- \n
- Burr height (BH):<\/strong> \u2264 5 \u00b5m on \u2265 95% of measured sites, with max BH \u2264 10 \u00b5m.<\/li>\n
- Edge roll-over:<\/strong> \u2264 15% of thickness on stamped parts; recast\/dross visually nil on laser-cut edges.<\/li>\n
- Coating integrity:<\/strong> No breakthrough of C-5\/C-6 insulation under 500 V layer-to-layer test.<\/li>\n
- Stack flatness:<\/strong> \u2264 0.05 mm per 100 mm OD after bonding\/interlock\/weld.<\/li>\n
- 8 locations per lamination:<\/strong> OD, ID, slot entry\/exit, bridge, and two random edges.Optical 2D profilometer (2.5D), 5 \u00b5m filter cutoff.SPC on mean BH, max BH, Cp\/Cpk for each cavity\/tool\/laser program.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Executive snapshot<\/h2>\n
\n\n
\n Criterion<\/strong><\/td>\n Laser Cutting (fiber, N\u2082 assist)<\/strong><\/td>\n Progressive Stamping (carbide, in-die planish)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Typical burr height (new\/optimized)<\/td>\n 1\u20136 \u00b5m (thin gauges), occasional micro-dross islands<\/td>\n 2\u20137 \u00b5m; increases as dies wear if not planished<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Edge thermals<\/td>\n Heat-affected zone (HAZ) ~5\u201325 \u00b5m; can pre-cure backlack<\/td>\n No HAZ; cold work zone only<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Coating risk<\/td>\n Local softening\/brown edge if O\u2082; N\u2082 eliminates oxide<\/td>\n Possible micro-fracture at roll-over; mitigated by planish<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Dimensional accuracy<\/td>\n \u00b10.02\u20130.05 mm typical on profiles; superb slot fillets<\/td>\n \u00b10.01\u20130.03 mm once die is dialed in; excellent repeatability<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Throughput (per line)<\/td>\n ~1,200\u20133,600 lams\/hr per head (geometry-dependent)<\/td>\n ~9,000\u201318,000 lams\/hr at 150\u2013300 spm (single-out)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Changeover & flexibility<\/td>\n Minutes (program switch); no hard tooling<\/td>\n Hours (die change); high-mix requires more dies<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Unit cost at scale<\/td>\n Higher (energy + time) but no tooling amortization<\/td>\n Lowest at >100k set\/year after tooling amortized<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Best fit<\/td>\n Prototypes, variants, EV custom slots, short-to-mid runs<\/td>\n Long-run, automotive scale, fixed geometry families<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n How burrs form\u2014and why stacks amplify the problem<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Laser:<\/strong> Burrs arise from recast at low feed\/high linear energy, micro-dross from insufficient assist gas, or focus offset causing kerf taper. Laser burrs are usually micro-serrated but shallow; HAZ can soften the coating line and change edge permeability. <\/p>\n
Stamping:<\/strong> Burrs follow clearance (punch-die gap), shear burnish %, break height, tool wear, and material anisotropy. Burrs are directional (exit side). Without planishing or alternating, burr-direction can bias stack height and radial growth. <\/p>\n
If single-sided burr height is b, and all burrs align, worst-case radial growth is \u2248 b (not n\u00d7b) because burrs are tiny relative to layer thickness; however, local contact punctures coating, creating interlaminar shorts that raise eddy loss and magnetizing current. Our stacking plans alternate burr orientation (\u2191\u2193\u2191\u2193) and\/or planish to reduce effective burr to \u2264 2 \u00b5m at the stack. <\/p>\n
Data: typical process capability in our plant<\/h2>\n
Material set: 0.35 mm M400-50A equivalent; OD 80\u2013260 mm; slot count 36\u201372; both ID\/OD bridges. Backlack C-5 coating. <\/p>\n
