Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I've been disillusioned with Motley Fool for years. They are well named.
In none of their 3d printing articles to they show any insightment or intelligence.
1 They hardly mention arcam which IMHO is the only leader and executing OEM 3d printer firm and its achievements and ERs confirm that.
2. They keep harping on the consumer 3d printing sector which I've said for over a year was a minor player compared to industrial and commercial. Subsequent events with DDD and ssys confirm my opinion on the consumer end.
3. They don't seem able to draw distinctions between metal and non metal, EBM vs laser or laser vs laser.
4. They don't understand the difference between current prototyping 3d printing and the impeding metal volume mfg
5. They hardly ever give arcam and EBM its due in the 3d printing space
Glad to hear that progress is being made on the Materalize front. Haven't heard of anything positive. Yes, Sigma is risky one of those that will be a big winner or total loser but the invested capital even with way over 100000 shares is not that much. Less than my arcdam hot share gains so far and we will see again this er. But since both the FDA and FAA require certification and qualification of parts, and all 3d parts require quality control and post printing analysis, if printrite does as advertised it could add a lot of value to the process but insuring quality control on a flow basis. And we won't really know till the product is finalized, tested, evaluated, and its benefit realized and then won't be a demand till volume part mfg begins. But I do understand that printrite works in ALL types of metal printing, including arcam ebm and all forms of laser metal printing. So it can be sold to all comers if it adds benefit. And if it works as advertised, it will add benefit as the data accumulated can be used on a flow basis to satisfy regulators.
Another conclusion on a faulty premise. First Sigma has not even really had a complete product to sell. Their printrite is composed of 3 parts, and im going from memory. Inform released 4q 2014, deform just released and analytics not released as yet So sigma has not had a complete product to sell so obviously there has not been substantial demand.,
Second, even more important, the benefit of Printrite, Sigma's software, is quality control on a flow basis to avoid printing waste and time and expense of post printing quality control. Its advantages won't really be felt till volume manufacturing of parts requiring quality control and certification from regulators, FAA, FDA, commences. That hasn't happened yet. WHen 3d VOLUME manufacturing of 3d parts requiring regulatory approval begin in earnest, Sigma"s product, if it works as advertised, will be in demand.
Again the jury is still out but its clear its too early to tell as the product is just being developed and the manufacturing need is not here yet
However, Sigma does have a lot of question marks which is why its my speculative play and I have a very low basis. If the product performs as advertised, and volume manufacturing of parts requiring certification and quality control commences, Sigma will have a great future. But it obviously most provide a value added benefit to justify its cost and usage. On the other hand, if it doesn't add that value, the product and company will float away. A big win or bankruptcy but at 4 cents a fun dice throw at least to me.
And to be honest a couple of short term big negatives as it keeps announcing development contracts and the purchase of an EOS printer for contract printing with great fanfare but there seems to be no results or revenue bump from those deals. For example, haven't heard of any major printing jobs for that EOS printer and no tangible benefits from its contract with Materialize a year ago. But as I said, the product is not finished and the volume demand not there yet.
But don't say everyone is getting by just fine when the software is not completed and the volume need hasn't commenced.
I have not forgotten Sigma as I own a ton of it but seems like the rest of the world has. But we shall see.
Agree with you Nobahamas with some nuances. Basically investors are ignorant of the nuances as are some of the pundits. Don't make distinctions between metal and non metal, between commercial/industrial and consumer/retail market and that arcam is a monopoly with EBM and there are competing laser technologies. As I said in another post, it amuses me that many are so scared of HP, including some arcam investors, when they do not realize that at least for their first product, not even on the market yet, it will not print metal. Most of the manufacturing deals are for metal parts which reduces the competition for arcam which is what we care about here.
Nuance 1: Arcam is the only real verticle 3d printer around. Its expanding in materials, contract printing and printer manufacturing. Despite all the posters who advocate MA activity for arcam, both arcam buying and being bought, arcam is essentially done in the verticle ream except for number 2 below So the logical expansion for arcam IMHO is to expand out of EBM to perhaps laser or new technology I've heard good things about carbon 3d and medical/aviation. THat is arcam;s expertise and might be an interesting acquisition. Same with any new laser technology which might be useful in avation/medical. Let arcam become EBM and laser proficient and a one stop supplier.
Nuance 2: Part of my vision is to expand Di Santo into general contract printing as well as medical implant imprinting which would expand arcam's market. Good for 2 reasons, one to generate more revenue and 2 to expose new customers to the advantages of EBM which might fause them to buy arcam printers. Would love to see Di santo become a global 3d contract printing concern and some of rene's recent statements suggest to me that he is thinking the same. We shall see.
Nuance 3: Heard good things about carbon 3d and clip technology as well as that new german company getting a lot of ink. That and HP should scare all the companies producing non metal printers as that seems to be where the competition is. Metal is still relatively restricted with EOS and a few others such as Phoenix (DDD) on the lasee front and arcam with ebm. I'm looking forward to further progress on finding new part uses for EBM.
Nuance 4: IF ddd switches to pure ceramics and metal, that will evolve a huge writeoff in its other business components. SSYS won't even be a player in the field as of know as it has no metal or cermacs. But I have not heard it even mentioned significantly as a player in the aerospace/medical volume mfg arena.
