My turn with the moly spray

[Kev Williams]

Got my moly in the mail yesterday- I got a can of CRC dry moly lube spray, and a 1 lb can of Jet-Lube MP-50 moly paste...

293975

I just conducted a side-by-side test against Cermark on some 304 SS plates.

Here's the 2 plates, Cermark on top, moly on the bottom...
293970293971293972

I could tell while the moly plate was engraving I wasn't going to be terribly impressed.
Here's the plates fresh out of the laser, and washed up afterwards:

293973293974

I didn't prep the plates, they've been sitting scattered on a shelf and probably pretty dusty. I just sprayed them. The Cermark didn't take as well as it would've had I prepped the plates, but the moly side wasn't acceptable at all.

I used my 40w LS900 @ 100 power, 16 speed, 600 LPI and 800 DPI, which is typical of how I engrave Cermark. When I saw how the moly plate was looking (very faint), I decreased the speed to 8 for the phone numbers and web address. That did help, but not much.

That was the spray. It was on pretty thick, but a second coat may help. The paste is very thick, like dark gray gritty vaseline. I'll try that later.

Also, I have my 80w Triumph in the garage that incinerates Cermark, so I'm curious if it'll get the moly black. But as of now, I don't see moly taking Cermark's place, at least not for me...

[Dan Hintz]

I just conducted a side-by-side test against Cermark on some 304 SS plates.

Here's the 2 plates, Cermark on top, moly on the bottom...
293970293971293972

I could tell while the moly plate was engraving I wasn't going to be terribly impressed.
Here's the plates fresh out of the laser, and washed up afterwards:

293973293974

I didn't prep the plates, they've been sitting scattered on a shelf and probably pretty dusty. I just sprayed them. The Cermark didn't take as well as it would've had I prepped the plates, but the moly side wasn't acceptable at all.

I used my 40w LS900 @ 100 power, 16 speed, 600 LPI and 800 DPI, which is typical of how I engrave Cermark. When I saw how the moly plate was looking (very faint), I decreased the speed to 8 for the phone numbers and web address. That did help, but not much.

That was the spray. It was on pretty thick, but a second coat may help. The paste is very thick, like dark gray gritty vaseline. I'll try that later.

Also, I have my 80w Triumph in the garage that incinerates Cermark, so I'm curious if it'll get the moly black. But as of now, I don't see moly taking Cermark's place, at least not for me...

So you didn't prepare the surface, you put on a thick layer of spray, and it looks like you ran both CerMark and Moly at the same speed/power (I'm guessing on that last one). And you expected good results? Certainly not repeatable results, and definitely not an apples to apples comparison.

[Clark Pace]

So you didn't prepare the surface, you put on a thick layer of spray, and it looks like you ran both CerMark and Moly at the same speed/power (I'm guessing on that last one). And you expected good results? Certainly not repeatable results, and definitely not an apples to apples comparison.

I think moly spray is more finicky about the type of metals. My test turned out much darker. I ran it on a 100 watt machine. I used 3 layers. Now on my other machine 50 watt, and a different metal it did not more very well at all. So more experiementing to go.

[Mike Null]

Dan

The moly spray I tested came out of the can relatively thick compared to the thickness I use for Cermark. That appears to be an uncontrollable factor. I prepped my materials carefully and tested at Cermark settings then at half the speed. Results were similar to what Kev got though a little fainter as I was working with less power.

Unless somebody makes this work on brass or aluminum consistently I don't see any point in using it as it is no match for Cermark on stainless steel.

[Kev Williams]

About all my "prep" amounts to is wiping off the plates with some Windex or Fantastik to remove dirt & grease. I didn't do that on my first test...

I wasn't expecting good results. And I didn't get them either. The results I DID get were disappointing at best, and that's with the machine running excruciatingly SLOOOOWWW.

Also, I tried the paste, which of course doesn't dry. I lasered over the same squares I ran on first try, lots slower and higher res, the change was negligible.

So next up was the Triumph test. I can fry Cermark at 300 speed and 40 power with the thing. I started the plate below at 400 speed and 50 power. Just as it switched to the second line, I dropped the speed to 200. That caused the backlash issue, but the marking only went from a light goldish color to a little darker goldish color. If I go any slower or add more power, this laser will mark the metal by itself.
293983

So, as far as SS goes, I'll keep using Cermark. When I have some time I want to experiment with chrome, aluminum and brass...

[Gary Hair]

About all my "prep" amounts to is wiping off the plates with some Windex or Fantastik to remove dirt & grease.

That isn't generally considered a good cleaner, both leave residue behind that will interfere with the Cermark. Best bet is to use DNA - denatured alcohol - or both - Windex/Fantastik first then DNA to remove the residue.

