Talk:Electrical steel

Some of the coating types designated in the table do not exist in ASTM 976-03 and therefore were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.85.231.252 (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

These two articles ('Electrical steel' and 'Silicon steel') are about the same topic but were clearly written independently and, while much of the information is overlapping, there are several points that appear only in one or the other. Not being an industry insider, I'm not certain which way the merger should be directed (which term is more accepted, etc.), but I've set it up tentatively toward 'Electrical' because it is slightly more extensively written already and thus will be easier to merge the other article into.
 * OK for the merge, but I'm more inclined to do it the other way: I knew "silicon steel", not "electrical steel" - CyrilB 15:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I wrote the electrical steel article and I merged silicon steel into it. I did Google searches on "electrical steel" and "silicon steel" and found that silicon steel only had a bit more results, 167,000 vs. 175,000. I thought electrical steel might be less confusing since regular steel usually contains some silicon. If people really prefer silicon steel, I suppose it could be moved. -- Kjkolb 01:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

steel is just jargon term. (Naturally each steel containing Si is silicon steel - but only silicon can not guarantee electrical properties.) Principial mistake in article is mention abou thickness. Electrical steels have thickness from 0.15 - 0.50 mm maybe low quality laminates have thicknes up to 0.70 mm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.5.210.202 (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According EN 10027-1, they are steels designated for electrical technology. Silicon


 * I'm of the opinion that the Article on electric steel focus on things like laminations etc used for making transformers and electrical machines, whereas silicon steel can be an article on the steel itself - and usage for other purposes if any? Abhijit86k (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In a sentence, "the magnetic flux density is increased by 30% in the coil rolling direction, although its magnetic saturation is decreased by 5%", I can't see how "the magnetic flux density is increased" while at the same time "its magnetic saturation is decreased." Or does it mean "permeability" rather than "magnetic flux" ? 210.177.142.113 07:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this sentence seems wrong. I think saturation flux density (B_max) is higher in GO (Grain oriented) steel. But the most important reason GO is preferred is the fact that loss is lower (0.8W/KG for GO and 4-5 W/KG for NO(Non-grain oriented)). By the by the GO steel laminations cost 2.5-3x times NO laminations. Abhijit86k (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

properties of silicon steel
can slilcon steel be laser cut ie cutting of silicon steel is possible by laser cutting method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.251.1.162 (talk) 12:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Lamination Coatings
The table under the lamination coatings section is inaccurate and lists numerous coating types that are not recognized by ASTM A976. The column titled "for rotors/stators" is not part of ASTM A976 and types listed as not used for rotors and stators is wrong. If the writer were to actually do some real research, they would find that most NEMA Frame motors 440 series and below are actually built utilizing a C1 coating. C3 coating is no longer used in large motors because it cannot withstand a burnout of the winding without developing hotspots. The most commonly used coating for large motor stator and rotor laminations is ASTM A976 C5 coating. The "C5AS" coating is not normally used in large motors. I've tried to correct this before, but someone who has no technical knowledge of electrical steel has reverted the corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.85.231.252 (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

transformer steel
Without starting an official rename process, is there any interest in renaming this transformer steel? As well as I know, that is the primary use. Gah4 (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we should stick with electrical steel as transformer steel would include other steel used in the transformer such as the enclosure.
 * Also https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=transformer+steel%2C+electrical+steel&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3 Constant314 (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I learned many years ago, a story that the US choice of 60Hz, vs. the European 50Hz, was that the US had better silicon transformer steel at the time. That is you optimize based on loss, 60Hz was the choice at the time. More recently, it seems that there are many different explanations for the choice of 60Hz, but that is the first one I knew. It is interesting to follow the development of high quality transformers, needed to make an efficient electrical system. Gah4 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I learned many years ago, a story that the US choice of 60Hz, vs. the European 50Hz, was that the US had better silicon transformer steel at the time. That is you optimize based on loss, 60Hz was the choice at the time. More recently, it seems that there are many different explanations for the choice of 60Hz, but that is the first one I knew. It is interesting to follow the development of high quality transformers, needed to make an efficient electrical system. Gah4 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I learned many years ago, a story that the US choice of 60Hz, vs. the European 50Hz, was that the US had better silicon transformer steel at the time. That is you optimize based on loss, 60Hz was the choice at the time. More recently, it seems that there are many different explanations for the choice of 60Hz, but that is the first one I knew. It is interesting to follow the development of high quality transformers, needed to make an efficient electrical system. Gah4 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)