Power from DC glass laser tube is the same as power from RF laser tubes?

[Lucy Smith]

Hello everyone!
I truly enjoy all the postings and I learn a bunch about laser apps. I have a question though. Can you compare power coming from a DC glass laser to be equal to power coming from an RF air cooled laser tube?

In other words, does a Chinese laser with 80 watts cut the same thicknes in wood (MDF) as an American made laser with the same power? I have heard that the power level is not comparable.

Thank you for the help.

[Rodne Gold]

You have to look at energy density if you want to "compare" , its the amount of energy focussed on the spot - it takes into account smallest spot size and beam quality. Assuming all is equal 80w is 80w power whether it be a glass tube or a RF tube. However RF tubes generally have better beam quality , better beam stability and perhaps a smaller spot size. So yes , you might find an 80w RF tube better than an 80w Glass tube.. but then of course it will cost you 10x or maybe 20x more for the source than a glass tube , and there is no guarantee it will actually last longer......
Most glass tubes will fail earlier if you run at max rated power , so often you cannot use 100% power with a glass tube , thus albeit rated at 80w , in reality it can be used at 70w , let's say 90% power. The other issue is that you cannot get reliable firing of a glass tube at under 10% power so one would have to go very much faster at a higher power level than 10% to get a good result and on some lasers this speed increase might be beyond the machines range, so for eg , you might want the laser to JUST mark acrylic or paper and you will find that you cannot go fast enough to achieve this.
There are no free lunches , if a $400 80w tube could perform as well as a $4-8k RF tube , well then no one would be using RF tubes....

[Dan Hintz]

We need a "Like" button... I agree 100% with everything Rodney said.

[Chuck Stone]

we need a DISLIKE button.
I want a free lunch.
my baby is dying and i can't afford a replacement.