Talk:Laser engraving

message: "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)
thread_title: Questionable technical matter

message: 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)
replies: text: I think the latter half of the article can be improved more. HappyCamper 03:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Layman Terms

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikified too much now? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  unqualified analogy 

message: 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: 
--CuteHappyBrute (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laser Tattoos? 

message: 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)
thread_title: SSLE Example Picture Available

message: 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)
thread_title:  New to Wikipedia and unfamiliar with linking guidelines 

message: 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)
thread_title: Earliest known laser engraving