PDA

View Full Version : Alternative to Cermark



John Lifer
12-16-2016, 12:59 PM
Well, while wandering on another forum, I saw posting for Laser Bonding Technology.
I had seen them a while back, website was pretty limited (not a lot better but he's getting there).

Supposedly the originator of Cermark that sold off and has come up with a new formula.
Sale right now on 50g bottle or a spray can. Shipping IS included in all his prices, if it works as well, that is a good discount by itself.
But he's 20-30% cheaper even in large quantity.

I've got a bottle coming to try. Prices good till end of Jan.

Oh, I'm just forwarding, NO affiliation!

http://www.laserbondingtech.com/lbt-special-2016/lbt-special-order.html

Gary Hair
12-16-2016, 1:20 PM
Unless they changed the product since they first introduced it, it's not worth much. I tried some and had a lot of difficulties getting it to stick and when it did it wasn't a very dark mark. Plus, it is black in the container and made a real mess when I used it. If they changed it and it works, great, but I'll believe it when I see it!

John Lifer
12-16-2016, 2:09 PM
Well, maybe? several folks claim it is darker, I'll run some sidebyside to lmm14 when I get it and post results.

Kev Williams
12-16-2016, 3:07 PM
I just wish Cermark would go back to their original formula. The new runny stuff just isn't as dark unless you pack it on heavy.

I pitched a fit about my first bottle of new stuff, thought I got some watered-down-whiskey version of the stuff. I was really concerned about the 'stretch'. But after thinning and testing, I came to the conclusion that the actual usable product was about the same.

But that was the first bottle. I'm just about done with my 3rd 500gm bottle of the new stuff, and I'm very unhappy.

The original formula I was able to mix at 4 to 5 parts alky to 1 part Cermark.
The first new bottle I was able to mix at about 2-1/2 to 1. This worked out to roughly the same yield, as there was much more in the bottle to begin with.
The second bottle, the mix went down to 1.5 to 2 to 1 at best. But no more in the bottle to start with...
This third bottle is ridiculous, as mixing 1 to 1 ends up too thin. I'm almost out and haven't done any of my big jobs with it.

So I've gone from about 2-1/3 full bottles of mixed usable product down to about 1-1/3 bottle. And I'm a little concerned with the mud at the bottom of this bottle, as it's very hard to mix by shaking. And as I'm getting to the bottom, and have thicker to start and a bit thicker mix now, I'm still getting lean results onto stainless. Rather than a noticeable rough-ish raised mark, it's more like ink. Seems to stay on okay, but I'm wary of it's outdoors longevity now. Seems like the new formula more evenly disperses whatever's in it that makes the black (moly, whatever) and the mark is very consistent, even if thin. And that's the problem, it IS thin...

So I'm getting less yield to start with, and towards the bottom of the bottle I'm having to use more to get a good black.

At $235 a jar, yeah, I'm very unhappy. I've been using this stuff for 14 years, and I think it's no coincidence that it's gone straight downhill since Ferro bought it... nuff said.

This is the 6000 BTW, my next bottle is going to be the 6030 or whatever it is that Tim says he uses. It's hard to make a living when your tool mfr. cheaps out...

Mike Null
12-17-2016, 10:29 AM
My results with the "new" Cermark LMM6000 have been quite good. I am getting a dense black on the Yeti and Yeti type products I'm marking. The new stuff is definitely thinner but on the $550 I spent for 1250 grams of Cermark over the last few weeks I've generated well over 10 times that amount in income. And I still have about 70% of the last 500 gm bottle left.

I should add, over the years, I've tried nearly all the Cermark substitutes and found none to work as well as Cermark.
349611349612

Jacob Pruitt
12-17-2016, 11:24 AM
Hi,
Longtime reader, first time poster, but thought now is good as time as any. Experimented with cermark last night. Had the 6000 and the 6038(?). Was engraving on yeti style cups. Couldn't get the 6000 to stick and switched to the other formula. Finally, got it to work. I found I needed to cut it with denatured alcohol to about the consistency of thick milk and use a foam brush. Not a brush with bristles, or you get steaks from the bristles. You only need a very thin, but even coat of cermark to get got results. My settings on an epilog 50 helix were power 100, speed 20, 600 DPI.
Next time, will be getting the kind that comes in a rattle can as that will make application easier.

John Lifer
12-17-2016, 9:24 PM
Watch the spray cans! Folks have complained mightily that the past few months of cans clogged way worse than prior. Id say only use cans if you are going to use up a can quickly.

Kev Williams
12-17-2016, 10:41 PM
When I first went from cans to jars, I found that $235 worth of bottled was doing the same work as nearly $600 of the spray can version. With the new stuff, probably not that much savings, but the bottled will still save money...

My results with the "new" Cermark LMM6000 have been quite good. I am getting a dense black on the Yeti and Yeti type products I'm marking.

For the record, I get good results with the new stuff- I've stated many times it's now more gray than black, but-- I've found I get blacker results if I put on 2 coats. Which is the root of my complaint, I'm getting less net product and having to use more OF it to get the same results as before. In other words, the price per net good black mark has just about doubled since the old stuff. In other other words, inferior product for the same money

Mike Null
12-18-2016, 9:27 AM
Kev

So far, I have not changed my mix nor the application. I am getting good results with the new stuff. I can't measure the usage because the Yeti's require considerably more area to be covered. Our standard quote calls for a 2.5" square image whereas my typical mark is less than half that. For a 2.5" square mark we paint about 4" x 3".