[Kev Williams]

Just my experience, but the residue from Windex or Fantastik is exactly why I use it- It keeps the Cermark from lifting off the SS, and I've never found any adverse affects from it. I HAVE had Cermark lift from DNA-only cleaned SS, especially highly polished SS, like some of the knife blades I get. My biggest issue with Cermark (other than basic crud or oil from my hands) is the residue left behind from the masking on #4 SS. I've found the spray cleaners work fine for that too.

[Mitchell Tutty]

I find it very odd that a vast majority are getting unacceptable results.

I get fantastic results, better and more consistent then cermark.
I prefer it as a product before we even start discussing prices.

I use three coats. Apply it very thick, and run incredibly hot.
I've got the same consistent result on SS, aluminium, brass and rhodium.

[Ross Moshinsky]

I find it very odd that a vast majority are getting unacceptable results.

I get fantastic results, better and more consistent then cermark.
I prefer it as a product before we even start discussing prices.

I use three coats. Apply it very thick, and run incredibly hot.
I've got the same consistent result on SS, aluminium, brass and rhodium.

Are you running this in fiber mode?

[Clark Pace]

I find it very odd that a vast majority are getting unacceptable results.

I get fantastic results, better and more consistent then cermark.
I prefer it as a product before we even start discussing prices.

I use three coats. Apply it very thick, and run incredibly hot.
I've got the same consistent result on SS, aluminium, brass and rhodium.


What brand of moly are you using? I'm using CRC green can.

[Mike Null]

Mitchell

It was because of your post that I purchased a can. The stuff I bought sprayed very coarsely even though i spent more time shaking the can than directed. Three coats would have left a coating of at least .015" which I judged to be too heavy. I will test it again in a few days when I get my re-built tube. Even if it works it's a real mess to use.

[Kev Williams]

Even if it works it's a real mess to use. -- And after my few minutes with the mess, I figured out why diesel locomotives smell like they do! ;)

(but I could put up with the smell and mess if I could get it to work!)

And to hijack my own thread a bit-- most of you know that I've found my Triumph to be very finicky, in regards to getting good cermark results on stainless, whereas my 2 western lasers have no problem whatsoever. HOWEVER, one thing I've NEVER been able to do with my western lasers is get cermark to stick to ALUMINUM. So I've never held out much hope with the Triumph being any better...

Well, one of my customers builds aluminum everything, which I tool engrave a whole bunch of. If they black anodize it, I'll laser etch it. A couple of weeks ago they asked if I could laser etch an aluminum box that was chem-filmed. I told them "not likely". I was given a small chem-filmed box to experiment with. Today I finally got around to testing it.

The 3 lines of text shown were done at 60 power (nearly max for my machine), the top line at 400mm/sec, second line 300mm/sec, 3rd line 200mm/sec. FWIW, if I raster words on Rowmark at 60/200, it'll burn clear thru...

First test was bare aluminum-- if you look close in the first pic, you can see the very faint results, upside-down. But just for fun, I shot some cermark on the other half and just re-ran the same job...

Was I pleasantly surprised! All 3 lines look great, although the 2 slower passes really fused it on good. I actually expected it to wash off like it usually would, but it's ON there, and looks great! If only I could get the Triumph to make stainless to look like this!

Now I'm going to have to try the moly on the aluminum! ;)

294062294061

[Norm Zurawski]

My testing of crc dry moly. Got some Starrett shim stock to try and make a few pocket rulers relevant to my work. The CerMark (standard Epilog settings) worked the best. Middle ruler was the dry moly. But my method of testing dry moly was this. I sprayed a medium coat of dry moly and immediately flashed off the vapors for a quick dry, 2nd coat same thing, 3rd coat same thing. Lasered at 100% power 10 speed. Did pretty good. I cleaned product off with carb cleaner. I have a roll of paper like the stuff used in your doctors office on the exam tables and rubbed hard and a lot at the 4 to 5" mark and the marking slowly with effort started to degrade. Also not as dark as the CerMark. But hey, for a cheap alternative worked pretty good.

I find it amazing how the marking looks to the naked eye, and after taking photos and looking closer you can see the dot markings. I think I need to use the 2ft rule on these :-)

The worst thing I have to say is the T-Clip from my store bought pocket ruler doesn't fit this shim stock as the store bought ruler is slightly under 1/2". Darn I want my pocket clip. I may try and bend one into shape, then see how the CerMark holds banging around in my pocket all day.

[Scott Shepherd]

Norm, try vector marking your lines and just engraving the text. If you need fatter lines, take the vector marking out of focus by moving the table down about 1/16" for the lines. I think you might be happier with the lines then.

[Norm Zurawski]

I am aware of the out of focus and so on. I was making a note of what a camera does compared to ones visual. Until I took pictures it looked good to me :-)
In the images I think the first one was one line size, next two down I bolded lettering and fattened up some of the increment lines like inch marks one size, 1/2" slightly smaller just playing with effects. I bought a 13ft roll of this shim stock for $19 delivered off eBay and have plenty to play with.