When medical volume mfg becomes a realty, and starting China and beginning here in the USA and when aviation volume mfg begins this year per GE and airbus, etc, investors will realize that the party is beginning and I expect arcam to take off. We shall see, but the recent bulk GE order suggests it is beginning. IMHO that will start a lot of bulk interest in the sector, particularly arcam which along with EOS are the only two companies mentioned by GE. Of coursew inbred Morris is another player. But Morris and EOS are private so if you want to play the game, go Arcam.
Nuance 5: I really haven't heard carbon 3d or voxeljet or SLM mentioned a lot in connection with beginning medical or aviation volume mfg. Do you think they will be a large part of the equation based on current knowledge and exposure????? Again, the leaves arcam as the biggest player in a small pond
Maybe I missed something. But what are you agreeing with??? Charlie simply posted graphs which showed ssys and ddd cap going down and arcam going up, but still far short of the above. Where did Charlie ever say arcam would take the cap lead?? With whom are you agreeing???
Same with the post that arcam was printing ceramics. Upon what did you base that conclusion which was quickly changed. Just seeing a ebm printed object, in this case as I recall to show dimensions, does not mean the ebm object had anything to do with the subject of the article or printing ceramics. One has to be careful making conclusions re what is shown or not shown in an article, video or PR. Must read the content carefully and only conclude what is stated not on un sustained premises or fears. If I missed something please let me know. But, in neither case was a statement made that arcam printed ceramics or that arcam would become cap leader as posts suggested.
But IMHO as I've posted before arcam is becoming or is the market leader and as the public recognizes arcam's future and execution its pps will rise nicely and its market cap will increase. At what point, or if, it will overtake the bigones time will tell. As I keep saying, the jury is still out on a lot of points. But no one said what you imply.
Guess i'm missing something. You say you agree that arcam might become market cap leader. Who are you agreeing with??? Unless I missed something, Charlie never said arcam would become market cam leader. An inference???? With whom are you agreeing or is it another wild conclusion. Its clear ssys and ddd market cap is going down and arcam going up, but who said arcam would prevail so who are you agreeing with??
Also Im still trying to figure out who said arcam was printing ceramics. as you said in one post and then switched in another. The article in question simply showed items printed with EBM, never stated that it was used in the printing in ceramics. Showed the pic as an example of dimensions as I recall. Just because an ebm item is pictured in a video or article on another topic does not mean that ebm or arcam is used in printing the items referred to in the article or a PR. One has to be careful concluding based on what is pictured or not pictured in a video or article. Interesting article and interesting picture of ebm objects, but neither the poster or the article ever said there was a connection between the article subject and arcam unless I missed something. But if I did miss something in either post, please advise.
WOW, what a quick reversal. From concluding arcam was the printer and being happy to reversing and saying nope arcam was not the printer when the facts were clearly set forth in the original post. But arcam does have great potential based on solid facts to base that conclusion on including the bulk GE sale which some posted might not happen. As I indicated to Mauser, to me the short term story is very positive and we shall see the story unfold. But fears and excitement in every 3d article and PR announcement from every source are simply premature till the story unfolds and the jury comes in.
Mauser, your response was great. Although ive had no trouble with HP ink jet printers, I am more than amused re all the pundits and posters who are so awed and worship HP and keep saying how it will hurt arcam. Heck trader sees bogey men in every PR announcement and article that even touches on the 3d realm.
The facts are that HP does not have a commercial 3d printer yet. It proposed one more than a year ago and really haven't heard anything yet. It is supposed to come out in 2016. We shall see.
But even if HP manages to get a 3d printer to market. We don't know how effective it is, only HPs PR. We don't know how customers will accept it or how well it will perform versus the printers already out there. And most importantly for Arcam, it will not print metal. Sooooooooo. Even though there may be proposals to eventually go to metal, same issues. Does it have the technology to do so, so far no. Will it have any commercial advantages and will the market accept it. Will the end result oompete with EBM produced products. And most importantly when. So far its only mere speculation and why worry till metal even exists and then not until its proved to be competitive with arcam.
It is so amusing and pathetic that so many got scared of EBAM when it was first described as well as so many other ideas which may or may not be commercialized but are years away from commercialization while Arcam is there, selling the bulk printers that some said would not happen and per GE and others arcam has technology which WILL be used in aviation volume manufacturing.
I have no guarantees for the ultimate future of 3d technology. But right now, it looks good for arcam and ive bet accordingly. I've already predicted and speculated on the Er and we shall see how close I've come. But I'm very bullish on arcam, the low volume and weak pps action not withstanding. Just wish some of the naysayers and bogey men posters would wait till they have some real premises to base their laments and conclusions on. There is a real lack of news and it is not useful for that vacuum to be filled with the bogey men advocates. Just in the last few days ive read numerous 3d articles, most of them negative at least on the low end sector but no mention of arcam and its executing. Pathetic and frustrating
Don't know about the technology aspects as they are still underdevelopment and looks like another bogey man competitor at least near term and who knows re long term.
