Why does a laser weld seam become porous?
In laser welding, pores have two origins: the component and the process. Separating the two means looking for the cause in the right place.
Choosing a laser system takes more than reading a data sheet. In this magazine, we explain processes, materials and operating questions in a way that supports sound technical and commercial decisions — without exaggerated marketing claims or oversimplified rules.
In laser welding, pores have two origins: the component and the process. Separating the two means looking for the cause in the right place.
Dark lenses say nothing about protection. What counts is what is printed on the frame — and whether it matches the wavelength of your own machine.
A robot repeats its path very consistently — but without sensors it cannot see the gap that the next component brings with it. What should be clarified before automating.
More watts do not shorten every job. Which power class makes sense follows from the layer, area and material — and becomes apparent on the test part.
Whether a machine can be put into operation at the intended location also depends on the socket, cooling water and room climate — and can be clarified before delivery.
Hand-held fibre lasers can weld quickly and with little distortion. Whether they replace TIG depends on the seam, material and laser protection — often they only complement it.
The laser class is not a verdict on quality but a hazard classification. It determines what a business has to have in place before the machine is switched on.
Dark spots, burn marks, declining effectiveness: the protective window shows early on that the optics need attention. What matters when changing and cleaning.
The starting price is a point of departure, not the total. What the purchase ultimately costs depends on the version, accessories and the requirements for safe operation.
200 W of average power can, by calculation, become pulses of 100 kW. How the quantities are related — and where the simple formula becomes inaccurate.
A cleaning laser falls into class 4. The question about the laser safety officer is therefore no longer whether, but who — and when.
The laser source is the most expensive assembly in a cleaning system and determines which tasks it can solve at all. Four characteristics decide the matter – and three of them rarely appear in the brochure.
Machine time is only one part of unit cost. Set-up, inspection, rework and ancillary processes can materially change the comparison between industrial surface treatments.
Three weeks of high demand followed by months of low use requires a different calculation from continuous series production. Project peaks can make temporary access more economical.
Purchase price alone does not determine payback. Utilisation, labour, replaced process steps and avoided external costs can change the investment calculation substantially.
The machine price rarely decides the outcome on its own. Blasting media, set-up, rework, disposal and real area coverage reveal the true cost difference.
A one-off job is easy to outsource. With recurring demand, utilisation, margin, lead time and in-house process knowledge change the make-or-buy calculation.
Ten minutes of processing can still lead to hours of production downtime. The relevant figure is the total time from shutdown to restart.
Grinding is widely available and proven. On functional surfaces, however, the amount of base material removed and the effect on edges can become decisive.
Both processes can visibly change metal, but in different ways. The right choice depends on the required roughness, finish and subsequent process.
Both are dry processes, but they solve different cleaning tasks. The type and adhesion of the residue matter more than the label “dry cleaning”.
Removing the coating is only one step. Chemical handling, rinsing, drying, extraction and disposal can determine the total process effort.
The same coating can take very different amounts of time on different components. Layer structure, substrate, geometry and target surface condition determine the real process time.
A 300 W pulsed laser cannot be compared directly with a 2,000 W CW system. Pulse characteristics, thermal input, surface quality and throughput determine the right choice.
How laser cleaning removes rust, paint and oxides, how pulsed and CW systems differ, and when an in-house machine can make commercial sense.
Pulse energy, focal position, scan width and processing speed all influence removal. Wattage alone does not describe the process.
Flat surfaces are relatively straightforward. Edges, radii and grooves show why the right scan strategy and working distance matter.
A successful test is only the starting point. Documented parameters, reference samples and quality checks are what make a process reproducible over time.
Selecting a laser system is rarely just a product decision. Whether a machine makes sense in operation depends on the material, the layer to be removed, the area, frequency of use and the required final surface condition. These relationships can be difficult to cover in a sales conversation, but they can be explained properly in a technical article.
The articles focus on the questions that arise before an investment: how a process works physically and why wattage alone is not a sufficient comparison; how to assess material suitability; how extraction, risk assessment and protective measures affect day-to-day operation; and when buying, hiring or outsourcing is the more economical option.
Online information about laser technology often falls into two extremes: sales material that understates limitations, and forum posts that turn a single experience into a general rule. Neither is ideal for a company preparing an investment decision or replacing an established process step. Our aim is the middle ground: sound fundamentals, named sources and clear qualification wherever the answer depends on the specific application.
A recurring theme is the difference between what is technically possible and what is economically sensible. A process can solve a task very well and still be too slow for series production. Conversely, a lower-power system may be exactly right for a specific job. This distinction runs through the magazine because it is one of the most common sources of poor equipment selection.
We deliberately avoid overstatement. Laser technology can do a great deal, but it is not the fastest or cheapest solution for every application. Where another process may be more suitable, the articles say so. Technical terms are defined once in the glossary with 190 technical terms rather than repeatedly interrupting the articles with definitions.
The magazine is written for companies that manufacture, maintain or further process components — including production, maintenance, tool and mould making, metalworking, restoration and specialist surface-processing providers. No prior knowledge of laser technology is assumed. When a technical term first appears, the glossary provides a concise definition.
The articles do not replace a test on the actual component. Their purpose is to sharpen the questions a business should ask and identify the process data that matter. The suitability of any surface process depends on the material, the layer and the required final condition — not on a single number in a data sheet.
For specific applications, see the Applications overview. For machine classes and performance data, see the Products page. If your application is not covered clearly, send us details or a sample component; the real workpiece usually gives a more reliable answer than a generic table.
Send us a photo of your component. We will tell you whether laser technology is likely to be suitable and what information is needed to estimate the process time.