[Scott Shepherd]

No problem Norm. Good luck in your testing. I was just suggesting to vector the lines because it (1) goes faster than rastering, and (2) it gives a sharper line.

[Mitchell Tutty]

Im glad my post has sparked a lot of interest.

The CRC brand is not available to me here in Australia, I purchased a can that goes by the name 'Molytec'
I do believe they are an Australia company and may be hard to find abroad.

I have been using this full time consistently for about 4 months now, I probably go through 3 cans a week.
Stainless has become a big part of my business.

I have refined the process.
Apply as thick as possible.
Three heavy coats is about the maximum until the coating begins to peel off.
I am running a 60w Epilog Fusion, and run it at 600dpi full power and 30 speed.

I no longer have a mess in cleaning.
I have a sink basin set up simply for cleaning off the moly.
I run the water as hot as possible, then hold the stainless under the faucet and the remaining moly simply peels off like a skin, clean in 10 seconds maximum.

Cermark is a thing of the past here.
Even if price was not a factor, I would continue using dry moly.

Feel free to PM with any further questions.

[Chris Combs]

hello! Apologies for reviving an old thread. Wondering if I could pick your brains a bit about this process.

I just tried dry moly + a 60W ULS co2 laser (V4.60) on two different forms of aluminum: anodized and raw. I cleaned both with dish soap, then rubbing alcohol, and gave them two heavy coats of green-can dry moly spray.

When I ran some test patterns using the ULS software's built-in "metal marking spray" preset (nice) it looked almost like it was knocking the moly clear off the material. So I also ran some test patterns with lighter power presets, which looked much better contrast-wise. But after cleaning with rubbing alcohol the only marking that persisted were the ones that looked like I'd removed all the moly!

It has a very, very light effect on this material, almost like it just marked the aluminum instead of bonding with it. I can see it decently well at an angle but head-on it's just a ghost of an image.

I'll post some pix tonight so you can see what I mean.

my questions for those who are getting good results...

Did I chicken out? Should I run it with MOAR POWER even though it looked like it was removing all of the moly?

What's it look like before you wipe it off when you've done it right?

And is there any ink or other marking material that might bond with these soft moly-marks? Since I've already milled these out and whatnot, might as well try to salvage :)

Many thanks,
Chris

[Doug Fisher]

For what it is worth, when I was testing marking fluid on two types of aluminum that looked like both were just plain aluminum sheets, I found out both types actually had a coating on them. I didn't find out there was a coating until I really went after the aluminum with steel wool. Maybe you have a similar situation?

[Chris Combs]

For what it is worth, when I was testing marking fluid on two types of aluminum that looked like both were just plain aluminum sheets, I found out both types actually had a coating on them. I didn't find out there was a coating until I really went after the aluminum with steel wool. Maybe you have a similar situation?

oh goodness, I didn't even think of that. I will see what I can find out. Thank you!!

[Kev Williams]

At this moment I'm Cermarking 500 aluminum electronics panels. The only reason I even CAN do this is because of the 80 watt RECI tube in the Triumph. Best I can get with my 30-40 watt Synrad lasers is about 15% 'good' fusion and black to 85% 'just washes off' fusion. But even with the 80 watts, Cermark on anodized aluminum is a 100% no-go. This would be the LMM-6000, which is all I use, maybe one of the others will stick to aluminum oxide...

But back to moly, I bought dry moly, wet moly, 'axle-grease' moly, and even some powdered graphite for fun. I've never gotten even close to a usable result on ANYTHING. Once I thought I did, full power & very slow with the Triumph, I got a semi-usable mark! Then I did the same run on bare SS- got the same result ;)

FWIW- I just calculated that the Cermark is costing me about 5 cents per panel. I probably spend 3x that much in electricity to laser each panel :)

[Bill George]

Kev have we not covered this in the past? You and others have suggested.... just spend the money and get the right stuff.

[Doug Fisher]

Good thread on marking aluminum here at SMC. The part about black marking fluid working better is interesting. I was wondering if you could even fluid mark anodized aluminum at all but apparently it is possible according to a poster:

https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?64251-Choice-of-TherMark-Cermark-on-aluminum

[Lisa Hiemstra]

Hi Mitchell, what power, speed & PPI do you use? What is your wattage? I have a 40w Universal, and I ran it once and got great results...then forgot what I did and can't replicate it.




I find it very odd that a vast majority are getting unacceptable results.

I get fantastic results, better and more consistent then cermark.
I prefer it as a product before we even start discussing prices.

I use three coats. Apply it very thick, and run incredibly hot.
I've got the same consistent result on SS, aluminium, brass and rhodium.