The Flow vs Omax debate. Has it been settled? What has changed recently, if anything?

[wehiird]

I see some old posts on the subject, but I have been led to believe that things have changed for one or both of these companies in recent years. Can anyone offer me their perspective or have any experience with one or both companies and their new machines?

 

[Donkey Hotey]

I have no idea about recent changes to either but, are you considering your first waterjet or is this a replacement? I used to think waterjets were cool and then a buddy bought a big Omax. He's had it maybe ten years now. If I didn't have at least two hours of good paying work for it, every single day, I don't think I would put up with the hassles of owning one. Filthy, noisy machines. Sand everywhere and on everything. Have to shovel out and pay to dispose of tons of wet sand, the water problems, rust and erosion with the grates, etc, etc.

It's a big power consumer and--at least in Los Angeles County--the power company does industrial power billing partly on the power you could consume in a given day. So they count every big draw like welders, the water jet, big compressors, etc. and bill you whether you actually use all of them at the same time or not. That thing costs the electric bill even if it's sitting there, powered off and doing nothing.

 

[dkmc]

Here's an old Jet Edge machine in the western NY area that they're most likely trying to get someone to haul away their junk, and get paid for it too. Been on awhile, I guess even the DIY and hobby shops aren't interested. Yes, big power hogs for sure. The pictures illustrate what the shop area looks like after a couple weeks of use. I thought they were cool back in the day as well. Then I visited a couple WJ shops, saw the mess, and the 60hp motor, and was cured.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

 

[Ghost]

A couple of flows have been installed locally recently. Lots of problems and downtime with both after install. Seem to be fine now that the bugs have been worked out but there was much drama.

 

[Neil76]

I have no idea about recent changes to either but, are you considering your first waterjet or is this a replacement? I used to think waterjets were cool and then a buddy bought a big Omax. He's had it maybe ten years now. If I didn't have at least two hours of good paying work for it, every single day, I don't think I would put up with the hassles of owning one. Filthy, noisy machines. Sand everywhere and on everything. Have to shovel out and pay to dispose of tons of wet sand, the water problems, rust and erosion with the grates, etc, etc.

It's a big power consumer and--at least in Los Angeles County--the power company does industrial power billing partly on the power you could consume in a given day. So they count every big draw like welders, the water jet, big compressors, etc. and bill you whether you actually use all of them at the same time or not. That thing costs the electric bill even if it's sitting there, powered off and doing nothing.

I have no idea about recent changes to either but, are you considering your first waterjet or is this a replacement? I used to think waterjets were cool and then a buddy bought a big Omax. He's had it maybe ten years now. If I didn't have at least two hours of good paying work for it, every single day, I don't think I would put up with the hassles of owning one. Filthy, noisy machines. Sand everywhere and on everything. Have to shovel out and pay to dispose of tons of wet sand, the water problems, rust and erosion with the grates, etc, etc.

It's a big power consumer and--at least in Los Angeles County--the power company does industrial power billing partly on the power you could consume in a given day. So they count every big draw like welders, the water jet, big compressors, etc. and bill you whether you actually use all of them at the same time or not. That thing costs the electric bill even if it's sitting there, powered off and doing nothing.

I have 6 Omax machines and they are a license to print money if yOu know how to use and maintain them correctly, we no longer use our laser machines unless we have 1000+ components to cut, they use vast amounts of power

 

[rwa2004]

We have a Maxiem/Omax machine that is 12 years old that I have a love/hate relationship with. People are correct about the dirtiness of waterjets and they are high maintenance machines, but I think both of those are absolutely true to both Omax and Flow - so may be irrelevant to your question.
I love ours because we can cut anything with it. If we only did metal parts, I would trade it for plasma. We cut ST, AL, SS, brass, plastic, and plywood. All different things. For us, we have to have a waterjet.

To answer you Omax vs. Flow question, I will attest that I am content with Omax and unfamiliar with Flow. We now have a good handle on our Omax so when it needs frequent repair we can do it quickly. Omax parts are expensive, and more and more 3rd party parts are becoming available. The older our machine gets the more inclined I am to buy 3rd party as Omax's support dwindles. I will say I am very impressed with the support they have given us over the last 4 years. (This is not really from Omax - but from their representation for our region, G&W Machinery).

I am a believer in the direct drive pump system. My understanding is that direct drive is the specialty of Omax and intensifier pumps are the specialty of Flow. I know each company offers both but each one has a reputation and has modeled their product offering accordingly. I think the power usage and maintenance is well balanced under a direct drive system.

Now off on a tangent - I have a hypothesis that Omax needs to incorporate an attenuator into their direct drive system. In theory, a intensifier needs an attenuator and a direct drive does not because it does not have the "spikes" that intensifiers do. Also, "in theory", Omax's dual-on-off valves operate in perfect sync and don't have micro-second delays that cause pressure drops/spikes. I call bull. I think most of the maintenance issues we have are likely caused by pressure changes during operation that fatigue the system. Just my thoughts about what would be a step-up.