But unless I misunderstood a couple of arcam PRs, you have already lost your bet Trader. It is my understanding that airbus has already bought arcam printers and I think added also. Now they may be for just research, the 4th leg of arcam's sales, but they were bought by airbus and I assume for a reason. But as I've said elsewhere, on this and other issues, the jury is still out. Lets wait and see how the allocation of work plays out. I suspect the answer will be a combination of technologies and printers and it just does not pay to fear any new technology as a potential arcam killer. So many are going nuts about hP, but HP does not even have a proven plastic printer out yet much less metal and unless its metal, or a substitute for metal, its not a arcam threat.
I essentially agree with you and expect a lot from EBM, just wish they would be a little faster in developing new EBM uses. But it is refreshing to hear a bit of optimism, and I hope you are totally right, rather than those who see bogey me around every corner and constantly post about their fears, laments and competition they imagine in the wordwork while those competitions are well in the future. Remember all those posts about how composites would keep arcam from the GE engines LOL
Bottom line even go arcam and new uses. Just too bad that as of right now it appears that GE sees more uses for laser than EBM. I hope that changes and soon so hope you are right on technological advances.
We shall see. I don't pretend to be an expert in this technology. In fact, i'm a dunce but I know what I don't know and do apply common sense unlike some others. Obviously EBM oer se is a newer technology, has more move to expand and is restricted to Arcam so far as I know.
BUT, my common sense tells me that those new companies, with new type laser technologh, that prints better and faster than older versions and are taking market share like that new Geerman company that one poster was enamoured with, has a better mousetrap as its doing better than a lot of other laser printing companies. Whether its new technology or a better mousetrap, i'll leave to others to decide. But any improvemets in laser may diminish the scope of ebm uses and that is bad news.
The bottom line is it is still undicided where the (1) greatest technological advances will come from and how they will be utilized and (2) the ultimate most important determination how many parts and uses will EBM trump laser on and how many arcam printers will result therefrom. Myself I hope you are right and laser will become obsolete and EBM will win the whole enchilada, but somehow I don't expect it. I think the ultimate result will be that each will have their part in the equation and time will tell the amounts for each.
As far as ebM and 5x, I;m still waiting for any technological improvements from the hi speed/res research project or other improvements. Rene says earliest will be mid 2016 then we will see if you are right re 5x improvement. But again, hope you are right, I just need better premises than rank speculation to base my conclusions on.
Any improvement in the ability of the handicapped is to be lauded, especially if arcam can participate and derive benefit.
This new technology may be a marked improvement or may be merely additive. I don't know. But what I do know is the technology to reach your goals such; as getting up, walking and running alrady exists. So what you are hoping and praying for is now available. THe classic example is that double amputee in the last Olympics who ran in the Olympics competitively So why hope for something that already exists. The functional capacity was restored sufficiently for the guy to run competitively in he Olympics despite bilateral ankle amputations and even to commit murder despite his handicap. So your wish has already happened as have a lot of imrovements in orthopedics and restoring function. We all hope for better devices and improvements, and want arcam to be involved.
I do not get involved in making conclusions based on weak premises like some. Yes the future is bright for additive manufacturing, both EBM and laser, but we are at a very early stage and who knows how many printers will be needed. Depends on the part demand and efficiency of the printers. But even if we get a portion, which I have predicted for over a year, the number of printers needed is great. The real question, and what has destroyed 3d printing for the last year, is WHEN. When will the volume manufacture printing begin. It has taken longer that most, including me, have expected. The next and more important question is how many parts will EBM end up making, when, and how many printers will be required. GE is on record ss liking EBM but so far the only part mentioned are the blades. I suspect that there are a lot more parts suitable for EBM but how many and when???? The jury is still out on those questions and one needs to keep things in prospective. I continue to advise to rein in conclusions till the facts are known. I am really anxious to see how close my ER predictions will come and if im right arcam will be posting another good ER. Love to say I told you so to all those nay sayers that keep posting on no facts.
Agree in part, disagree in part. Agree that basic laser is old news and many patents are expiring which open up that sector to competition.
But, and this is a big but, isn't it true that new companies are coming out with new forms of laser 3d printing, like that firm in Germany, which might reflect major improvements in laser technology with new patents protecting the improvements???? Those new laser companies, getting all the ink recently, either are reflecting old technology with substantial improvements or using new laser technology with new patents. I don't know which but is the reason I don't agree with your laser comment totally.
But, and this is a good but, arcam still has ebm to itself and all refinements, improvements and areas where ebm is superior to laser accrue to arcam. Remember GE has shouted multiple times as has Rene that some parts are best made with ebm and that's all within arcams province. Despite those posters who keep shouting about competition and that arcam wont get any bulk orders only about 1.5 months ago. Remember those.
I agree with you the future is bright for ebm and arcam
Nobahamas, exactly what I've been asking for. An indepth comparison of laser vs EBM. Sure beats the genric videos we have all seen before which provide no new info.
Unfortunately, conceding my technological ignorance, I think I comprehended and absorbed about 20% of the detail and info combined therein. It confirms what Rene and I've said, certain advantages laser, certain EBM and some a wash. But I did not garner a rough idea given the comparisons how well arcam will fair vis a vis laser and given the areas where ebm excels how much that market may be. But overall, I retain my optimism re Arcam and ebm that there are a lot more uses for this technology than just blades and that equates to a lot of printer sales. Just takes time to develop the uses and move towards mass productin.
Thanks again for the info, now need more of it. Is there anyway to retain the info for easy accessibility. Again showing my tech limitations.
