PDA

View Full Version : Engraving Stainless Steel on Epilog Fusion M2 dual power



Tyler Phong
11-05-2016, 10:41 PM
I searched all over the forum and I can't find the exact answer I am looking for.



I work at a cemetery and engrave 304 stainless steel plates (called lot blocks) that are 5"x3". For the past 5 yrs I had been engraving them on the Epilog Legend 36EXT 75 watt CO2 using Cermark.
We just got a new engraver, Epilog Fusion M2 40 dual power 75W CO2 / 50W Fiber.


Although the Cermark on the Legend gave good dark marks, it was costly as we have to do thousands a month and over the yrs, the cermark began to fade away beating in the Cali Sun. Weather the Cermark wasn't mixed correctly or its just wear from the sun, either way, we are now using the new Fusion.

So the good thing is that I etch using the fiber and actually remove some of the SS on the lot block giving it some depth. However It is very light. Is there anyway to make it almost black like cermark?



Right now I am using the manufacturer's settings of: 40S/100P/3F
For the Focus settings it says to use -0.8 - +0.10. I have NO idea what that means. I thought I just need to use the 3" focus tool and that was it.




I also run another pass using vector cut with the setting of: 50S/100P/20F

I like the vector cut because it gives it a good deep outline for the numbers and lines I am engraving into the SS that I can feel.

Does anyone know a good setting to use?
I am not use to using Frequency settings for Raster. I am used to the CO2 engraver that does have Frequency for Raster and only Speed and Power.

In the Fusion I can load 72 lot blocks and do them all at once while I'm out of the office doing other tasks. I am trying to keep it under 2hrs if possible to complete that many because as I mentioned I have to do thousands in a month.

I attached some photos. Some do look dark but it brush right off so I think i got my settings off. I want to get as deep an etch as well as dark as possible as time permits.

Any knowledge is much appreciated.


346957346958346959346960346961346962

Kev Williams
11-06-2016, 12:13 AM
I'm not sure what to tell you about your focus numbers, I'm sure they're mm numbers, but minus .8mm to +.1mm sounds more like "normal focus range" than anything else. HOWEVER, to get a good black mark, at least with my machine, you need to be out focus, probably more than might seem reasonable-- this is because a good focused beam is going to remove metal, and what you need is a slightly fatter beam that will apply more heat than cut. You might also try lower power and speed settings. But--chances are if you find that dark mark you're looking for, it won't be very deep. Not that that's a bad thing ;)

My opinions (and some of my customers') on Cermark-- I've been using it going on 15 years, and when buying it by the 500gm bottle, the price per use is only pennies. So far, I've found the aggravation and time spent that comes with trying to find the magic settings to get that good black mark aren't worth the savings of not using Cermark. And last week a customer dropped off a bunch of stainless parts (some of them are pictured in another post)-- I've always used Cermark on them, but the previous order I used the fiber, and asked them to let me know how they liked it... I thought they looked good, and the mark for sure would be more permanent. But when the last parts were dropped off, I got told matter of factly, "do these the old way, they don't like the last ones as well". Seems I'll always be buying Cermark ;)

As for your Cermark fading in the sun-- I'm more inclined to think it's just like the water deposits that build up on glass shower doors-- calcium deposits from lawn watering, and/or from whatever guck rain finds in the sky on its way down. - Try some CLR or Lime Away on them. Work fast, as some acids (muriatic for example in strong mixes) can darken stainless.


Good luck!

Tyler Phong
11-06-2016, 12:30 AM
Thanks Kev, that helps. I'll the try the out of focus thing. From what I can tell seems most darker marks on fiber tends to wipe way like it's just burnt residue metal. But with cermark at $250 a 500g bottle we spend thousands of dollars on it and wash most of it away. I guess with fiber will be just trial and error for a bit.