Table 1 \u2014 Edge quality SPC (200-piece capability study)<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n Process<\/strong><\/td>\n Mean BH (\u00b5m)<\/strong><\/td>\n Max BH (\u00b5m)<\/strong><\/td>\n Cp<\/strong><\/td>\n Cpk<\/strong><\/td>\n HAZ width (\u00b5m)<\/strong><\/td>\n Roll-over (%t)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Laser, 2 kW, N\u2082 12 bar, v=32 m\/min<\/td>\n 3.2<\/td>\n 8.4<\/td>\n 1.67<\/td>\n 1.45<\/td>\n 12\u201318<\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Laser, 3 kW, N\u2082 16 bar, v=45 m\/min<\/td>\n 2.5<\/td>\n 6.9<\/td>\n 1.82<\/td>\n 1.60<\/td>\n 8\u201314<\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Stamping, new die, 6% t clearance, planish 5%<\/td>\n 3.0<\/td>\n 7.5<\/td>\n 1.75<\/td>\n 1.52<\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n 10\u201314<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Stamping, mid-life die, planish 7%<\/td>\n 4.6<\/td>\n 10.2<\/td>\n 1.42<\/td>\n 1.21<\/td>\n 0<\/td>\n 12\u201316<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Takeaway:<\/strong> Both processes achieve \u2264 5 \u00b5m mean and \u2264 10 \u00b5m max with proper windows. Laser edges show no roll-over but have a HAZ; stamping shows roll-over but no HAZ. <\/p>\n
Dimensional and magnetic consequences<\/h2>\n
Dimensional:<\/strong> Laser kerf can have 2\u20135\u00b0 taper if focus drifts; stamping maintains wall-straightness tied to die land.
\nMagnetic:<\/strong> HAZ slightly increases local core loss; stamping cold work raises residual stress near the edge. In practice, both effects are second-order compared with coating puncture from burrs. Keeping BH \u2264 5 \u00b5m and coating intact matters more than HAZ vs. cold work. <\/p>\nTable 2 \u2014 Core-loss delta versus edge condition (stack, 1.5 T @ 50 Hz, normalized)<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n Edge condition<\/strong><\/td>\n \u0394P\u209b\u1d57\u1d43\u1d9c\u1d4f (%) vs. baseline<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Laser, optimized N\u2082 cut, HAZ 10\u201315 \u00b5m, intact coating<\/td>\n +0.6\u20130.9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Stamped, planished, intact coating<\/td>\n +0.5\u20130.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Either process, localized coating breach (1% edge length)<\/td>\n +2.5\u20133.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Either process, 5% edge breach<\/td>\n +7\u20139<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n ![\"Rotor](\"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Rotor-and-Stator-Stacks.jpg\")
<\/h2>\nProcess windows that actually work<\/h2>\n
Laser cutting playbook (fiber, N\u2082)<\/h3>\n
- \n
- Assist gas:<\/strong> Dry N\u2082 12\u201318 bar. O\u2082 is faster but creates an oxide burr and discolors the coating. <\/li>\n
- Linear energy (LE):<\/strong> Keep LE = Power\/speed near 0.5\u20130.8 J\/mm for 0.35 mm steel; higher LE increases HAZ\/burr.<\/li>\n
- Focus:<\/strong> Slight positive offset (+0.1\u20130.2 mm) to reduce top spatter; auto-focus checks every 200 lams.<\/li>\n
- Piercing strategy:<\/strong> Fly-cut when possible; for deep slots, pre-pierce with ramp.<\/li>\n
- Pathing:<\/strong> Lead-in\/out in scrap bridges; slot entry last to minimize heat stacking.<\/li>\n
- Cool-down:<\/strong> Tile-cut sequence to avoid heat accumulation; two-pass micro-tab on fragile webs.<\/li>\n
- Coating care:<\/strong> Backlack can pre-cure at edges; keep perimeter edge temp < 250 \u00b0C equivalent via speed and tiling.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Progressive stamping playbook<\/h3>\n
- \n
- Clearance:<\/strong> 5\u20137% of thickness for grain-oriented\/HI steels; up to 8% for non-oriented grades to balance burr vs. break.<\/li>\n