I do add dna frequently while I'm painting to keep the mix thin.

I do not recommend the spray version as I consider it to be wasteful and expensive.

Neville Stewart
12-18-2016, 11:12 AM
I've no experience with the previous mixtures but I'm airbrushing 5:1 6000 and getting flawless results when I follow the instructions :) and I've done hundreds in the last weeks.

Kev Williams
12-18-2016, 1:39 PM
Famous last words: "Watch This!"...

I just spent a half hour conducting an experiment. I have a couple of old cans of Cermark, and a little of the lastest batch I'm whining about. My intent was to show once and for all how different the 2 mixtures are.

Uh huh... ;)

Instead, I learned a lesson or two, and I'm hoping to pass it along. I took pics of the procedure, so here goes:
First, the variables...
I used 2 pieces of SS, one an off-the-shelf piece of #4 finish (the bigger one), the other is some I have made up locally from mill finish that's sanded before it's laser cut. \

I have a couple of cans of Cermark, the one I used hasn't been shaken up for well over a year. I shook it pretty good, but I'm sure there's a lot of unmixed mud at the bottom (there always is some, which is why you cut
them open and get it out!)- so anyway, it might be a snick leaner than normal...

My jar of mix is down to maybe 3/4" deep in the jar, and with a lot of solid at the bottom (as I mentioned above). I got it stirred up pretty good. This means the pre-mix is probably 20% or so richer than I've been using. But it was still quite runny compared to 'original'.

Neville getting away with 5:1 surprised me, so that's what I did. I used a 1/4 teaspoon of Cermark, and added five 1/4 spoons of alky. Very thin mix for brushing, but it WOULD be great for spraying...
349688

Here's my parts, canned CM, 5:1 mixed CM, a clean brush and 2 pieces of SS. Which I thoroughly cleaned with alky--<<which is likely the biggest reason for the results...
349689

Now when it came to application, I wasn't so careful-- I sprayed the one ends of the plates first, which almost covered the everything. So I wiped off half of it with alky so I had a good half a plate for the new mix. In the end there were a few smudges here and there in the CM that I didn't bother touching up, and some of these spots didn't blacken well, which his expected. So that's my doing, not the CM.
Anyway, I used Engravers MT because it has such thin sections that the laser can miss, or the CM might not take so well. My settings were 100/18/600x/1000y, which is my go-to for most all SS...
349690

I must admit I was expecting some fairly noticeable differences, and was very surprised to find very little difference at all!
BTW, I wanted to straddle the sections, and after engraving the text I decided to add the 'bar'.

This is the small sanded plate, and there IS a slight difference in 'new', but otherwise both sides are nearly identical. Considering that's with a 5:1 mix which I've never dared try before, I really didn't expect the new side to turn out that good!
349691

this is the larger #4 finish plate. Depending on the light- and it DOES depend on the light! - the new side looks better than the old side-
349695

So next up was the scotchbrite 'acid test'. I taped each piece down, and used a fairly used but still quite serviceable piece of red scotchbrite which is designed for metal and much coarser than the green stuff. My 'control' was to put equal pressure on my two fingers directly over the text. I then made exactly 10 up/down sweeps.
This is the larger plate, and the new side did come off slightly easier than the old side. But again, I expected worse with a 5:1 mix.
349694

This is closeup of the small plate, note the N came off a bit, but the T below it didn't really. My conclusion is the CM was a bit leaner in that area of the plate.
349693

=========================================

So maybe I owe Ferro an apology? (ok, but I still have some issues about stretch) ;)

This is why I like to run tests. I was very surprised at the results, and especially considering the very lean 5:1 mix that I carefully measured. I DO have a few old v new engravings kicking around this place that indeed look to me to be quite different, but then, it's likely there were other variables involved aside from the CM itself. Most likely, SURFACE PREP-- While I normally give my SS an alky wipe, it may be that better results will be had by giving the SS a vigorous alky scrubdown, and this may be more important with the new formula. This may explain why Yeti's and their clones always seem to engrave nicely, it's likely they're nearly pristine clean to start with.

While I hate proving myself wrong, I still prefer actually knowing than assuming... :D -- I am an old dog, and I learned a couple of new tricks today... I'm happy!

Neville Stewart
12-18-2016, 11:38 PM
Excellent write up Kev. Thanks for your diligent work. I have to give kudos to Mr.Hair for the recommendations of mixture though.

John Lifer
12-30-2016, 5:20 PM
Well, I'll add my comments from my work with the Laserbond 100. I got the liquid, not spray. I'll say that variation in trying to get on a thick but not too thick coat with a foam brush is next to impossible without streaking.
I use LMM14 alongside the laserbond and I have zero problems with streaking even when the LMM14 is visibly streaked. I used 60-75% power on stainless steel cup and varied speed from 50 -warP to 200mm/s (too fast) and about 150mm/s at 65% seemed to be best for my LMM14 and decent on the Laserbond. But always streaky looking on laserbond. I think SPRAY is the only way to apply the laserbond. That will be my next trials. I just can't apply thick enough (or thin enough) with the foam brush.