Thank you for the info and reply. Didn't catch the distinction in the patent terminology. Interesting. But the question remains how will the new term expand arcam's eBM uses, will there be more parts aram can print, how many more and in what sector. And relying on another post I just read, will it expand on the structural advantages that ebm has and will it increase the parts arcam can make and guessitmating how many?
But once I get beyond those who simply enjoy showing generic videos, it is refreshing to see and digest posts relating to aram and its potential increased position in manufacturing. The story is looking good. We are now within a couple weeks of seeing how arcam did ER wise.
Thanks, on of the few posts which actually answers one of myi prime question, what are the advantages between laser and ebm. So for structural density which I would think have a lot of uses on airplanes, EBM is superior.
Sure beats the recurrent posts simply showing videos of what we already know and have nothing relating to EBM and arcam. Some must rally enjoy simply seeing generic videos and trying some conclusions based on what they may or may not see.
I will try to relook at those slides and any info that addresses the laser vs ebm question and which actually pertain to arcam.
Thanks again for the post
Sorry, did not fully comprehend your post. Are you saying arcam has patents that apply to laser and can be used in dual laser and EBM capacity to promote more uses and efficiency??? Are you saying others have such patents and might compete with Arcam. If arcam, where are the dual uses, what sector, and what is and approximate numerical demand. In short, what was the thesis of your post and its arcam impact. THe post was too vague for my comprehension, sorry
Correct me if i'm wrong but sounds like you envision a shared approach to the blades, EBM and composites sharing the wealth. I think that is what Rene forsaw years ago and I have suggested for over a year. As rene implied, in the aviation sector there is room for all comers, ebm, laser and CMCs Am I right as you are obviously ore technologically savy than I am. And more importantly in your vision, how much action in total do you forsee arcam getting in the aviation sector vs composites and laser and over time your coarse estimate of how many printers involved. An interesting exercise in speculation.
Wow from no bulk sales worries about month and a half ago, to then shouting 100 printers from GE immediately and the 10 machines just bought to be used in bulding test engines which were supposedly already certified and ready to gso in 2 month ago posts to now shouting we will sell thousands just in aerospace. Yet you see disaster in every new machine and technology touted.
I;m happy with the way things are going, don't see bogeymen everywhere and of course expect arcam to use its rd money well both for ebm and alternative possibilities. I have faith that rene knows the market and EBM does have certain advantages for laser which may fcontinue and most importantly while there is a lot of competition and movement from new companies in the laser sector, EBM is arfam's alone.
So trader you have to revisit and repeat that the LEAP train has left the station. But this time you change it to missed the boat. Moved from trains to boats. lol Do you still challenge Rene's statement, offered as late as late November that no decision has been made on the LEAP yet. Like you did on Rene's promise re ge bulk orders and that arcam would be on ge engines which were proven wrong. We all know that all those posts that you made saying that the leap and arcam blades had been approved (wrong) and that Leap engines, citing 30, wee already in production WRONG
Truth is the LEAPS and blades were still undergoing testing/approval process and were when you made all those statements and that leap volume production has not started yet. Best case, such production will start in mid 2016. Heck in a recent post you even stated that the 10 printers just purchased would be used to produce engines for testing. You cannot have it both ways.
I don't know whether arcam will be on the leap now or in the near future. Nor does Rene per his own statement. BUt what rene has said, and I concur, is that the train/boat has not left as you keep posting and that the jury is still out. Wait for data before you become scared of potential competition or make conclusions re weak premises. I simply agree with Rene that the jury is still out and won't be decided till at least volume production and testing finishes and no train or boat has left yet. Before getting scared, and posting all about your fears and laments, lets wait till we see some real data, the final approved LEAP when it enters production, whether there are possible improvements and till new technology is proven to be commeercilized
Agree with both you guys, Nobahamas and Mauser in principle. It does take long to develop new technologies, Arcam is well along in its and has a bright future.
I see we vary re arcam is, 2nd, 3rd or 4th inning. LOL
But I do disagree with one point, perhaps just semantics You state arcam has no competition. Within EBM you are right as it is patented. But within the commercial universe, EBM's competition is primarily laser and to a lesser extent all the other processes such as machining, fabricating and the upcoming composites As Rene says, some parts best with EBM, some with laser and some a wash.
The competition for Arcam is to develop, improve and come up with product that will boost uses of EBM to the detriment of all those other methods to maximize its impact on as may parts and uses it can. That is arcams competition and to the extent it maximizes its effectiveness against all comers its growth and prosperity will be measured.
Thanks for the info. Your opinions confirm what I thought and posted to Trader's question. Even if successful, this technology like the ebam he was so concerned with, is far in the future and does not pose any near term competition to Arcam. No competition in practicable terms, no need to be scared and no need to post fear that it might be competition.
I also agree with you there will be a lot more uses for EBM as research persists and arcam is well positioned. My only area of disagreement with you, given that aerospace engine production is scheduled to begin mid 2016 or thereabouts, and the blades are well towards the end of their 2 year certification/qualification period, is that we are more in the 4th inning as progress should be rapid once EBM benefits and uses in volume manufacturing are confirmed. Nice to have someone knowledgeable who does not see boogey man competition behind every corner.
Very interesting article, takes the laurel from the other articles on new processes posed today. Shows a great future for EBM in the medical field.