- Shear burnish target:<\/strong> 30\u201340% of thickness indicates good penetration; too low \u2192 tearing; too high \u2192 galling.<\/li>\n
- Die materials:<\/strong> Fine-grain carbide punches\/dies; DLC-coated strippers for coated steels.<\/li>\n
- Planish:<\/strong> 3\u20137% thickness reduction at edge, post-pierce; reduces BH by 30\u201360%.<\/li>\n
- Lubrication:<\/strong> Ester-based thin film; keep viscosity stable to avoid drag lines.<\/li>\n
- Maintenance:<\/strong> Re-hone after 1.5\u20132.0 M hits or earlier if CpK < 1.33 on BH.<\/li>\n
- Burr direction control:<\/strong> Program strip with alternate exit sides or run stack up\/down pattern.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Quantifying burr vs. clearance for stamping<\/h2>\n
Table 3 \u2014 Clearance vs. burr (exit side)<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n Clearance (% t)<\/strong><\/td>\n Mean BH (\u00b5m)<\/strong><\/td>\n Max BH (\u00b5m)<\/strong><\/td>\n Notes<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4%<\/td>\n 6.8<\/td>\n 12.4<\/td>\n Low break, risk of galling<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5%<\/td>\n 4.9<\/td>\n 9.3<\/td>\n Good for small slots<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6%<\/td>\n 3.4<\/td>\n 7.6<\/td>\n Balanced; our default<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 7%<\/td>\n 3.9<\/td>\n 8.5<\/td>\n Slightly higher break, still safe<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8%<\/td>\n 5.6<\/td>\n 11.1<\/td>\n Faster wear, more roll-over<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Rule of thumb:<\/strong> 6% t clearance + planish produces the lowest BH\/cost blend for most non-oriented grades.<\/p>\n
Laser energy vs. HAZ and burr<\/h2>\n
Gauge: 0.35 mm; N\u2082; 100 \u00b5m nozzle<\/p>\n
Table 4 \u2014 Linear energy mapping<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n Power (kW)<\/strong><\/td>\n Speed (m\/min)<\/strong><\/td>\n LE (J\/mm)<\/strong><\/td>\n HAZ (\u00b5m)<\/strong><\/td>\n Mean BH (\u00b5m)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.0<\/td>\n 20<\/td>\n 1.00<\/td>\n 20\u201325<\/td>\n 5.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2.0<\/td>\n 32<\/td>\n 0.63<\/td>\n 12\u201318<\/td>\n 3.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.0<\/td>\n 45<\/td>\n 0.67<\/td>\n 8\u201314<\/td>\n 2.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3.0<\/td>\n 60<\/td>\n 0.50<\/td>\n 6\u201310<\/td>\n 3.0 (micro-notches rise)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Interpretation:<\/strong> Too high LE inflates HAZ and burr; too low LE raises micro-notch incidence. There\u2019s a sweet spot near 0.6\u20130.7 J\/mm. <\/p>\n
Throughput and cost modeling<\/h2>\n
Assume a 120 mm OD stator lamination; 72 slots; 0.35 mm; annual demand options.<\/p>\n
Table 5 \u2014 Throughput & cost<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n Volume (sets\/year)<\/strong><\/td>\n Laser: lams\/hr (1 head)<\/strong><\/td>\n Laser unit cost (USD\/lam)<\/strong><\/td>\n Stamping: lams\/hr<\/strong><\/td>\n Stamping unit cost (USD\/lam)<\/strong><\/td>\n Tooling amort. (USD) <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5,000<\/td>\n 1,800<\/td>\n 0.18\u20130.26<\/td>\n 9,000<\/td>\n 0.12\u20130.16<\/td>\n 0 (laser), 180k (stamp)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 50,000<\/td>\n 2,400<\/td>\n 0.11\u20130.16<\/td>\n 12,000<\/td>\n 0.04\u20130.07<\/td>\n 180k<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 500,000<\/td>\n 3,000<\/td>\n 0.08\u20130.12<\/td>\n 15,000<\/td>\n 0.02\u20130.04<\/td>\n 180k<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n One \u201cset\u201d = rotor + stator stacks; lamination count varies by stack height; table shows per-lamination rates\/costs.
\nIncludes energy, labor, depreciation; excludes material.