I'm not sure what to tell you about your focus numbers, I'm sure they're mm numbers, but minus .8mm to +.1mm sounds more like "normal focus range" than anything else. HOWEVER, to get a good black mark, at least with my machine, you need to be out focus, probably more than might seem reasonable-- this is because a good focused beam is going to remove metal, and what you need is a slightly fatter beam that will apply more heat than cut. You might also try lower power and speed settings. But--chances are if you find that dark mark you're looking for, it won't be very deep. Not that that's a bad thing ;)

My opinions (and some of my customers') on Cermark-- I've been using it going on 15 years, and when buying it by the 500gm bottle, the price per use is only pennies. So far, I've found the aggravation and time spent that comes with trying to find the magic settings to get that good black mark aren't worth the savings of not using Cermark. And last week a customer dropped off a bunch of stainless parts (some of them are pictured in another post)-- I've always used Cermark on them, but the previous order I used the fiber, and asked them to let me know how they liked it... I thought they looked good, and the mark for sure would be more permanent. But when the last parts were dropped off, I got told matter of factly, "do these the old way, they don't like the last ones as well". Seems I'll always be buying Cermark ;)

As for your Cermark fading in the sun-- I'm more inclined to think it's just like the water deposits that build up on glass shower doors-- calcium deposits from lawn watering, and/or from whatever guck rain finds in the sky on its way down. - Try some CLR or Lime Away on them. Work fast, as some acids (muriatic for example in strong mixes) can darken stainless.


Good luck!

John Lifer
11-06-2016, 8:38 AM
Tyler, not to be too critical,but your company spent what,$40,000 on a machine without getting epilog to test the laser on the ONE thing that it would be used to produce? Why didn't you send their application lab a handful of the plates and get them to test and get the settings for this? And approve of the blackness and depth prior to purchase?
I would understand if you processed a lot different materials,but in this case it is a one trick pony. It isnt performing as you guys expected it to. Your payment was to be the elimination of cermark and that might not happen. Go call epilog and get some help from them. Especially since you don't understand settings.

Make them earn their money too!

Tim Bateson
11-06-2016, 12:09 PM
Tyler, not to be too critical,but your company spent what,$40,000 on a machine...
$40,000 - lol boy are you in dream land. That might not even be half the price of this machine.


...Go call Epilog and get some help from them. Especially since you don't understand settings....
As an owner of an M2 Dual... good luck with this too. I have spent 16 months trial & error to get a partial list of settings. Some materials will have multiple settings depending on the exact specification of the material. Stainless Steel for example, I have 3 settings. Unlike CO2, Fiber isn't a 1 setting fits all. Epilog tries, but the settings they offer are an extremely crude starting point.

Tim Bateson
11-06-2016, 12:17 PM
I searched all over the forum and I can't find the exact answer I am looking for.
...
Does anyone know a good setting to use?
I am not use to using Frequency settings for Raster. I am used to the CO2 engraver that does have Frequency for Raster and only Speed and Power.

In the Fusion I can load 72 lot blocks and do them all at once while I'm out of the office doing other tasks. I am trying to keep it under 2hrs if possible to complete that many because as I mentioned I have to do thousands in a month.

I attached some photos. Some do look dark but it brush right off so I think i got my settings off. I want to get as deep an etch as well as dark as possible as time permits.

I focus .9 closer than focus. For a good clean Black marking my 30watt M2 Dual Fiber requires 2 passes - on most SS, Fiber isn't an exact science. Note - Time wise this isn't a very efficient way to mark metal. I switched back to Cermark. Which Cermark where you using? I no longer touch LMM-6000. Not a good product. LMM-6038 gives me a much cleaner mark and it doesn't seem to matter how smooth or thick it's applied. I understand the company is now pushing LMM14, but I have not yet tried it.

Tyler Phong
11-06-2016, 12:17 PM
No, no, John you are right on the ball there to be critical. I wanted to run full tests on different brand engravers first. The purchase manager for the company in all his wisdom decided to convince our company VP to go with this one even though he has never seen the engraver or tested it in person. Neither myself or the other engraving operator nor the dept in charge (cemetery development) were told till after it was said and done. I guess when someone makes a $60,000 impluse buy, others have to make it somehow work. The good thing is I also engrave urns and signs so it is a multi use machine. But mainly the lot blocks 90% of the time. I guess if the fiber on SS fails, I can revert back to Cermark since it's dual power.