TLDR: Probly no changes between Omax and Flow

 

[dkmc]

I have 6 Omax machines and they are a license to print money if yOu know how to use and maintain them correctly, we no longer use our laser machines unless we have 1000+ components to cut, they use vast amounts of power

Interesting, so the lasers use more Kilowatts than the WJ?

I am a believer in the direct drive pump system. My understanding is that direct drive is the specialty of Omax and intensifier pumps are the specialty of Flow. I know each company offers both but each one has a reputation and has modeled their product offering accordingly. I think the power usage and maintenance is well balanced under a direct drive system.

So this is still a crankshaft type pump? What HP are they up to these days?

 

[rwa2004]

Our Omax only has a 30 HP pump, and yes, crankshaft type. 30HP motor powered from 440V 3 Phase. Belt drive between motor and crankcase. Crankcase running 3 small pistons (displacers) that draw water in through a small ball check valve and push it out through another small ball check valve. I can't speak for the larger one's but I think 50 HP is fairly common.
Others could speak from more experience, but I think I have understood that to get the same cutting speeds out of of an intensifier style pump you require 15%-25% more power. The electric motor is driving a hydraulic pump and the hydraulics drive the water pistons back and forth. Same end result of water through check valves and out at high pressure, just a loss of energy through hydraulic drag. The extra power goes into heat as far as I know.

 

[dkmc]

Our Omax only has a 30 HP pump, and yes, crankshaft type. 30HP motor powered from 440V 3 Phase. Belt drive between motor and crankcase. Crankcase running 3 small pistons (displacers) that draw water in through a small ball check valve and push it out through another small ball check valve. I can't speak for the larger one's but I think 50 HP is fairly common.
Others could speak from more experience, but I think I have understood that to get the same cutting speeds out of of an intensifier style pump you require 15%-25% more power. The electric motor is driving a hydraulic pump and the hydraulics drive the water pistons back and forth. Same end result of water through check valves and out at high pressure, just a loss of energy through hydraulic drag. The extra power goes into heat as far as I know.

The ones I saw years ago seemed to use CAT components with possibly Omax cylinders/ top end. Where are you and how high are your elec. rates?
In upstate NY I couldn't imagine the cost of power for a continuous use 30hp motor.
I'd have to use a diesel engine, and scavenge the heat for the shop in winter.

 

[kb0thn]

The comment about waterjet using less electricity than laser seems interesting to me. I have a 3kW fiber laser. It's not the latest and greatest, but technology on it (IPS power source, modern servo drives, modern PC and NC controls) is similar to most fiber laser. It's on a 100 amp 208V circuit. So that's 30kW before it is tripping the breaker. Dust collector has a 10HP motor, so that's another 7.5kW. Air compressor is 7.5HP and it runs 3 minutes out of every 18, so (3/18 * 5.6) = 0.93kW average. So peak power is 38.5kW, more or less. But the laser is seldom using anywhere near 100 amps. Maybe somewhere around 60 amps doing full power cutting. So 30kW(ish) while cutting. But I'm cutting a crap load faster than waterjet.

Seems like most waterjets are in the 30HP to 150HP range. So electrical load is similar to fiber laser. But waterjet is cutting slower than fiber laser. Seems like it would be more electricity.

I don't know about the linearity of my comparison. But I've been spending a lot of time recently in flat laser showrooms and technology centers. One demo was a 30kW fiber lasers chewing through 1.25" plate at 115 IPM with beautiful cut quality. 2" plate at 45 IPM. Here is a random waterjet calculator I found:

KMT Waterjet Cut Calculator. Compare 90,000psi to 60,000psi.

To calculate your material cutting speed and waterjet pump pressure, download the KMT 60,000psi-90,000psi, Cutting Calculator on your computer. 800-826-9274.

www.kmtwaterjet.com

It says 1.25" thick mild steel on a 60HP pump is 1.55 to 6.19 IPM. Going to 125 HP gets you 2.7 to 10.8 IPM. So 30kW fiber laser is 115 / 10.8 = 10.7x to 115 / 2.7= 43x faster than the 125HP waterjet.

One of my vendors put in fiber lasers and waterjets at the same time about a decade ago. I asked him about running costs and he said they were essentially the same per hour. One needs nitrogen and oxygen and one needs garnet. Both need electricity.

125 HP does have a scary demand charge. You run that bad boy for 15 minutes in my neck of the woods and you have a 94kW demand charge. About $11 per kW for demand and it cost you $1034 in demand charge as soon as you run it an instant more than 15 minutes. That doesn't buy you any electricity (kWH) either!

Shrug. I don't have a dog in the fight. But I'm not believing that a laser is an electricity hog.