Automatic hot stamping accuracy and test methods

In response to the two items in 4.9 and 5.8.2 of the technical conditions of the “Planting Machine Standardization” in the fourth period of 1998, the authors raised doubts and elaborated the following opinions for consideration by experts of the Standardization Committee. The original extract is as follows:
First, the flattening stamping machine technical conditions 4.9,5.8.2 two content again.
4.9 Repeated stamping error shall not be greater than 0.20mm.
5.8.2 Repeated Hot Stamping Error Test Take 10 consecutive samples. Use a vernier caliper to measure the three hot stamping widths on the stamping machine, take the average value, and then perform a second hot stamping. Measure the number of superimposed stamps on each sheet. width.
Second, the first analysis of the repeated hot stamping accuracy of the reference that is on the same position on a piece of paper stamping multiple times, and the official print of the hot stamping does not actually match, it can be said is completely impossible; followed by the above method acceptance Machine accuracy, there are many cases where the base result is the superposition of multiple machine errors, which can be further explained in the following discussion. In addition, in the standard 5.8.2 repeat stamping error test, there are many cases are unreasonable It is also explained below.
The full text of the analysis is as follows:
Set conditions: 1, eliminate print errors.
2, remove the paper error.
Here, the size of one and one direction of the hot stamping method is used to explain the irrationality of the original standard.
Here are the results of the analysis of each sheet:
The first one: The first stamp was stamped on the 0 line position; the second stamping was moved up by 0.2mm, belonging to the inspection qualified product, and the printed product was also qualified.
The second sheet: The first time the stamp was stamped on the 0 line position, the second stamping was moved down by 0.2 mm; it belonged to the inspection qualified product, and the printed product was also qualified.
The third sheet: The first hot stamping moved up 0.2mm; the second hot stamping down 0.2mm was a test failed product, but the printed product was qualified.
The fourth sheet: The first hot stamping was moved down by 0.2mm; the second hot stamping was moved up by 0.2mm, which was a test for defective products, but the printed products were qualified.
The fifth sheet: The first hot stamping was moved up by 0.2mm; the second hot stamping was moved down by 0.4mm, belonging to the inspection qualified product, but the printed product was not qualified.
Sixth: The first hot stamping down 0.2mm; the second hot stamping down 0.4mm, is a test product, but the print product failed.
In summary, the repeat stamping accuracy and test method in the original standard is reasonable in the first and second sheets, and the third sheet of the fourth sheet error is deemed to be rejected as a waste product. Obviously, it is twice the error of the machine. Superimposed, not the machine's accuracy. The fifth and sixth sheets were also judged as non-defective products, which also superimposed the two errors of the machine together. It was also the machine's two errors.
3. Conclusions The duplicate stamping error in the original standard should be changed to stamping error. The inspection method should also change the two stampings of the same sheet to one stamping. The hot stamping error test should be randomly selected 10, measuring the front ruler distance from the front edge of the hot stamping pattern Y1, Y2 ... Y10, take the average Y Y, as the ideal 0 line. The measurement data is compared with Y. If it exceeds the specified value, it is unqualified and the error is selected with Y symmetry, that is, ±0.2 mm.
Note: Please refer to the original manuscripts and translations of the acceptance criteria for SP104ER and SP102BMA products from BOBST in Switzerland.