The source defines a diamond saw blade through two functional parts: a supporting base body and cutting segments. It then records a manufacturing-route taxonomy. The taxonomy helps organize terminology, but it is not a current product list or a compatibility approval.
Definition in the archived record
The archive identifies the base body as the supporting part for the cutting segment. It provides no material grade, geometry, diameter, or interface specification.
The segment is identified as the cutting part of the blade. The source does not bind a segment formula, bond, concentration, dimension, or material range to a current item.
Manufacturing-route taxonomy recorded in the archive
Sintered
The source places cold-pressed and hot-pressed sintered blades beneath this branch and describes pressing and sintering as the broad production route. It does not compare the two subgroups or connect either one to a current model.
Welded
The archived wording names brazed and laser-welded subgroups. These labels describe how a segment may be joined; the record provides no qualification standard, performance ranking, or product assignment.
Electroplated
The archive describes blade powder being attached to a substrate by electroplating. A dated environmental and market-trend assertion from the legacy body is intentionally omitted because no current authoritative evidence is bound.
Taxonomy is not selection
The archived source also says that material characteristics and formulation compatibility belong in blade selection. That statement sets a boundary rather than an answer: a manufacturing label alone does not establish that a blade suits a given material, machine, or cutting condition.
A definition of the two principal blade parts and the names of three manufacturing-route families with their named subgroups.
The offered blade identity, its construction, the machine interface, the intended material, and any claimed result or limitation.
Because no current product catalog or formulation record is frozen with this article, the category names should be used to ask precise product questions, not to infer equivalence among products.
