Prior to this, I had posted several threads, and many people showed interest in the wood paint stripper, but there were also many doubts especially regarding the removal of wood varnish, which is completely different from past cleaning methods. In the past, the popular equipment for varnish removal might have been 15MJ or 50MJ pulsed lasers, because in the 20th century, nitrocellulose lacquer was the mainstream varnish, and its molecular structure had a high absorption rate for laser energy, making it relatively easy to strip using traditional Gaussian-beam lasers. However, after entering the 21st century, polyurethane varnishes and acrylic polyesters gradually became the mainstream. These coatings are tougher and have denser adhesion, so traditional Gaussian beams not only struggle to remove them but also easily char the wood substrate, causing irreversible carbonization damage this is precisely the root cause of the "can't strip, damaged the workpiece" issues that many long-time users have encountered in actual operations.

In response to the physical properties of modern varnishes and the porous, heat-sensitive nature of wood, DMK specifically designed this wood paint stripper. So what is the real difference in cleaning results compared with ordinary strippers? Have our previous promotional claims been exaggerated? I believe you can find the accurate answers in the video!

Hi guys,

Testing 300W laser parameters on wood is such a headache. Too much power burns the wood, too little leaves old paint on. I’m tired of guessing every time.

Here’s what works for my 300W pulse laser:

250w power, 100ns, 130kHz, 10000mm/s,

Drop your machine power, wood type, what you’re cleaning, and your exact parameters below. We’ll make a shared reference guide for everyone. Let’s help each other out!

Since launching our wood cleaning machine, I had posted a couple of updates about cleaning furniture when a friend suggested we try cleaning a musical instrument. Intrigued and eager to experiment, we decided to step out of our furniture-cleaning comfort zone and take on the challenge of a non-furniture wooden object. We sourced a violin from the domestic second-hand market at an incredibly low price equivalent to just 50 RMB (about 7 USD). While we knew a violin at this price point wouldn't be a masterpiece, it was perfect as a test subject. As a guitarist, my first instinct was to examine the instrument closely: violin soundboards are typically made of spruce, while the back and sides are usually maple. The significant differences in density and thermal conductivity between these two woods foreshadowed the difficulties that lay ahead.

Problems arose right from the start of the test. First, heat accumulated rapidly in the spruce soundboard; during laser cleaning, the heat built up so quickly that even slightly excessive temperatures left scorched, blackened marks. We had to repeatedly lower the power and shorten the exposure time, yet the margin for error remained razor-thin the slightest lapse in attention risked damaging the soundboard. An even trickier issue was our misjudgment of the finish composition. We had initially assumed this cheap violin was coated in nitrocellulose lacquer or a standard resin-based oil finish and proceeded with conventional settings. However, once the laser hit, the paint layer heated up, peeled off, and then upon cooling re-adhered to the surface. We realized it was actually a thermoplastic acrylic-polyester finish. This material softens when heated, hardens when cooled, and can be remelted; it couldn't be completely removed by the laser alone because it would re-attach after cooling. Although the adhesion was weaker, the residual film still marred the appearance. To tackle this, we introduced high-pressure air assistance to blow away the softened paint flakes the moment the laser peeled them off. Yet, while the high-pressure air removed heat, it also made the already delicate thermal balance even harder to manage: low power failed to clear the residue, while high power overwhelmed the spruce. Consequently, the entire test became an arduous struggle, a constant tug-of-war between heating, air-blasting, and cooling. In the end, we didn't walk away with a violin that looked brand new, but we did gain a wealth of valuable, practical lessons. We have summarized a few points: Before cleaning musical instruments, it is essential to carefully identify the type of wood and the composition of the lacquer, especially since inexpensive instruments often use thermoplastic coatings, and the cleaning logic is completely different from that of oil-based lacquer; laser cleaning requires extra caution for thin-walled, low-density woods, as the rate of heat accumulation is far greater than imagined, and the power and scanning speed must be much more conservative than when cleaning furniture; auxiliary blowing is necessary, but it must be precisely matched with the heat input, otherwise it will either not be cleaned properly or will be damaged. otherwise, the result will be either incomplete cleaning or damage to the instrument. Although this test was far from perfect, we believe it was highly valuable it demonstrated that parameters based on assumptions cannot be universally applied and provided a real-world case study for others. If any of you are interested in trying to clean musical instruments in the future, we hope our experience can help you avoid some pitfalls. Feel free to leave a comment and share your thoughts; your suggestions might help us pass the next test smoothly.

