Kev Williams
08-02-2020, 2:05 PM
Just weird to me to use BLACK Cermark. (actually this is dark gray :) )
Suggested mix is 2:1 for brushing. I mixed it at 1.5:1 just in case. Glad I did, very runny.
I brushed it on the back of an old piece of SS. I didn't clean it first, on purpose-
this pic is with direct light shadowed
438136
this pic with light as even as I could get it with all the overhead tubes in this place-
438137
Cermark is touting 'faster speeds lower power' settings are possible. I ran the 30w Explorer at 100 power, 20 speed at 500 res. My normal Cermark settings are 100/16/600. I ran my 80w Triumph at around my normal setting, 20% power and 200mm/second. With the Triumph I got ALMOST precisely the same results as with LMM6000, which is a nice consistent well-fused but dark gray rather than black mark. The first pic shows this well... But what's missing is the 'holographic' gloss I normally get with the 6000. If I can get the same consistent mark at lower power and defocusing the lens a bit, I may finally get the (1) well fused (2) consistent (3) black mark I've never been able to get. I've always been able to get any 2 of that list, but the 3rd always suffers.
The results with the Explorer were less than astounding. Partly due to not cleaning the metal first is likely. I thought maybe the solution was weak or not applied consistent enough, but the Triumph results in that regard were great. So that means that not cleaning, and/OR, my speed was too fast. 500 res should've been fine, but 600 may help. But at this time, I'm not convinced that I'll be able to run faster, at least with a 15 year old 30w machine. I DO like the blackness I got with the Explore
Next tests will be better prepped SS, aluminum and brass. And less Triumph power.
I DO like how black the Explorer sample is, it's VERY black. That's a much higher priority to me than engraving speeds. AND, even though the Exp samples are showing bare spots, it seems to be fused very well, my 2nd most important priority.
Suggested mix is 2:1 for brushing. I mixed it at 1.5:1 just in case. Glad I did, very runny.
I brushed it on the back of an old piece of SS. I didn't clean it first, on purpose-
this pic is with direct light shadowed
438136
this pic with light as even as I could get it with all the overhead tubes in this place-
438137
Cermark is touting 'faster speeds lower power' settings are possible. I ran the 30w Explorer at 100 power, 20 speed at 500 res. My normal Cermark settings are 100/16/600. I ran my 80w Triumph at around my normal setting, 20% power and 200mm/second. With the Triumph I got ALMOST precisely the same results as with LMM6000, which is a nice consistent well-fused but dark gray rather than black mark. The first pic shows this well... But what's missing is the 'holographic' gloss I normally get with the 6000. If I can get the same consistent mark at lower power and defocusing the lens a bit, I may finally get the (1) well fused (2) consistent (3) black mark I've never been able to get. I've always been able to get any 2 of that list, but the 3rd always suffers.
The results with the Explorer were less than astounding. Partly due to not cleaning the metal first is likely. I thought maybe the solution was weak or not applied consistent enough, but the Triumph results in that regard were great. So that means that not cleaning, and/OR, my speed was too fast. 500 res should've been fine, but 600 may help. But at this time, I'm not convinced that I'll be able to run faster, at least with a 15 year old 30w machine. I DO like the blackness I got with the Explore
Next tests will be better prepped SS, aluminum and brass. And less Triumph power.
I DO like how black the Explorer sample is, it's VERY black. That's a much higher priority to me than engraving speeds. AND, even though the Exp samples are showing bare spots, it seems to be fused very well, my 2nd most important priority.