Short History of Lasers

Laser projections systems are the most prevalent “high tech” solution seen in truss manufacturing operations today. Originally Lacey Harmer and Virtek Vision were partners in developing laser projection technology for the component manufacturing industry in North America. They eventually went their separate ways; Virtek remains while Lacey Harmer sold their business to SL Laser, a small family run business based in Germany. The first laser jigging system was installed November 23, 1991 at Alpa Truss in Maple, Ontario. Here's some information about the development of Virtek lasers since then:


Since the beginning, lasers have been coupled with software to allow users to visualize where the truss will be set up on the table. The first lasers (1993) had a 14’ wide coverage area and were only offered in red. In 1996, microchips were added to the laser projectors enabling them to operate independently of the computer and thus run faster in larger systems. Virtek patented "icon menus" to allow the operation of the projection system directly from the table using reflective “wands” and thus speeding up response time considerably.


In 2002, with the introduction of the LPS-6R models, each projector could cover a 20' area for the first time. These first ‘20 foot models’ had larger galvanometers, large mirrors, and significant cooling challenges. In 2007, the LPS-7 Projector was introduced. These had smaller galvanometers and correspondingly less challenges keeping cool while providing better images (less flicker). A separate door was added to enable the green laser producing element to be replaced much more easily. Green lasers are generally considered to be easier to see in most production environments, but also have a somewhat shorter lifespan than red ones do.


Some plants are unable to use lasers because of low ceiling heights. Today's lasers need to be placed between 15'3" and 16' above the table top for optimal coverage. Plants with lower ceiling heights can still use lasers by mounting the lasers into the trusses or simply using a larger number of lasers. 


About half of the plants that use lasers put the computer running the Virtek software in the office, half in the plant near the table. Putting the computer in the obviously office is better for the computer. The choice really depends on who is going to do the work of configuring the trusses on the table using the computer, and perhaps how far the office is from the production floor. Only one computer is needed per line, regardless of how many jig stations or projectors there are. If you buy Planx, MiTek’s auto-jigging system, the Virtek software can drive both the lasers and the Planx.


Laser popularity is easy to understand. Many manufacturers report cutting setup times by more than half and overall throughput by 25%.

Order in the World of Machinery Files

Although the component manufacturing machinery world is rather quiet at the moment, it wasn’t too long ago that new pieces of computer-driven equipment, from a variety of suppliers, were coming into the marketplace at a rapid pace. Each piece of equipment seemed to have its own file format to drive it, and this presented a problem for both the equipment maker and the design/production software provider (like MiTek or ITW.)

For the guy making the equipment, the choice was either to create their own file format to drive the equipment or piggyback on to someone else’s file format and use it. Because programmers usually prefer creating their own tools, MiTek, Alpine, Virtek, Hundegger, and Koskovich all created different saw file formats. The problem then became supporting all those formats. No two are the same, and they could potentially change without notice. The cost of supporting each new file format was borne by plate manufacturers. A very inefficient system!

Having so many formats and depending on other companies to “get them right” really didn’t benefit anyone. Saw manufacturers found that the cause of bugs or inconsistencies was hard to pin down, and cost everyone time figuring out, “Is it the machine or the output from the design software?” Needless to say, this was also a big pain the people that owned the equipment! Saw makers also found they had to support formats other than their own to gain acceptance. Hundegger had their own format, but programmed their saws to read different saw file types in order to make their products more marketable.

Once established, file formats could become a straightjacket. Koskovich, for example created a simple file format years ago and all the plate suppliers supported it. This file format is simple and clever, but is incapable to such simple expansions as “three cuts on one end,” bevels, and detailed, user-specified piece orientation. Eventually it had to be abandoned. Although programmers might like the control of having their own file format, their companies had marketing issues when attempting to sell a saw whose format initially no one supported.

Around 2005, MiTek and Koskovich began discussing the possibility of a single file for the entire industry. The problem: no file format currently available was suitable. The solution began with the introduction of the Hundegger file format that supported the extra milling tools offered by that saw. Since Hundegger needed to be able to describe a piece with virtually any cut, hole, notch or bevel in it, they created the first truly robust piece description format. After considering for a time the idea of simply nominating the Hundegger file as ‘the standard,’ Koskovich instead created their own format, now used on the Miser saw, as their “can do all things” saw file.

