Hello everyone!I have an Openbuilds C-beam machine, controlled by an original smoothieboard 5X.I would like to add a cheap engraving laser diode onto it, to engrave logos on wood/acrylic(also i'd like to try things on 3D printed objects : see what post processing is possible with a laser.The prints coming out of my prusa I3 MK2 are great, but i'd like to try new things, texturing, logos, etc).It would be great to be able to cut stuff, but if i can't, no big deal, i still have the router spindle for that.I'd sill like to be able to cut vinyl to make stickers, for the rest, engraving only is fine.So i've been looking around, but i have a hard time figuring stuff out.First question i have is about laser wavelength. I have seen 445/450 nM lasers, at up to 2.5W in my price range.But i also saw 405nM lasers, but only 0.5-1.5W, and i have to find the control board.So the question is :Does smaller wavelength means more energy, thus more cutting power for the same wattage? or is it irrelevant?I've read that red laser diodes need much more power to cut trough stuff, but how to factor this in?What is better between the shorter wavelength with lower power and the higher wavelength but higher price?I've also read that certain laser wavelength works for certain types of materials, colors, but how to know which is good for what?Am i over thinking this?
One of the challenges in transcranial low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is to optimally choose illumination parameters, such as wavelength. However, there is sparse study on the wavelengths comparison especially on human transcranial LLLT. Here, we employed Monte Carlo modeling and visible human phantom to compute the penetrated photon fluence distribution within cerebral cortex. By comparing the fluence distribution, penetration depth and the intensity of laser-tissue-interaction within brain among all candidate wavelengths, we found that 660, 810 nm performed much better than 980, 1064 nm with much stronger, deeper and wider photon penetration into cerebral tissue; 660 nm was shown to be the best and slightly better than 810 nm. Our computational finding was in a surprising accordance with previous LLLT-neurobehavioral studies on mice. This study not only offered quantitative comparison among wavelengths in the effect of LLLT light penetration effectiveness but also anticipated a delightful possibility of online, precise and visible optimization of LLLT illumination parameters.