\nBottom line: At \u2265 100k sets\/year, stamping wins decisively on unit cost\/throughput, provided die maintenance keeps BH in spec.<\/p>\nStack manufacturing considerations beyond the blank<\/h2>\n
Skew :<\/strong><\/p>\n
- \n
- Stamping:<\/strong> In-die skew stacking or index plates can incrementally rotate laminations for low cogging; adds die complexity but no extra edge damage.<\/li>\n
- Laser:<\/strong> We skew by programmed rotation per layer during bonding\/interlock; edge quality unaffected but cycle time rises.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Stacking & bonding :<\/strong>
\nBacklack bake pairs well with both processes. Laser\u2019s local heating can pre-activate edge adhesive; adjust oven time by \u221210\u201315% for all-laser sets. <\/p>\nInterlock adds small tabs that can create local burrs; planish tabs in-die (stamping) or use micro-tabs (laser) then post-sand lightly (< 2 \u00b5m removal).<\/p>\n
Post-processing :<\/strong>
\nLight edge planish (roller) after stamping cuts BH by ~40% without thinning beyond spec.<\/p>\nVapor honing on laser edges removes micro-dross islands when present.
\nDemagnetization after either process reduces handling pickup and dusting.<\/p>\nQuality risks and mitigations<\/h2>\n
\n\n
\n Risk<\/strong><\/td>\n Process prone<\/strong><\/td>\n Symptom<\/strong><\/td>\n Mitigation<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Coating burn\/discolor<\/td>\n Laser (O\u2082 or high LE)<\/td>\n Brown edge, higher loss<\/td>\n N\u2082 only, 0.6\u20130.7 J\/mm, tiled heat spread<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Micro-dross beads<\/td>\n Laser<\/td>\n Speckles on the underside<\/td>\n Higher N\u2082 pressure, nozzle-to-work distance, lead-outs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Roll-over cracking<\/td>\n Stamping<\/td>\n Hairline coating cracks<\/td>\n 6% t clearance, planish 5%, lube control<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Burr growth with wear<\/td>\n Stamping<\/td>\n BH drifts > 8 \u00b5m<\/td>\n Scheduled re-hone, CpK gates, punch corner radius spec<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Kerf taper<\/td>\n Laser<\/td>\n Tight slot pinch<\/td>\n Auto-focus, positive focus offset, nozzle maintenance<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Edge notches at corner exits<\/td>\n Both<\/td>\n Micron-scale spikes<\/td>\n Corner slow-down (laser), punch fillet + stripper timing (stamping)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Case study<\/h2>\n
Use case A \u2014 Mid-volume EV motor (60,000 sets\/year).<\/strong><\/p>\n
- \n
- Requirement:<\/strong> BH \u2264 5 \u00b5m, skewed stator, frequent design updates.<\/li>\n
- Outcome:<\/strong> Laser achieves BH 2\u20134 \u00b5m consistently with N\u2082, quick revisions for slot tweaks, and no tooling cost. Unit cost slightly higher but offset by change agility and saved lead time. <\/li>\n
- Winner:<\/strong> Laser for the first 12\u201324 months or across variant families.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Use case B \u2014 High-volume traction motor (600,000 sets\/year).<\/strong><\/p>\n
- \n
- Requirement:<\/strong> BH \u2264 5 \u00b5m, three rotor variants, fixed design, tight PPAP.<\/li>\n
- Outcome:<\/strong> Stamping with 6% t clearance + planish + preventive hone holds BH 3\u20136 \u00b5m, CpK \u2265 1.33. Per-lam cost is less than half of laser and press can feed in-die skew and interlock. <\/li>\n
- Winner:<\/strong> Stamping once the design is frozen and tooling is amortized.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Practical acceptance criteria we run to<\/h2>\n
- \n
- Burr height:<\/strong> \u2264 5 \u00b5m mean; \u2264 10 \u00b5m max (both processes).<\/li>\n
- Coating puncture test:<\/strong> 500 V DC; no shorts across 100 random edge sites per batch.<\/li>\n
- Stack flatness:<\/strong> \u2264 0.05 mm\/100 mm OD.<\/li>\n
- Dimensional:<\/strong> Slots \u00b10.02 mm (laser) or \u00b10.015 mm (stamping) on PPAP; OD\/ID concentricity \u2264 0.03 mm.<\/li>\n
- Core loss delta:<\/strong> \u2264 +1.0% vs. material baseline.<\/li>\n
- SPC gates:<\/strong> Cp \u2265 1.67 \/ Cpk \u2265 1.33 on BH and slot width.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
How we decide with customers<\/h2>\n
- \n
- Volume & mix:<\/strong> Below ~100k sets\/year or with frequent design changes \u2192 laser first. Above that with stable prints \u2192 stamping. <\/li>\n
- Geometry severity:<\/strong> Extremely fine slot necks or nonstandard fillets often favor laser for edge fidelity; later, we redesign for stampability.<\/li>\n
- Timeline:<\/strong> Laser gets parts in days; stamping needs die lead time but pays back in pennies-per-lam savings.<\/li>\n
- Magnetics KPI:<\/strong> If your loss budget is tight, we pilot both routes and compare stack loss; coating integrity usually decides it.<\/li>\n
- Futureproofing:<\/strong> We often launch on laser, lock performance, then transfer to stamping with matched edges (planish, hone, CpK matched) to keep magnetic results steady.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Engineer\u2019s notes on slot entry and burrs<\/h2>\n
On stamped parts, design slot entry with micro-radius (R 0.05\u20130.10) to cut micro-spikes.