Two questions though (1) while this is a current article it refers to di santo as a partner not a subsidiary THat surprised me.
(2) Referred to only 2 arcam printers, with expansion for 4 more. Good news for future sales but for some reason I thought di santo had more than 2 arcam printers currently.
But encouraging for more printer sales and continued arcam growth. Also liked the expansion news To date di santo was the onoly arcam component not announcing expansion, so that is now resolved
Thanks ago for the article. Where can a lay person keep track of this news sources as I've missed most of these new ideas. But at least yours is now and current, some of the others are still in the universities, mere gleams in their inventors eyes and as such not immediate adjunctions or competition for arcam as yet
To answer your direct question, yes you are the only one. just like with your EBAM competition posts, to have fears and concerns as you are premature, drawing such fears and conclusions on weak premises. Of couse arcam should investigate and be aware of this technology, as they should be re any new and even existing competitive technology, but to post fears and conclusions is not warranted.
To me there are a variety of questions with this new ink technology. First and foremost, How long to commercialization??? Many new concepts sound great in the lab but take years till commercialization, if at all. Two, will the process and end product compete with ebm or laser or be an adjunct. For example in the aerospace field, might the new process replace some ebm parts or primarily laser or just be a wash. And three given all the factors, will the net net result be an improvement on EBM/Laser, a wash or be less viable
As near as I could tell, and I may be wrong, it sounds like this new technology is in the concept phase and not proven as yet. Like so many materials like graphene and other processes, the jury is still out. And if we are talking years till effective commercialization, like so many other concepts and issues, its moot for the near term.
Bottom line, Trader, like with the EBAM you posted about and composites leapfrogging EBM, fear and conclusions are premature as it will take a while before the jury decides if this new process and the resultant products are competition to arcam or that they will even prove successful. Remember, that per one poster, before the parts produced can even be considered for aviation they must undergo the same lengthy process that the arcam printers and blades are still undergoing. So concerns, feas, and conclusions are premature for all but you to answer your direct question.
Sounds good to me and hope it comes to play. Will jive with my thesis for more and better use for EBM and lead to a lot more printer sales. Maybe those that get so worked up about no announced sales might finally be quieted when they see the results of single and bulk sales.
You are right I noticed the lack of earnings and profit references as well. But do thank you for the English version as this appears to be an up and coming laser 3d provided. Nicely, as such not a competitor for afcam's EBM technology and we all know that some parts are best suited fore laser. But enhance the 3d story.
2 game playing or weaknesses I noted in the article. First why trying a great spin, the company barely made its seales volume target, hundred vs 102. Second, and this is a big wiggle, a percentage of those so called sales were actually rentals with an option to buy. Third, some additional sales were hybrids produced on specific order by one customer for a larger bed, think it was oil/gas industy so those sales were specialized and not part of the ordinary production and sales cycle.
Given all the progresses in lwaser and ebm technology, i'm still waiting for a lay analysis of the benefits of laser vs ebm and how large the potential ebm part is both with current technology and uses and with future uses being developed. The one thing i'm sure is that the market is potentially a lot larger than that opined by a few that it will be limited to blades. But the jury is still out and we shall see. I am optimistic
Interesting, 2 posts today on potential improvenents in the EBM process. Both beyond my expertise, but both sound promising. After all the goal as I've posted multiple time is to expand EBM in number of parts and sectors involved.
But I may be showing my lack of knowledge. In your references what is the difference between construction parts and blades. I've often posted that I expect EBM to be involved in more parts than just the blades and Rene seemed to confirm that with his statement that some parts are best produced with ebm, some with laser and some a wash. But in your reference, what do you mean by construction parts vs blades???
I thought at first you were referencing the construction industry. IMHO there are a lot of additional manufacturing sectors, beyond medical and aerospace, where 3d printing and EBM can be involved. Autos come to mind where weight reduction is also beneficial in addition to the areas you mentioned. Seems like much more worth areas of contemplation that the amount of waste that may/may not be present in evaluating a new eBM technique. IF that technique is viable, it will be used regardless and if not, small cost issues are moot. But I have a lot of hope for new EBM uses and arcam sales once bulk 3d manufacturing commences. Its the delays in that event that has posed a negative in the 3d preinting sector, both laser and EBM. That is because as I've always said, concsumer and personal uses or 3d have got the media attention but are not what will make money. Its the change to volume manufacturing which has not started yet that will make the difference. And most sources say that has not happened yet. It will occur circ mid 20016 for both medical and aviation if China and GE are any indication.
Interesting concept. Beyond my technical knowledge but its that type of out of the box thinking and idea sharing that I enjoy and can maximize EBM and arcam's efficiency and impact on the market. Is that a technique in use yet, just a concept??? Can the beams and software actually handle two different part shapes at one time. Any cost, design and procedure improvements will be beneficial to EBM and arcam. What we need now is to develop more avowed uses for EBM in multiple parts and sectors.
Your right, Nobahamas, processes are changed all the time. The entire 3d printing movement is designed to take fabrication/molding/destructive manufacturing processes away and replace them with additive 3d printing manufacturing. Some of the 3d printing improvements may even be replaced with composites and other materials and processes down the road. The key for Arcam and ebm is not the small things like powder waste, speed/slowness and design efficiency, etc.