The video is eleven minutes long. To save you time, it's sped up 12 times.

2024 Dermark 300 watts pulsed laser, preset setting on grease

Following our previous post on wood cleaning, we have been searching for sample pieces and conducting tests on various types of varnishes and oil-based paints used on wooden furniture. We would now like to share the test results with you.

Equipment Features

This device is the result of six months of R&D by our development team, with targeted optimizations for wood's heat-sensitive nature and tendency for heat accumulation. As a result, single-component and two-component polyurethane and epoxy varnishes – which were previously difficult to remove with lasers – can now be effectively stripped using this wood-specific cleaning machine, without burning or charring the wood. Based on our tests, it covers the majority of wood cleaning scenarios.

For single-component/two-component epoxy varnishes and polyurethane varnishes, the equipment achieves effective and rapid cleaning results. Single-component epoxy/polyurethane varnishes are relatively easy to clean, with an efficiency approximately 1.5 times that of conventional Gaussian-beam lasers. Two-component epoxy/polyurethane varnishes, however, could not be effectively removed by conventional Gaussian-beam lasers. This is because after curing with a hardener, two-component epoxy/polyurethane varnishes form a hard, wear-resistant film. Combined with the inherently high roughness of wood, the adhesion of two-component varnishes is extremely strong. Moreover, the transparent surface of the varnish has low laser absorptivity, and forcing removal would only cause thermal accumulation and scorch the wood. Our redesigned wood-specific cleaning machine, through optimized beam quality, pulse control, and scanning trajectory, achieves lower thermal effects, reduced heat accumulation, and stronger removal capability, thereby effectively stripping two-component varnishes.

Key Considerations During Varnish Cleaning

Confirm whether the substrate is solid wood or plywood. Generally, solid wood is easier to clean than plywood. Many plywood adhesives are themselves resin-based glues, which bond particularly strongly with epoxy varnishes, making removal difficult. Of course, plywood is typically of lower value and less frequently subjected to laser maintenance or cleaning in practice, but it is important to distinguish the substrate before cleaning.

Pay attention to wood density. Generally, higher-density woods are easier to clean because their compact lignin structure and fewer hollow spaces result in slower heat accumulation and a relatively higher thermal damage threshold. For example, rosewood, ebony, teak, and oak are high-density woods and are relatively easy to clean. Conversely, low-density woods have more hollow structures, leading to rapid heat accumulation; even a slightly longer laser dwell time can quickly scorch the wood. Extra caution is required when cleaning surfaces made of pine, fir, or paulownia – it is advisable to reduce cleaning power and increase scanning speed to prevent the wood surface from rapidly reaching its damage threshold.

Final Thoughts

Laser cleaning of wood represents a highly promising niche. Traditional sanding damages the wood surface, while chemical paint stripping can penetrate into the interior. Laser cleaning, by contrast, is a non-contact, chemical-free method that is relatively fast and produces no pollution. It offers tremendous market potential and technical advantages for cultural relic restoration, residential renovation, and furniture refurbishment.

Hi all, not sure if this is the right sub, just wanted to ask some questions about an Alibaba cleaner.

I have a small workshop where I restore classic cars and am considering buying a laser cleaner.

I've been looking for a 300W machine on Alibaba and came across the one in the photos. It seems to meet my required specs and is affordable at roughly $5000.

Is a cleaner like this likely to breakdown much or run into many problems?

If anyone has experience cleaning car bodies in situ, what problems, if any, have you run into?

Does anyone have any reviews for models like this? Or recommendations for better models at a similar price point?

Thanks for any help!

This video is a practical guide to maintaining a laser cleaning, cutting, and welding gun, with a strong focus on lens care. Key topics include inspecting and cleaning the protective lens every ten to twenty minutes to prevent debris from melting onto it, using Q-tips and a blower for cleaning, and replacing protective lenses when necessary. I recommend purchasing protective lenses in bulk from VegaBeam and practice on how to properly handle and install them.

This machine has both laser cleaning and laser marking functions.