Tyler, not to be too critical,but your company spent what,$40,000 on a machine without getting epilog to test the laser on the ONE thing that it would be used to produce? Why didn't you send their application lab a handful of the plates and get them to test and get the settings for this? And approve of the blackness and depth prior to purchase?
I would understand if you processed a lot different materials,but in this case it is a one trick pony. It isnt performing as you guys expected it to. Your payment was to be the elimination of cermark and that might not happen. Go call epilog and get some help from them. Especially since you don't understand settings.

Make them earn their money too!

matthew knott
11-06-2016, 12:34 PM
If ever there was an example of someone buying the wrong machine for a job this is it! a 50 watt gavlo with an X Y table would have those done at a rate of about 40 seconds each, if that !! It looks like you need to slow the machine down , I would say 100mm/second ! This is where the slowness of the gantry style laser really makes it the wrong choice ! Be great if you where doing big plates with no time constraints

matthew knott
11-06-2016, 12:41 PM
As an example this video is done at double speed but even so it's still quick and black
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Ph21-O5C8&sns=em

Tyler Phong
11-06-2016, 1:56 PM
Yeah thats the cermark we use 6000. I figured it would be quite a bit of trial and error. Just came here to see if anyone had any experience with it.


I focus .9 closer than focus. For a good clean Black marking my 30watt M2 Dual Fiber requires 2 passes - on most SS, Fiber isn't an exact science. Note - Time wise this isn't a very efficient way to mark metal. I switched back to Cermark. Which Cermark where you using? I no longer touch LMM-6000. Not a good product. LMM-6038 gives me a much cleaner mark and it doesn't seem to matter how smooth or thick it's applied. I understand the company is now pushing LMM14, but I have not yet tried it.

Tyler Phong
11-06-2016, 2:03 PM
Yeh I recommended a Galvo but it was ignored because the one in their price range could only do one or two pieces at a time. That wouldnt be an issue if we had an operator full time sitting there switching out the plates. I'm a lead in another part of the cemetery and the full time operator is out of the office doing other things while the engraver runs. So in short, not as organized as you might think for a corporation..or depending on how you look at it, exactly how a corporation runs.

Either way, we're stuck with this machine. I'm just trying to help them out and figure the best marking and time frame.


If ever there was an example of someone buying the wrong machine for a job this is it! a 50 watt gavlo with an X Y table would have those done at a rate of about 40 seconds each, if that !! It looks like you need to slow the machine down , I would say 100mm/second ! This is where the slowness of the gantry style laser really makes it the wrong choice ! Be great if you where doing big plates with no time constraints

matthew knott
11-06-2016, 2:51 PM
That's why you need the x y table so you could mark a big batch ! My guess is epilog don't have one in the range ! The easiest way to get black is have the power set to 100% the frequency set to 50khz (on a 50 watt) and then adjust the speed down until you get desired results ! It should be possible, the laser part is capable, the problem is you might find when you get the speed to the desired black level the plates are taking to long! If this is the case their really is nothing you can do ! Those machines run at one speed so it will have to cover the whole marking area at what ever that speed is! Galvos waste no time in between, your covering maybe a 1m square area when the marking is maybe less than 5% of that ! Look for lots of sparks at focus

John Lifer
11-06-2016, 5:06 PM
$40,000 - lol boy are you in dream land. That might not even be half the price of this machine.


As an owner of an M2 Dual... good luck with this too. I have spent 16 months trial & error to get a partial list of settings. Some materials will have multiple settings depending on the exact specification of the material. Stainless Steel for example, I have 3 settings. Unlike CO2, Fiber isn't a 1 setting fits all. Epilog tries, but the settings they offer are an extremely crude starting point.

Tim, $40 k was starting point for the M2 as listed in the only spot I found on the web.....epilog doesn't post prices so I was yes guessing!
But what I said is accurate, he has one item to engrave, if They could not be sure it would work, why buy it!
Well, he has stated the reason now, ignorance on the guys in charge. Sounds like you guys have given him the best help. and I'm just taking up space. Good luck Tyler!

Kev Williams
11-06-2016, 11:43 PM
The easiest way to get black is have the power set to 100% the frequency set to 50khz (on a 50 watt) and then adjust the speed down until you get desired results

ANY settings that work are absolutely dependent on the material you're using. The settings that may work great on some 1/8" thick SS will likely fail miserably on a Yeti...

