Talk:Laser engraving

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Visual arts Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Physics Low‑importance Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Questionable technical matter

"Since metals are good electric conductors, they virtually reflect the entire laser beam (electromagnetic wave), and the residual metal-beam interaction is negligible."

I don't disagree with the result but I'm not sure the proposed reason is correct. I haven't studied this in a while but it seems suspect. -- Zhyla Sun Mar 5 20:19:03 PST 2006

The OP may be right about the idea, but it works differently in practice.

Answer: http://science.howstuffworks.com/light10.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.119.148 (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copyvio

The first version of this page is a copy-vio from http://www.masterliness.com/a/Laser.engraving.htm, however, the page has been changed quite a bit since then; would it still be a copy-vio?

Layman Terms

Can someone make this article a bit easier for those of us not in the laser engraving buisness to understand? :) -GregNorc (talk) 22:56, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but it is too specific on one type of laser engraving. I couldn't even figure out exactly what a flexo plate is, but I know laser engraving can be done straight onto almost any piece of metal or other material, like a brass plate on a trophy. I added an external link that is a little more general in what it covers. I also found some info on photopolymer plates, but didn't find enough to create a whole new article yet.

I'm new, so I don't know much about wiki. Is there a sort of "Request someone who knows their stuff" page? I'm sure some wikipedian somewhere is familiar with this. -GregNorc (talk) 22:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Is there still a problem? I've read about halfway through and no problem.MarSch 16:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the latter half of the article can be improved more. HappyCamper 03:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"it is also sometimes incorrectly described as etching"

This statement is itself incorrect and should be simply removed from the article.

Etching is a common, widely accepted term in the industry and common among consumers. It can refer to the liquification, gasification or ablation of the material being cut by the laser beam. Engraving implies the use of a tool to carve into a material, while etching refers to the removal of material (often through a chemical bath as the link states, but also through ablation of a laser).

Etching is especially used to distinguish CNC laser cutting work from router cutting because a cutting tool can only engrave while a laser can ablate the material. Since "ablation" is perhaps not a term in the average person's vocabulary, "etching" is a suitable replacement - just as the common phrase "etched in stone" was not referring to a chemical milling acid bath, the stone that the phrase refers to was carved.

I believe the dictionary definition of "etching": "To cut into the surface of a material" is entirely appropriate. The term "laser etching" is also used when discussing laser frosted glass, as it accurately describes the glass, while laser engraved glass may not. For a further example, Laser etched tile may refer to the laser rasterization of an image onto the tile, while laser engraved tile refers to carving a vector into it. Rasterization of images and cutting of vectors are two very different industrial processes and the term "etched" rasters versus "engraved" vectors help to distinguish the two.

Different parts of the world refer to the terms laser engraving and laser etching interchangeably or prefer one over the other but the article should not imply that one is not the other. When a laser is used to replace traditional chemical bath etching processes, it is called "laser etching" as well, to add to the confusion.

Laser engraving can safely be called laser etching or even laser ablation without causing confusion, however the simplest fix would be to remove this controversial statement at the beginning of the article.

Additionally, it seems some advertising has snuck into the external links. Can someone please fix those problems? Thanks! Engravingwithlasers (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original comment about laser etching is correct in so far as there is confusion by some (not many maybe) that laser etching is the same as laser marking. Etching is the cutting into a material, as you have pointed out, but marking does not involve cutting, so there clearly is confusion by some. By removing the comment "sometimes incorrectly described as etching" the confusion is unfortunately reenforced, but not appropriately so. Anything that helps clarify the subject to beginners should be included. NF 3/11/14

Help me make this look good!

Hi. This is my first real wiki experience. I thought I would make this article over, to make it cover more than just its use in printing. I do not wish to delete somebody else's work, would rather work it in with mine, since it is interesting. What I think I would like is for others to add some of their knowledge to what the two of us have constructed so far. And then make the headings and such reflect the topics properly. I will revisit the entry soon, I expect, but may have to play in the sandbox first. ;-)

Thank you Petaholmes-- THAT was what I was trying to do!!! ;-)

Wikified too much now?

I realize that the Community Portal asks for help specifically Wikifying this article. It did before I put forward my additions. I am grateful that someone stepped in to do all the "tagging" of Wiki entries in the text, as well as cleaning up and making clearer some of what I was trying to say. Everybody needs an editor; thanks for getting it done.

I am though, a bit puzzled, because many of the links to other wiki articles really don't make the subject at hand any more understandable. When a word is used and the meaning is clear in its context, must it be tagged anyway since some article had been written with that name? I mean, right off the bat, to send someone off to explore the word "object"? Hmmm.

To be frank, it is my impression that one should provide signposts to more information when it edifies the subject, not just by rote or without discrimination. I don't know if there are "automated wikifiers" that note each and every instance of a wikied word, but it sure LOOKS like the aim was not clarifying, but "wikifying". And that may be the case. Certainly that was the category this entry was in at the Community Portal.

I'm not going to do any changing of the situation myself. It's not only my entry, of course. But I sure wish some brain would look at the words, click and see if the entry invoked helped to understand what was being said. Otherwise, it is just putting pretty codes on the page, not really adding value.

