slow and I need more power. That way I can have more pieces to sell on etsy
There is no question that for the foreseeable future, a CO2 laser with comparable rated power will be 2-3 times faster than a diode laser, but CO2 lasers come with a different set of issues (e.g. portability, size, and usually cost).
excellent video and explanation.. but I have one major problem and this is not with cutting but engraving! I moved from a 5w to a 10w and my engravings are nowhere as near dark as my 5w.. I have tried every possible change to settings with speed and power.. also another thing is that the engravings on the 10w keeps fading off when I stain them with a foam brush.. please see my problem and if you have a solution it would mean so much!
Hmm I’m not sure this has much to do with the extra power. But I think I might to follow this up with some engraving tests as well
@@SteveMakesEverything I think it might have to do with the high degree of carbonization, that's why it is easy to fall.. that would be awsome if you do some tests with your experience! Noone have tested this.. also please if you do it test vector images.. thank you very much!
@@Georgeprospero It's worth a look. You should get less carbonization (a.k.a charring) with a 10W laser, unless you are applying needless power, of course.
I'd suggest running a material cut test on your laser to find the optimal cut settings, though I have to assume you've already done this.
Is the FDA planning on addressing illegal laser light sources a myth?
I have no idea. What would qualify as an illegal laser source?
Most of the illegality is in the warning labels on the modules not being worded correctly.
would it be worth investing in a Inferred laser of just save my pennies and buy a CO2 ? I have a 10w and a 5.5w and a 2.5w now and replace the 2.5w with the Inferred .
In my opinion a CO2 is far more useful, but it’s also hugely more expensive. So you have to make a choice
Your diagram showing short versus long focal length is misleading, or worse yet, a lie. Light does not flatten out into a cylinder the way you show, There is ALWAYS a conical shape to the light both up to and past the point of focus. The cone will be wider or narrower depending on the focal length, but it will always be conical.
Furthermore, you are using lasers from four different manufacturers. For a truly accurate test, you would need to use identical machines with only the laser heads swapped and with those lasers being from the same manufacturer.
So having spent several years working in laser and optics research, I won't disagree you. But keep in mind that most people who watch this channel are first-time laser users who probably don't care a bit about physics, so I attempt to simplify things as much as possible. If you want a perfect understanding of laser physics, then I'd recommend watching Russ Sadler's channel (@SarbarMultimedia). He and I have had many conversations about lasers and optics and have even helped each other a few times. He knows his stuff and his curious mind is meticulous in learning about what he doesn't know.
As far as a more accurate test, yes, it would be nice to have a laser where swapping 4-5 different modules was possible. Any laser where this is an option usually involves other major changes at some point, so it's not really practical. When I upgraded my D1Pro to 40W, I had to change controllers and all of the cabling, for example, and it's now effectively a different laser. But again, many people on this channel wouldn't care about the effort for more accuracy since they would be happier if their laser worked more like a toaster than a scientific instrument.
You might want to actually watch the video before you call someone a liar. At 11:52 Steve specifically states that the beam is conical not parallel.
@@ChippWalters I actually DID watch the video, thank you very much. I was commenting on his diagram, which shows a PERFECTLY parallel beam, which is NOT TRUE. You can simp for the guy all you want. He responded to me; agreed that the graphic COULD be construed as misleading; and we're all good. I don't know who yanked your chain, but this has nothing to do with you.
@@rebeltaz123 OK let's not go to war here over a simple diagram. This channel is about helping not arguing, and the diagram I created, albeit simple, got the point across.
But, FWIW, true laser light is very close to laminar and parallel. The intent is for the beam to be parallel, though, in a $0.39 laser diode, you aren't going to achieve that. But I can certainly tell you about a laser I helped design and build for "someone" where the beam is parallel for well over a mile. I can't show it to you, though, unless you have level 5 or better security clearance. 🤐
Wow. You should be ashamed about spreading disinformation like this. The dot size definitely increases with the number of diodes used. A simple low power defocused beam test will show you why. To prevent damaging the optics the beams are aligned parallel. They do not overlap on top of one another.
Did I say adding diodes doesn’t increase the beam size??
@@SteveMakesEverything yes you did, your "myth 2". 8:17. It's not about the focal length, the beams are aligned beside each other, not on top of each other. Also this definitely affects kerf and engraving resolution.
Calling other youtubers liars is despicable and frankly cheap.
@@-vermin- To be clear, I'm not arguing with you and I certainly wasn't suggesting that the diodes aren't stacked side-by-side, but rather that I heard a comment claiming that the reason the beam is bigger is because manufacturers can't easily align the diodes and that's what was making the beam bigger.
Regarding the diode output being stacked side-by-side though, there are lasers coming very soon where this is no longer true. I have one in my possession right now where a 22W laser produces an almost square beam that is comparable to a 10W laser in size, yet it cuts like a 33W laser.
The current beam arrangement is a choice not a technical limitation.
@@robmills4709 Indeed, but sometimes I like to stir the pot. I never resort to all-out war though - that's just no fun.😀