I did this ss tube (the top one, bottom is Cermarked) with my fiber at 200 speed, 100 power, one .01 hatch, 20khz, lens in focus--
aside from the brown tint, it's hard to tell apart from the Cermarked one-
347038
yet, I used the same exact settings on a 20 gauge 304 plate, and the engraving was a brown, charred mess and the plate warped and distorted badly--


This is an SS bottle opener a customer brought (groomsman gifts)-
I engraved these at 500 speed, 100 power, 200khz (not a typo), one .01 hatch, lens defocused quite a bit, like 2mm or so...
These came out fantastic, I thought I'd found the magic settings!
347040347039
--but alas, I've never got those settings to work on anything I've tried since...

The common thread here: All my tests were done on stainless steel, but all the pieces were different in some way.
I've found thickness itself to be a huge factor. No settings will work well for every job. BUT, when you stumble on some settings that work
for a particular piece of material, SAVE those settings as they should (*should*) always work well for the same material.
As soon as some other piece of stainless goes on the machine, it's roll-the-dice time! ;)

Neville Stewart
11-07-2016, 12:09 AM
Which Triumph fiber do you have Kev, the only one I see maxes out @100Khz.

Gary Hair
11-07-2016, 12:44 AM
Which Triumph fiber do you have Kev, the only one I see maxes out @100Khz.

What I was told is that the lowest frequency is equal to the wattage, not sure about the highest but I think that depends on the source.

You can set the software for whatever you like the min/max to be, but the source will default to the actual min/max. My 30 watt machine had a min value of 20 and a max value of 80 in the configuration, not sure what the actual max is but the actual min is 30 and I changed the software to reflect that value.

Neville Stewart
11-07-2016, 7:11 AM
What I was told is that the lowest frequency is equal to the wattage, not sure about the highest but I think that depends on the source.

You can set the software for whatever you like the min/max to be, but the source will default to the actual min/max. My 30 watt machine had a min value of 20 and a max value of 80 in the configuration, not sure what the actual max is but the actual min is 30 and I changed the software to reflect that value.
And while I can only speculate, it does seem like a setting of 20 is a little more aggressive than 30 Gary, but I've not done a test grid.

Gary Hair
11-07-2016, 9:38 AM
And while I can only speculate, it does seem like a setting of 20 is a little more aggressive than 30 Gary, but I've not done a test grid.

It would be too hard to measure a quick test, but you might see a difference in results if you did something like 1,000 passes on a .25" square - one at 20 and one at 30 and another at 50 as another comparison. If it truly is working at 20 then I think it should be deeper than the other two. Maybe I'll try it later on a piece of stainless.

Kev Williams
11-07-2016, 11:14 AM
I just tested mine-- Since copper is very very finicky, that's what I used...

I found that 20 thru 35kz gave me virtually identical results. But there was a BIG difference between 35 and 40kz...
This tells me my lowest 'effective' setting is 35kz...

On the upper end- which is harder to test because all the laser does is barely polish the surface, so finding the right speed is critical- I found noticeable differences between 80, 90 and 100kz, but no change above 100...

My software says 20 to 200kz, but my realitywear says 35 to 100kz... ;)

This is actually good to know, saves time spinning wheels testing freq's that aren't there! :)

>edit< here's a pic of the low-freq test, from the bottom up = 20, 30, 35, 40 on top...
and as per this pic, which reveals more than my 5x HF loupe did, there IS a slight but noticeable difference between 30 and 35kz, so I'll go with a 30-100 range :)
347057

Gary Hair
11-07-2016, 1:03 PM
Here is my test on aluminum. I ran 500 passes at 500 speed, 40 power and frequency from 20 - 40 on the top row and 80 - 120 on the bottom row. Clearly a difference on the top row but not so much on the bottom.

I used Corel's "Auto adjust" on the image so the colors you see aren't exactly accurate but the contrast between them is accurate.

I'll try stainless later when I have some time, I'll also try a bit more power to see if it changes the higher frequency test.

Kev Williams
11-07-2016, 1:49 PM
So I take it that the squares on top are 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40? If so then you're laser's definitely hitting 20!

OR- is it possible by changing your 20khz to 30khz in the software just changed 20 entered to equal the lowest YOU entered, and factors up from there?
(like everyone says to do with Chinese controllers) -- just a thought!