My opinion only. As I say, some of the editing was needed. If nobody else minds, I guess I won't either. --Kittyslave 08:33, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went through and removed some of the Wiki links that I thought didn't add to the subject or were simply linking to pages that would be "definitions" (i.e. object, effort). Some of the things I removed may actually need to be wikified, and some more links may need to be removed. It's a start, though. --Schultz.Ryan 01:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

unqualified analogy

designs incorporating large or monolithic sized crystal

In what way does "monolithic" convey size information? Monolithic objects come in all sizes, from asteroids to integrated circuits. The word (meaning "of one rock") simply means that the object—regardless of size—is comprised of a single chunk of stuff.
—überRegenbogen (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Tattoos?

there is a half-assed possibly cancerous or anyway dangerous technique where people mark their skin using laser engravers.

i think it is worthy of a mention in a new section. sources: [1] [2] [3] [4]
--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SSLE Example Picture Available

I have a picture that I took of a commercial, custom-made sub-surface laser engraving. I think it would add nicely to the SSLE section, but is there an issue with it being a picture of a commercial product? Where can I find WP rules regarding this kind of matter? —63.249.110.34 (talk) 03:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with linking guidelines

Hi. I just added a picture under the glass section of a glass microscope slide that I laser engraved then photographed at 40x and 100x. The photo is on WikiCommons but I would really like a link back to the post on my site, Book Worm Laser & Design, where I wrote about laser engraved glass and posted 2 other similar pictures (at 1pt font and 2pt font). Any guidance? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanReeves001 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest known laser engraving

Maybe somebody can insert into the article some info on when laser engraving was first available? ...I haven't researched it in published sources. although I can tell you I collect watches, and I have a Teamsters union watch which has a laser engraved image of Jimmy Hoffa on the metal lid on the underside of the watch. The watch dates to the late 1960s/early 1970s. MS, Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Engraving vs Laser Marking

Should laser engraving and laser marking be split into 2 different topics to help clarify? Very clearly the manufacturers of these machines don't feel that laser engraving and laser marking are the same. Here I have included a reference from a manufacturer with videos that explain each, but a simple Google search will reveal more: http://www.ulsinc.com/

Yes, sometimes engraving and laser marking can be done on the same machine, but that doesn't make them the same. Engraving means the surface is physically cut into. Marking means the surface is discolored without removing any material. To some this is a very important distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.40.182 (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

connected contributor?

Your Wikipedia needs you!

Hi. I made some additions to the description of laser marking on this page. I work for a company that sells laser marking systems. Should I insert connected contributor at the top of this talk page? DL548 (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DL548: Thus far, no need. You didn't cite your company's website or publications in support of what you wrote. Wikipedia relies critically on the expertise and experience that you and people like you rely on for your contributions to the development and quality of our articles. Not only is the text better as a result, you often can identify the best quality and most relevant wp:reliable sources because of that expertise and experience. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC) Teaked --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

laser engraving

I would like to see more information on laser engraving on stone, specifically on granite tombstones. Particularly interested in time in years such engraving technology can be expected to last under weathering conditions. This is used frequently to make photograph images on granite grave markers these days. @pouncingcat Pouncingcat (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you are going to have to do the research on this yourself and contribute it to the article. (I mean read through all the documents and reports you can find, not actually do the science and engineering tests!) If you can only find vendor sources, that's ok provided that you tag with {{better source}}.

This is uninformed speculation on my part but it depends on the stone and exposure. On limestone or sandstone, in a wet and frost-prone area, it could be as little as ten years. On basalt, rather longer. The incisions are very superficial: traditional letter cutting of gravestones is 5mm to 10mm deep. You might start with the weathering article to make a list of what questions you will need to ask. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF Thank you. My late father was a geologist. it would have been helpful to have had his opinion. I know traditional engraving methods on granite (even slate) last a very long time & I have proweled through a number of old cemeteries. Thank you for giving the depth of those letters cut by traditional depth. I know the laser engraving is quite shallow. I have read the articles here on letter engraving. Granite is apparently as tough as you can get. I had thought that Basalt might be tougher, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I also thought those black tombstones were Basalt; that is not the so. They are black granite. Apparently it is sourced from India. Pouncingcat (talk) 07:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my estimate of depth as being at all reliable, it is just observation not even measured, let alone coming from a wp:reliable source. (There are a lot of very old graveyards here in England, so it easy to be an amateur "expert". What I have observed is that limestone is quite poor and erodes quickly. There was a fashion for letter-cutting in ornate quill-pen script in the early Victorian era: the cutting was shallow (as it had to be for that style of writing) and it has eroded very badly indeed.)

You can tell straight away that I'm not a geologist either, by promoting basalt! But not all granites are equal, some crumble surprisingly easily.

I speculate that the longevity of laser-cut "lithographs" could be predicted by a lab test using high-pressure acidified water, repeated freeze/thaw, mildly abrasive sand-blasting, you name it. So it may well be that the research evidence is out there, waiting for you to find it. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]