The key issue, key factor, in Arcam's case, and that is what really matters, is to develop new uses for EBM manufacturing and printing which will ultimately prove to be commercial. Improvements over existing techniques in as many areas as possible. That is why research and developing new uses is so important as it will serve to increase the potential growth of arcam beyond what it has already achieved Some posters are adamant that arcam will only print blades on the 9x. Myself, based on what research is being done, I conclude there will be a lot more uses for EBM in the aviation, medical and maybe other sectors (autos come to mind) and those advancements, not whether sales are announced, material is wasted, or other little things are most important and will determine arcam's ultimate success.
Some say arcam will only make blades, and some of those not too long ago were saying arcam would not even do that. I've consistently stated that so long as the EBM process yields better results than current processes, demand for EBM will continue to increase and arcam's future will expand as Rene has consistently said. While some have said arcam might be left behind, Rene has been saying arcam may not be able to keep up demand. My bet is with arcam and Rene, not the nay sayers. Sadly there are some who are so anxious to focus on moot little issues that they loose sight of the big picture, the picture that Rene has been painting for over a year. It is nice to be vindicated over all those who shouted that arcams pps would go to 10 and below, that they might not get any bulk orders, that they might not participate in the GE engines, that the EBM process might be leap frogged and all those other nay saying posts that we have seen on the arcam board and here for the last year So far Rene has accomplished everything he has promised and only the delay and timing of the customers has been negative I think Rene and all of us have been disappointed in how slow the trend towards volume 3d manufacturing has taken. Of course some have shouted that the arcam blades and Leap engines have already been certified by regulators and in production and we were left out. Now it is clear that the process is long, not finalized as yet and the jury is still out re just how successful arcam will be now and in the near future.
Thanks for repeating what I already said, its flattering but not necessary. But you sure have a need to repeat the obvious and reply to me with erroneous repetitive drivel even when asked not too.
But to address your flawed points once again. (1) if your interested in the waste issue to the extent of 3 posts, I am not and asked you not to waste my time. (2) The waste issue is moot as it is either moot and will not preclude the usage of this new EBM technology or it will not be commercially viable. Expets other than you who have demonstrated your lack of proficieny on these issues such as all those posts where you stated that the leap and arcam blades were certified and ready to go only to have to retract your position when informed by more informed posters confirms that you conclude a lot but don't know the facts undelying your conclusions. Like EBAM will be competition, the certifdication process itself and the issues surrounding the upcoming arcam ER. You were suggesting that arcam would not get a bulk GE sale in the near future, proven wrong and now are shouting it will sell 100 printers. You have more knowledge of any of these issues that any lay person which is why you are wrong as often as you are.
That post you felt necessary to bore us with again was not addressed to you. It was addressed to another poster who agrees with me that your issue is moot and ludicrous. I think his wording was that while it might be expensive, the waste issuie is cheaper than alternative methods
And your thesis is simply wrong. As I understand it, even if the powder cannot be used, the intrinsic amount of metal used in the production of a part is less in addictive manufacturing as only what is needed is basically used whereas in destructive there is a bulk part of the original piece that is not used. I may be wrong, but given your track record, i'll bet on anyone other than your conclusions. But it is my understanding that even if none of the powder is reused, the usage of material is more efficient in addictive manufacturing than destructive. I've read that from many sources.
So you uselessly repeated what I posed to another which anyone could have originally read and bet they did. Your second para is flawed as usual. We understood your so called point but why repeat it in 3 posts and still not be accurate. Your point is flawed as far as I know. If anyone is interested perhaps they can address the issue as it is clear you have no personal knowledge which is why you asked your moot question. If your interested, fine but don't bother me twice or uninterested readers on your tangential thinking like a huge EBAM machine will be competition for arcam. LOL
Third para is also flawed. By asking about the value and commenting on the expense, you obviously raised economic issues. Do you not understand that. I won't repeat what you said as that is ludicrous. Readers can read what you wrote and decide for themselves whether your post raised economic issues. To me it did and now you wiggle. And the discarding of powder will not be any worse potentially than the waste in destructive and past manufacturing methods as one poster suggested in fact the one to whom I responded. You simply are stated facts not in evidence which is obvious.
I request again. IF you are so fixated on the powder question and on the lack of printer sales announcements, that is fine, but please not reply, respond or bother me with your laments and fixations as to me they are totally moot. The issue is whether the new process will be successful and lead to arcam sales, the new ER and aram's future, not your current fixation on the powder waste in this new process to which you have wasted my time twice.
And if you are so needy as to have to keep posting on the waste issue to me, please don't find the need to repeat what I've already posted. All here know what was said and a couple of totally agreed with me
Since you are so concerned, maybe we can ship that powder to you .LOL At least stop wasting my time with your personal fixations. The powder waste/usage is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the new EBM process will print parts ultimately commercially viable and lead to additional arcam printer sales. IF so, who cares about the powder waste issue, if not that issuie is moot. Move on
I've watched a lot of videos, but not drawn conclusions from them in a vacuum like you do. Drawing conclusions from what you see/don't see in a video and then shouting those conclusions which are either wrong or not confirmed is partly why you've lost credibility.