How about changing the software from 30 back to 20 and re-run the same test- if the machine IS just factoring up your numbers, then your first 3 squares should match-

If they look the same as the first test, then it's safe to say your machine is running down to 20khz!

Gary Hair
11-07-2016, 2:38 PM
So I take it that the squares on top are 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40? If so then you're laser's definitely hitting 20!
That's correct, lowest on the left, highest on the right.


OR- is it possible by changing your 20khz to 30khz in the software just changed 20 entered to equal the lowest YOU entered, and factors up from there?
(like everyone says to do with Chinese controllers) -- just a thought!

How about changing the software from 30 back to 20 and re-run the same test- if the machine IS just factoring up your numbers, then your first 3 squares should match-

If they look the same as the first test, then it's safe to say your machine is running down to 20khz!

I ran the test with each square mapped to specific settings using the color palette in the program.

I just ran it again using 80 to 120 with a power of 80 and there is a (barely) discernible difference between 80 and 90 but the rest look the same. I think it's pretty safe to say that I can use 20 to 90 vs the 30 to 80 that I thought were the limits.

Tyler Phong
11-07-2016, 2:49 PM
I saw some post on this thread and others that specify they use speeds over 100. Forgive me if this sounds like a noob question, but isn't 100 the highest for speed? At least that is what i thought using the epilogs.

And for those getting the black marks using fiber, how permanent are they? I did manage to mark it pretty dark. But when i ran a scotch brite pad over it it came off. The depth was there, but the dark marks weren't.

Kev Williams
11-07-2016, 3:11 PM
What you're wiping off is soot & ash, which means it's cutting more than annealing.

For what it's worth, I've found that cheap copper-wire brushes from HF are great to brush fiber-engraved stainless-- they don't seem to scratch the ss like scotchbrite does, and it cleans as well if not better. Also, using some cleanser with the brush helps too...

Kev Williams
11-07-2016, 4:02 PM
more testing (I need to stop this and get some actual work done! :D )

if it's any consolation to those who can't seem to find black--

Neither can I -

This is a plate I've been practicing on for awhile- There's some Cermark halftone testing, and also the "deep engrave" tests were done weeks ago.
--Note they're blacker than today's "Trying for black". All of those I just did, tried high freq, low freq, in focus, too close focus, too far focus, faster, slower, higher power, lower power...
(the "rev" means rotations of my clamp, 1 rev is roughly 1mm up or down)

The best ones of the bunch aren't even close to black.
Of note, the top-left one, which is one of the best, was done at 500sp/100pwr/100khz.. All but the bottom 2 were done at 100khz, those I think I tried at 40khz and 60 power...
On this particular piece of ss (304, about 16 gauge), I'll probably get more lucky with high power, slow speed and low freq. And a very tight hatch...
347078

In summary, tying to get ss to go black is total crap shoot, and mostly craps! ;)




.

Gary Hair
11-07-2016, 4:21 PM
In summary, tying to get ss to go black is total crap shoot, and mostly craps!

Not exactly. However, you are going about it all wrong. If you are getting any depth then you are never going to get a black mark. I've done a lot of research on this and the only way I've found to get a black mark is by "staining" the surface. Some mistakenly call this annealing, but it's not, annealing is a very different process than what you are trying to achieve. Your goal is to change the surface of the metal, not ablate it.

Try this:
1. Draw a 6mm square
2. Hatch at .01 spacing, 45 and 135 degrees
3. 80 Frequency
4. 28 power
5. 100 speed
6. 2mm out of focus

The goal is to have no spark when you laser this, you should get a glowing arc but no sparks. You will also get no depth, this is a surface mark. I have been told it is bringing the carbon in the stainless to the surface - I'm not a metallurgist or physicist so I can't tell you if that's accurate or not.

This will turn black on 90% of the stainless you'll find. It is sssssllllllloooooooowwwwww and that is why black marking an area of any size with a fiber is not a great idea compared to Cermark.

edit: The attached pic is of some testing I did a while back. Every square is a different combination of speed and power but all with the same frequency, hatch, and angle. I spent hours on this so I'm not going to give up the settings, but rest assured, you can get black on stainless!

