PDA

View Full Version : Is Laser Pecker Worth Purchasing



Frank Drackman
12-30-2019, 7:07 PM
I searched but didn't find any discussions about the Laser Pecker portable engraver.

I make lots of big maple carving boards. Most are 23"x16"x2". Many times I get requests to put a specific logo on the boards. I usually make 15-20 boards in a batch.

Logo is fairly small, averaging 1" x 2". I purchase an electric branding iron for the logos. I hate using them because around ten percent of the time the logo has to be redone.

I saw Laser Pecker videos on You Tube but most seemed to be geared towards marketing instead f an actual review. Most of then reviews on Amazon have the same feel.

Is it realistic to think that I could engrave accurate, repeatable logos on maple with this $300 portable laser?

Are there better portable solutions that I should research?

Link to Laser Pecker on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07W5SYWSF/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_OGZcEbKVEEG0N

John Lifer
12-30-2019, 7:37 PM
Never heard of that particular laser. The small Diode lasers would work for this, they don't really burn deep, but usually dark. But pretty slow. Having said that, if as small as this, it might be a cheaper better option. 30 minutes a logo, set up and run one while you are doing something else. But I might think about a K40 for not much more, and it would really engrave deeper and much faster.

Frank Drackman
12-31-2019, 7:00 AM
Thanks John. I have looked at some of the low priced K40 machines but it looked like the item being engraved had to fit inside the enclosure. Was this a wrong assumption?

The large carving boards are 23"x16"x2" which would require a fairly big enclosure.

Kev Williams
12-31-2019, 2:28 PM
Just checked the link; just looking at it, if I had a similar need to yours- engraving a logo on some of many carving boards, which require a branding iron and results in 10% failure--- I'd spend $300 in a heartbeat for that laser!

-but that's me, if I think something may help me out, I'll pay to find out! And $300 will only fill my truck with gas 4 times... ;)

Frank Drackman
12-31-2019, 7:49 PM
Thanks Kevin. I like your attitude

I'm not worried about the money. My concern is the fustration of the time & energy of trying use a tool in a way that was never intended.

I was hoping that one of the members here had used a LazerPecker and provide their feedback.

Kenneth Reed
01-01-2020, 1:53 PM
I ordered one from the Kickstarter campaign and it should be here later this month. I'll let you know what I think after I play with it a bit.

Frank Drackman
01-01-2020, 5:41 PM
Thank you Kenneth. What are your plans for it?


I ordered one from the Kickstarter campaign and it should be here later this month. I'll let you know what I think after I play with it a bit.

Kenneth Reed
01-02-2020, 1:38 AM
At this point mostly playing and experimenting. I like to turn as well as make furniture, so I'd like to have a "standard" software file that I can use for my signature, but easily modified with date, specie, logo or not... I'm experimenting with turning lamp shades in blue stain Ponderosa pine and thought that embellishing the shade with the laser might be something to experiment with.

Dave Sheldrake
01-02-2020, 1:04 PM
Dangerous eye destroying multimode rubbish should just about cover it.

Seriously? just don't.. 445nm is likely one of the most dangerous wavelengths available in a compact diode of any kind. It's fluence and photon energy is huge compared to CO2 and even fibres. While there is no direct comparison between wavelengths (other than a loose watt/seconds) the mechanism of damage that 445 causes makes the injury to the eyes permanent.

Lemme give you a bit of a break down and supporting info

A CO2 @ 10,640nm the photon energy is 0.116 eV
A fibre @ 1064nm the photon energy is 1.165eV
A Blu-ray @ 445nm the photon energy is 2.786eV

So as a "direct" comparison you have 24x as much energy in each photon.

The mechanism of damage is also very different, when a Co2 beam /scatter/reflection hits the eye the damage is done at the surface of the lens, in some cases this can be repairs because the lens can be gotten to by the surgeon, as the wavelength drops the focal transition moves further inside the eye until you get down to the "approaching" UV and UV wavelengths (remember as the wavelength reduces the photon energy increases) once you hit the 445nm range the beam will pass through the lens and is focused by it (that's how our eyes work on a daily basis) so the final focal point of that energy is the Macula Lutea at the back of the eyeball inside the eye (just in front of the optic nerve).(that's not getting repaired anytime soon)

Given the very high fluence and photon energy of the 445nm wavelength and the absorption factors of human tissue I have maintained for the last 17 years that 445 and below are wavelengths that should NEVER be available to the general public until LSO's are on site and Laser Safety procedures are undertaken and fully implemented.

Of all the powerful lasers I have worked with I was more concerned and careful about a 5 watt bench source in 445 than I was about a 7,500 watt CO2...

Frank Drackman
01-02-2020, 6:56 PM
Wow, thanks Dave. I guess it is back to the branding irons for me.

Dave Sheldrake
01-02-2020, 11:30 PM
Wow, thanks Dave. I guess it is back to the branding irons for me.

Other options available Frank, just these 445nm monstrosities are a pet hate of mine :) they are incredibly dangerous, in the format advertised they can't be imported into the EU (they are literally prohibited for all but industrial use).

You could look at cutting the base out of a K40 or similar machine? I've seen that done to give more space, it won't make the working area that you can laser any bigger but it will give you almost unlimited material size?

The other option is a CO2 Galvo laser ( a proper one) they can be had for as low as $1,500 direct from china for a 60 watt and will do what you are looking to do rather nicely. Picture one of the normal Fibre Galvos but with a big tube instead of a Fibre source. Definately a bit more $$$ but the differences are like comparing a 25 year old ford to a brand new mercedes :)