Now you felt it necessary to raise the waste issue which in my opinion is moot. And then raise it again in this reply post to me. If the new process makes parts which are commercially viable, the waste issue or what they do with unused powder is irrelevant. The EBM process and resultant part is worth whatever the waste encompasses. Moreover, bet you have no factual index of whether the material is contaminated, whether even if contaminated the contamination can be resolved or whether it is an acceptable cost of doing business. It is also my understanding that in all additive processes there is some material waste, but much less than in competitive processes, so any waste is acceptable. In fact the reduced waste is one advantage of additive manufacturing.
So why you raised the issue in the first place is a mystery. And then why you felt it necessary to respond to me and continue the issue is even more of a mystery. The simple bottom line is if those in the know, working with the process, think it is commercially viable regardless of the waste it will be utilized and if the waste and other negatives preclude commercial viability it will not be used. In either event, the waste issue and whether the contaminated powder, if contaminated, can be used or not are all moot as the issue will be included in the cost of doing business if the parts produced are commercially viable.
But like your concern that the EBAM would pose competition to Arcam and your other unfocused laments and concerns, please don't post replys to me again re the material waste issue as it is so moot. The current issues of concern are the upcoming ER, the expansion of 3d manufacturing plus the results of arcam's 4th leg, the development of new EBM uses by those printers sold and being used for raw development research by universities and companies. That yielded the subject of the underlying article that prompted these posts
Very interesting concepts and information Charlie. Two points. (1) seems like this shows the effectiveness of printer sales to research institutions and companies that want to investigate other uses for EBM. I call this arcam's 4th leg. As they develop new techniques and uses for EBM, that will increase the knowledge base and lead to more uses for EBM and hence more printer sales.
(2) Re the wasting issue that was brought up. One basic advantage of additive vs destructive manufacturing, where they take a block/, fabricate it into what they want and then all the rest is waste is less waste. So why focus on the minimal waste that is caused by this new process?. Of course the lesser the better, but still less than the alternative old fashioned processes. So obviously while minimizing is great, the issue of printing waste vs the waste caused by the old fashioned methods is moot and not really an issue.
Thanks for any information on arcam and EBM, did not see that article for some reason. Was it in general dissemination for us USA readers or was it from a technical journal or from Europe where we may have missed it??? Like to stay on top of arcam related news, technological and investment, so appreciate any leads.
Sorry, you are being inaccurate. Many of your post posts were not simply CMC/s have the potential to replace, you were suggesting that might actually happen and arcam might lose out on the GE engines. I'll leave readers to decide if this post is a wiggle from those prior posts which are of record. To me, it is a definite wiggle But why keep defending yourself. As I said in my last post this is old news and any reader can check your history and decide for themselves. But plase, like on my printer sales prediction, 29 vs 25, please don't lie about what I've posted. Ive consistently said that the jury is still out, including on CMCs, and that your conclusions on so many issues are premature. THat is what I've said. And that certainly does not sound like my mind is made up as I've been discussing with your for a year or more as you've posted all those conclusions. So please stop misquoting me as I've proved that you do. I defy you or anyone to find a post where ive indicated that the CMC issue is resolved and/or decided like you stated here.
On the 9x, your posting history shows both positions, that arfam would be on the 9x and that it might not be. As far as quoting Rene, you statd that the leap train had left the station while Rene was stating, including in an email to me in November, that no decision had been made. Another misstatement.
You last para of your post to me makes no sense. You are aying that you are confident that arcam blades on not being used in the LEAP and GENX. How can they be when contra to your prior posts on the arcam board, they are not in production yet and in light of a post you just made on the arcam board the arcam blades are still being tested. You postulated that the recent 10 printers bought by avio will be used primarily for testing.
Please try to be accurate in your quotes of what I say, in what you say and to at least consistent in your current posts. I predicted 25 printer sales, you have suggested in the past that composites might leapfrog EbM and that the promise of BE bulk sales might not come to pass. I rebutted all those postitions at the time.
Once again, I suggest we focus on the future and not the past where you've already been proven wrong Arcam did not get to 10 or below, the leap engines and blades are still undergoing testing and certification per other posters and yourself in a more recent post, GE bulk sales did happen, the door is wide open for new EBM parts as they become known and tested and arcam's future is bright regardless of whether there is a sale of 100 printers to GE as you now shout. Focus on the ER and the future not all those erroneous past posts. Tired of having to point out the errors and misquotes.
I am even more optimistic. Over on the Arcam board when the Di Santo purchase was first made, I posted my vision. That Di santo not only expand its medical franchise but also take in contracting jobs for other sectors and customers as well. Maybe this might be one reason for a new president, to obtain general 3d contracting expertise, expanding beyond just medical. Some companies do contract manufacturing, some do OEM manufacturing, very few do both.
My vision was for arcam to be vertically integrated, covering all bases. APC providing the materials, Di Santo doing general global contract manufacturing and papa Arcam building the printers. None of the other 3ders have this kind of vertical integration as far as I know. I am focusing on the metal realm. Only limitation would be that it is only focused in EBM. I grant you that is a very optimistic vision but not impossible given where arcam is now. To get even more visionary, maybe add a laser line down the road if it can find the right laser OEM with the right technical management. BUt that is way down the road and visionary. Right now i'll be satisfied with arcam sewing up the entire EBM market, from top to bottom and working on expanding the scope of EBM uses.