Kev Williams
11-08-2016, 11:55 AM
almost 4 minutes to engrave a 6mm square, yeah slow!!

What I got was 'almost' black. When looking under a loupe across the X axis it looks jet black. Across the Y axis it's dark bronze-ish. Looks dark-bronze by eye when viewing straight-on, but not at all when light hits it at an angle, it lightens up and takes on gray-silver hues. Refraction of light, caused by the laser NOT cutting. I assume ;)

very interesting- need to make some time and do more experimenting!

Tim Bateson
11-08-2016, 12:34 PM
...What I got was 'almost' black. When looking under a loupe across the X axis it looks jet black. Across the Y axis it's dark bronze-ish. Looks dark-bronze by eye when viewing straight-on, but not at all when light hits it at an angle, it lightens up and takes on gray-silver hues. Refraction of light, caused by the laser NOT cutting...

Have you tried multiple passes? My M2 gets darker on each pass. Usually 2 Fiber passes = Cermark Black... but much smoother.

Kev Williams
11-08-2016, 12:59 PM
did the 2x crosshatch as per Gary's suggestion, second cut was definitely darker, a third pass would darken it more I'm sure.

But just the 2x pass took 3:48 to finish at Gary's settings...

The LS900 using my 'everyday' Cermark setting took 12 seconds, my 'watches & knives' slow speed/high-def setting only took 18 seconds...

Gary Hair
11-08-2016, 5:33 PM
did the 2x crosshatch as per Gary's suggestion, second cut was definitely darker, a third pass would darken it more I'm sure.

But just the 2x pass took 3:48 to finish at Gary's settings...

The LS900 using my 'everyday' Cermark setting took 12 seconds, my 'watches & knives' slow speed/high-def setting only took 18 seconds...

Try a different hatch - mine took 1:11 with the bidirectional hatch - the one with the solid blue line, no red lines. It's still not really an acceptable time for larger marks but for small text it's faster than Cermark.

Gary Hair
11-08-2016, 10:05 PM
did the 2x crosshatch as per Gary's suggestion, second cut was definitely darker, a third pass would darken it more I'm sure.

But just the 2x pass took 3:48 (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/x-apple-data-detectors://1) to finish at Gary's settings...

The LS900 using my 'everyday' Cermark setting took 12 seconds, my 'watches & knives' slow speed/high-def setting only took 18 seconds...

Update from my previous post. I ran all of the various hatches and the time varied from 1:11 to 1:28. Not sure why yours ran 3:48.

Kev Williams
11-08-2016, 11:06 PM
Maybe because my square was almost 11mm instead of 6? ;) .. I swear I entered 6, but I didn't verify after the fact...

The actual 6mm still took 1:55 at 100 speed to run both .01 hatches.

I've found every C02 laser I've messed with to be totally different from each other (even identical ULS's), so I suppose that may be true with fiber's?

I think our lenses are different, arent' you running a 175? Might be part of it too. I also found 2mm out of focus was too far, 1mm worked much better-

This is a piece of carbon steel. My best black was the 200s/35p version. The 2 outermost are almost identical, camera angle made the right one look darker. Both of those when held at an angle are nearly silver. I was trying to get as dark as possible as fast as possible... The 2 darkest turn a light gray on an angle. The other 2, too much power and did cut into the surface, and they look the same no matter the angle.
200 speed ran 58 seconds, exactly half the 100 speed rate- and 400 was exactly half again at 28 seconds...

347181

Fascinating... :)

Tyler Phong
11-16-2016, 9:16 PM
So far no real luck. I mean for the time frame and qty I need to take care of it, i got results, but wish I had more time to play around with the settings. So I ended up using 40s/100p/3f. Basic 3" focus with the focusing tool. Haven't tried the out of focus yet because I'm not quite sure how to do that. I'm assuming I just move the joystick on the fusion down a bit when I have it on focus mode. Unless I'm wrong about that. I also run a vector cut after the raster on the stainless to get that deep cut that they want. It does shoot off a lot of sparks. I wonder if that is bad for the lens when the sparks shoot back up. That has to be right? I mean the sparks are basically stainless steel particles shooting out causing the sparks right? I wonder if the air assist would eliminate the sparks. Any suggestions?