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...

m0.jpg

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...
m1.JPGm2.jpgm3.JPG

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:

m4.JPGm5.JPG

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...
m1.JPGm2.jpgm3.JPG

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:

m4.JPGm5.JPG

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.
m6.JPG

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!

ceralum2.jpgceralum1.jpg

[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.