I agree with you. Like in Technical Analysis, if the prediction turns true TA is great and a good forecaster. IF it doesn't, well the trend line simply didn't confirm, there are other reasons for divergence, etc. No one says the was simply wrong.
Likewise, I've seen excuses for fundamental analysis. Stock went up because of abc or not because of xyz. I've seen stocks go up and down based on what I consider good ERs and the opposite. Just like the last arcam ER, thought it was an excellent ER and yet stock went down, but of course so did the market. I've seen stocks go up when I thought news was negative, I've seem them go down when I thought news was positive. I've seen posters focus on nothing but negative and draw false conclusions when the opposite data and conclusions are there. I've seen posters shout conclusions based on what they see/don't see in a video. I've seen overreactions based on delays in customer ordering which is not within the control of the company.
Bottom line, I've accepted that I have no real control market lemmings. My only hope is to try to be in synch more often than not and to ride out my thesis on how well the company is and will be performing despite the shouting laments of others. For example, I;ve always been positive on Arecam getting GE orders despite the laments of some that it won't happen because it was taking too long. I go with my analysis and conclusions of a company's stories and hopefully I am right more often than not But I do not believe in any predictor, TA, fundamentals, analytics to tell me which way a stock will move. If any such predictor was valid, the followers would never be wrong and they would be billionaires Just like TA, if it works, its infalliable, if it doesn't its because future data didn't confirm. LOL That's why I never believed those who kept shouting that arcam would go to 10 and below and no are trying to wiggle
I disagree with you Trader. There is no way to respond to such a post without being negative. But yes Trader on the Arcam board, about 2 months ago you posted multiple times that you were not sure that arcam would be on the GE engines, that composites might leap frog EBM and that the leap train had left the station as Rene was saying no decision had been made. Anyone interested can review your arcam posting history to verify the trend of negative posts about 2 months ago and earlier You even suggested that rene might be wrong in suggesting that Arcam would receive bulk orders as I called you on those posts. Them are just the facts and easily verified. I expressed reservations which you ridiculed. You also said that the EBM blades and leap engines were certified months ago when that was not true as we learned recently that the airbus version had just been certified and its uncertain re one poster whether the arcam blades have completed their 2 year testing process. His post, not mine.
Do you actually claim that you never suggested or wondered if the blades would be on the 9x?? Remember, your posts are of record unless you deleted them.
Do you deny posting that composites might leapfrog EBM???
Do you deny posting that Rene's promise of bulk GE orders might not come to pass???
Do you deny posting a lot of negative speculation re arcam's potential successes even as related to the upcoming ER where you even misstated my predictions, 29 vs 25, in order to try to make you point?
Wiggling attempts are not very becoming
But I agree, and have posted numerous times, that arcam blades would have their place on the GE engines and that all aerospace companies should research what parts EBM can best print and act accordingly, and that includes all aerospace companies not just RR and PW. And yes Trader, as iv'e said consistently, and not just started with the GE order, Arcam should endeavor to print any parts it can and to convince customers of their ability to do so.
Now instead of wiggling about past posts we should be looking at and focusing at the upcoming ER which I have and Arcam's bright future. But I will point out false claims.
Good point unless the need is too immediate to wait like upcoming mid 2016 production Per Rene a couple CCs ago, in response to a question, he said any improvements from the hi speed/res research would not be incorporated into printers for commercial sale till at least mid 2016 and then most customers would like some in usage testing and experience before they commit. So for a lot of customers, waiting is not practicable especially when they may have no idea of how much the improvement will be and in another year they will be in the need for more printers anyway. Also, per some other posters, if the machines are materially different, the regulators might also require a lengthy testing process to insure the machines are quality controlled before parts will be certified for flying
Bottom line, many customers may not want to wait that long for an unknown bump in quality and efficiency. Rank speculation but it does make sense. The better printers can only increase the benefits of EBM usage and hence their demand.
Trader, as you know, I've asked that question for 2 years. A lay critique of the advantages of laser vs. EBM, the percentage of parts in the aircraft, auto and medical sectors that are best suited for EBM, for laser and that are wash. Remember Rene in that interview with I think Bloomberg just before the 3q ER said that some parts are best for EBM, some for laser and some can be produced by both equally. THat is some of the research and study that is being done now by research institutions and by companies themselves. I've read some articles differentiating between EBM and laser on some factors but not an overall analysis.
Overall it appears that a lot of the medical sector is well suited to EBM as I've heard a lot of positive EBM studies and none on laser per se. In the aerospace, per GE, laser is most compatable at least for now and will have the predominant number of uses but there is a lot of room for EBM as well known and to be known.
I;m glad to see you are now posting that arcam blades will be everywhere. Will give me a break for responding to all those posts on the arcam board where you were saying that composites would leapfrom EBM and that Rene was dreaming that arcam blades would be on the GE engines. Refrehing change that you now believe Rene's promise a year ago that arcam would receive a bulk order from GE. Rene is to be believed
IMHO, as I've been saying for over a year, in response to some of your posts, there is room for both laser and EBM in many sectors and when 3d volume manufacturing actually begins, Arcam will be there to get its share. The only negative aspect is how long that process is taking. But for all I've read 2016 will be the beginning and the Avio order supports that conclusion