In the last two years we’ve seen a major falloff in the introduction of new equipment. But when new equipment is introduced in the future, there is no longer any reason for a manufacturer to create an entirely new format to support it. There are several well-established ones, including the Hundegger and Miser formats that can describe virtually any piece. The bottom line for the component manufacturer: any piece of equipment you buy from any well-established equipment supplier will work with any design / production software you currently use. At some point, we may even see the day when SBCA officially sanctions one format, which would be of benefit to everyone.

The World Where ‘Eck You A’ Reigns Supreme

Scholars tell us that coins began to be used between 400 and 600 B.C. They were a big hit. Bartering is great, but it has its limits. Coins soon became a widely accepted, universal unit of exchange. Now imagine a world where all component manufacturers have a unit of exchange that is just as valuable as coins are. Because this unit of exchange is completely accepted by everyone, manufacturers can easily compare the production efficiency with each other. Everyone estimates their jobs using the same method. Getting a quote from another manufacturer to build trusses for you is a snap, because you both measure jobs in exactly same way. Oh, and by the way, this is a real place. It is called, ‘Australia.’

Down Under

It’s really true. In Australia, virtually all manufacturers have “bought in” to the concept of converting all forms of work into EquA’s, or “equivalent finks.” Getting deeply into EquA’s can get complicated, but the basic idea is simple. Convert all work into the single unit (our “coin.”) This is done by arbitrarily declaring that “a standard fink truss with one splice takes 1 EquA to build.” The next step is to come up with a method to determine how many EquA’s it takes to set up (as opposed to build) that truss. From there, we have to come up with an easy way to determine the EquA for all truss types. In Australia, this is mostly done through the number of joints, but, as I said, it can get a little complicated. Attached is a PDF describing the method in some detail, if you are interested. My purpose here is not to explain the method, but rather to describe the benefits that the Australians enjoy because they all use the same method to measure work.

The Point

I had heard about this method of estimating before my trip to Australia in 2006. From what I had heard before that trip, the Aussies were a bit ‘EquA obsessed.’ Why would this method be better any other? And how could it really be true that everyone used the same method? During my visit to MiTek Australia I had a chance to talk at length to Andrew Scane, one of the MiTek sales and support guys there. He told me that the small size of Australia (population equal to Michigan + Ohio) had helped. Also, MiTek had promoted the use of this method, and supported in throughout its software suite there.

I asked more questions. I wanted to know if the EquA method was accurate. Was 23 commons really the same as 18.5 cathedrals? At some point, I realized that that wasn’t the point. Once you accept EquA’s as your unit of measure, once you just decide to trust it (like we do dollar bills,) a whole world opens up to you. Once you begin to do everything in EquA’s – estimate labor, calculate production capacity, price jobs, determine overhead, set profit goals, you are now living in a world that is much easier to comprehend and manage.

One Example – The Labor Rate

Once you can measure your work in EquA’s, you can determine plant’s capacity in terms of EquA’s. And once that has been done, you can measure your productivity by combining your overhead and direct labor, and dividing by your plant’s EquA capacity. So if you find you capacity is about 300 EquA’s a day and your overhead and labor is about $4,500 per day, you know your (non-material) cost of production is $15 per EquA. How does that compare to your competition? In Australia, you can just ask, because everyone measures in the same way.

MiTek Australia has written considerable documentation on how to make sure you are accurately calculating overhead, as you can see in the attached document. They actually provide a software program called Profit Centre that allows you to step-by-step enter costs (like those tax-filing programs we sometimes use) and use those figures to really see your overhead per EquA. It really is cool stuff.

Regrettably (I think) in the US, we have the phenomenon known as “no two customers do things the same.” Because of this, most of us have a much more fuzzy sense of our productivity and costs than the Australians do. To be fair, in the US we have a large variety of production equipment – it is more uniform (pedestals) in Australia. Also worth noting, in nearby New Zealand, preachers of the “EquA religion’ have not made many converts. Still, sometimes I wish I lived in a world where we all agreed to use the same “coin.”