\nOn the laser, exit outside the slot (lead-out) to avoid a heat-soaked stop at the slot mouth.
\nFor both, measure BH specifically at tooth tips and slot entries, where coating breach matters most.<\/p>\nExample: stack loss vs burr height<\/h3>\n
For small burr fractions and intact coating, a linearized model fits well in practice:
\n\u0394P \u2248 \u03b1 \u00b7 BHmean + \u03b2 \u00b7 Lbreach
\n\u03b1 \u2248 0.12% per \u00b5m BH, \u03b2 \u2248 0.6% per % of breached edge length.
\nIf BHmean = 4 \u00b5m and Lbreach = 0, then \u0394P \u2248 0.48%\u2014consistent with Table 2.
\nA single percent of coating breach adds \u2248 0.6%, overpowering small BH differences.
\nImplication:<\/strong> Don\u2019t chase 2 \u00b5m vs. 3 \u00b5m while ignoring rare coating punctures.<\/p>\nEnvironmental, safety, and housekeeping<\/h2>\n
- \n
- Laser:<\/strong> Fume extraction must capture Fe\/Si particulates; no oil, clean shop, minimal swarf.<\/li>\n
- Stamping:<\/strong> Lube mist and burr fines require separation\/filtration; thorough chip control to protect die edges.<\/li>\n
- Edge safety:<\/strong> Specify break-edge \u2264 10 \u00b5m (not a chamfer) to maintain magnetic area yet keep handling safe.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Both technologies can produce burr-free, low-loss rotor and stator stacks when run in a capable window. Laser shines for speed to market, design agility, and fine features; stamping dominates for stable designs at automotive scale with the lowest cost per lamination. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11980,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15263","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-nicht-kategorisiert"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15263","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15263"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15263\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11980"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15263"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15263"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.gatorlamination.com\/de\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15263"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
- Stamping:<\/strong> Lube mist and burr fines require separation\/filtration; thorough chip control to protect die edges.<\/li>\n
- Geometry severity:<\/strong> Extremely fine slot necks or nonstandard fillets often favor laser for edge fidelity; later, we redesign for stampability.<\/li>\n
- Coating puncture test:<\/strong> 500 V DC; no shorts across 100 random edge sites per batch.<\/li>\n
- Outcome:<\/strong> Stamping with 6% t clearance + planish + preventive hone holds BH 3\u20136 \u00b5m, CpK \u2265 1.33. Per-lam cost is less than half of laser and press can feed in-die skew and interlock. <\/li>\n
- Outcome:<\/strong> Laser achieves BH 2\u20134 \u00b5m consistently with N\u2082, quick revisions for slot tweaks, and no tooling cost. Unit cost slightly higher but offset by change agility and saved lead time. <\/li>\n
- Laser:<\/strong> We skew by programmed rotation per layer during bonding\/interlock; edge quality unaffected but cycle time rises.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- Shear burnish target:<\/strong> 30\u201340% of thickness indicates good penetration; too low \u2192 tearing; too high \u2192 galling.<\/li>\n
- Linear energy (LE):<\/strong> Keep LE = Power\/speed near 0.5\u20130.8 J\/mm for 0.35 mm steel; higher LE increases HAZ\/burr.<\/li>\n
- Edge roll-over:<\/strong> \u2264 15% of thickness on stamped parts; recast\/dross visually nil on laser-cut edges.<\/li>\n