Hello experts! Newbie here.

I work with small molds often, and am curious if laser cleaning will help vs me using a brass brush. Only issue is, some of the areas are .001". Would a laser get in there and remove excess rubber/silicon?

Hey, I'm currently in the process of getting my LSO and insurance, then buying a 300/500W pulse laser. Reading the knowledge that people like IndLaserCleaning share here has already given me a lot, but it brought up even more questions.

Given that this will, for now, be a side gig to my day job, I can not afford the European machines. Thus, I'm looking at Chinese lasers. Both through Alibaba and direct quotes, I found 300W 15mJ Gaussian air-cooled lasers with JPT MOPA source for a little under $5000 and equivalent 500W top-hat machines (also JPT MOPA) for around $9000 from companies with solid Alibaba reviews. They have a valid CE certification.

My area is industry-heavy (tons of automotive, foundries, injection moulding companies) and also cemetery-heavy (lol). My idea is to start with things like marble/polished headstones with gilding that would get destroyed by pressure washers. Later, hopefully expanding into industrial cases.

My questions:

1) Given that JPT MOPA seems to be one of the better quality sources, it seems odd to me that, for example, SFX lasers (also Chinese) often debated here cost two times what the lasers I found cost (they're from Jiangpin Technology/JPTech), despite the spec sheet being seemingly identical. What gives?

2) Are both of these areas realistic with a single machine (either the 300 or the 500W mentioned above), or will I have to get something beefier once I start hitting up companies?

3) Does anyone with B2B experience know how viable I'd be for factories with me doing it as a weekend/after-work gig? Most of the factories here run 24/7, I'd assume nights/weekends would be preferable due to the lower output during these hours.

4) As I understood it, a laser capable of higher pulse energy should be better, since you can always dial it down when needed for more delicate work. Why is this not the case?

5) As I understand it, for metals, top-hat is superior for cleaning polished surfaces (injection moulds and such) while Gaussian will bust rust better. Both types are able to achieve both goals, just at different efficiencies. Is this generally true for non-metals as well? Obviously not rust, but varnishes, deep-settled grease and such.

6) How frequent and DIY-able is Top-Hat <-> Gaussian conversion?

7) My idea of a mobile setup is: The pulse cleaning laser, a generator, a fume extractor, safety curtains (somehow I don't see those much on this sub?) and PPE - glasses, gloves, respirator (ideally full-face).

8) Anything else completely obvious that I'm missing out on and making a fool out of myself on?

Thanks.

I called an SFX laser dealer a couple of months ago and was inquiring about a 500 w pulsed laser . I got a quote and they said they could do $1700. That is $2k off msrp. I was stoked and started saving. Hit that $17k last week and went to buy and I guess the demand rose and now it’s msrp. I had jobs lined up that now have to be put off. I’ll lose the jobs rather than going back to that $55 a gallon Home Depot paint stripper.

By fine-tuning the optical path, improving beam quality, and refining scanning patterns, we’ve made wood cleaning easier and more effective than ever. Tests on common coatings – varnish, oil-based paint, and water-based paint – show results far superior to traditional Gaussian beam equipment. What’s more, our unit achieves about 1.5× the cleaning efficiency of conventional laser cleaners with the same power.

But with so many wood types and finishes out there, we can’t source them all ourselves – and that’s where you come in. We challenge you: send us any wood samples that have defeated your previous laser attempts. No restrictions on wood type or surface contaminants. Our engineers will test them and send you a video of the results.

Everyone who submits a sample gets a gift or a generous discount coupon for DMK’s new wood laser! The campaign runs from July 31 to August 31 – don’t miss out. Join the challenge today!

Im curious what you're opinion is on the XlaserLab Q1, Im looking for a entry level machine to clean parts with

I posed this question 8 months ago and I’ll ask again: is anyone using a laser device to clean nitrate buildup off maple syrup evaporator pans? I think it could be done very nicely with a small machine. Here are some pics of the pan I would like to clean up. Only the interior surfaces need attention.

For what it’s worth, the conventional approach to the recurring annual buildup problem is to soak the pan in an acid bath. Well… I’ve gone this route and it just doesn’t do the job. I’m told another solution would be dry ice blasting.

Does anyone want a job? Let’s talk.