Lol, you act like investors are somehow making SGLB corporate pay. What we have is a whopping $30K and 0.3% of the float changed position today. That is truly the fringe of the fringe. The tail wagging the dog. It is simple volatility in a very thinly traded stock and comes with the territory.
If you see 2 million shares trade in a day, then it's time to consider what's happening.

All the best,
Silversmith

No, it didn't. But we all know that a very large number of companies fail. It has always been that way; probably always will be that way. The bright lights and media headlines are for those rare breeds that have succeeded. The landscape is littered, piled high, with dead companies. What's your point?
If you want a sure thing, you'd better look elsewhere. If this process is only a win all/lose all proposition to you, look out. Not being in it when a big move happens is just as much of a loss. SGLB is a speculation, not an investment. This is a probability proposition. That's how it should be seen at this point in the game. And the probability of one or more entities going with PR3D is much higher than no one, anywhere in the world, for any reason at all, going with PR3D.

All the best,
Silversmith

The entire 3D printing stock world got hammered today. Not just SGLB.
I came across a study a while back that showed that of all the small and micro cap stocks in the 1000 and 5000 indexes, something like 90+ percent of them have no earnings. SGLB is hardly alone in this. It is very hard to make a startup company prosperous. In one single moment of an actual PR3D production-use contract/license revenue win, SGLB will leap beyond 90% of the small and micro cap companies. The probability of this happening is far higher than not.

All the best,
Silversmith

Hawks,
If the company stays true to its word, it will remain as you wish for. Rice made it clear yesterday. He flat out stated that SGLB is an IPQA company. Having said that, anything they do should dovetail with an IPQA focus.

All the best,
Silversmith

I absolutely disagree Alan. It may be sans GEA, but PR3D sales sound like they are coming, if you even attempt to read between the lines. But most here have always wanted hard historical facts before they believe anything. Nothing wrong with that, just not the same kind of investment purpose and goal as the rest of us.

All the best,
Silversmith

That was a decent call. My gut tells me that SGLB is good to go and will be more successful than past history illustrates. The America Makes report was a botched report. GE is a big unknown for SGLB,but SGLB is moving on. You can't win them all. I think much better days are coming.

All the best,
Silversmith

Not worse. A little better even. Chart the course and make it happen SGLB.

All the best,
Silversmith

Oh it's pretty clear that the engagement with Garofalo associates is for the purpose of acquisitions. I'll take some 'bolt-on' revenue streams for sure.

All the best,
Silversmith

The filing for the shareholder meeting proposals specifically lists it as issued and outstanding.

All the best,
Silversmith

It looks like we have two recent additional institutional investors in the month of August. Bank of New York Mellon with 36,469 shares, and Trent Capital Management with 19,200 shares.

The shares structure for the company is not complicated. The articles of incorporation allow for a total authorized number of shares of 7,500,000.
Of those authorized shares, 4,569,688 are already issued and outstanding and owned by someone.
The total number of shares that are traded in the stock exchanges is the float at 4.36 million. The difference between the outstanding share count and the float is about 210,000 shares and do not trade in the public markets.
The difference between the authorized share count and the outstanding share count is 2,930,312 shares. But the company is saying that with the shares needed to tender the outstanding warrants, and incentive plan stock options, and other share issuance compensation, that if all of these tendering transactions were completed there would only be 37,107 shares left in the authorized count. That does not give the company any room to conduct business should they need to convert shares into resources.
It was crystal clear that this proposal was coming from the very moment that Cola did the first reverse split so aggressively to include the authorized share count. 7,500,000 shares in the authorized was never going to be enough shares for any company to perform.
Now it is up to the Directors and Administrators to use the proposed new authorized shares wisely. Otherwise current investors will simply be carrying the company on their back at the expense of the investors.

All the best,
Silversmith

So here's the issue Hawks. The very most fundamental and absolutely key data points that must be known about a metal to determine if it will stand up to the intended end use are things like toughness, density/porosity, corrosion susceptibility from surface energy, tensile strength, elongation, and I don't know what all else the FAA requires. But it is these very fundamental metric values that IPQA has been shown to not be able to reliably predict at this time. Throughout the entire history of metallurgy, these types of data points had to be obtained through destructive testing. For instance, you make a standard test piece that is designed specifically for performing tensile strength and elongation, in this case the cylinders that are mentioned in the America Makes paper. You then literally clamp the ends of the test piece in a machine that begins to physically pull the two ends apart; literally stretching the cylinder with force until it actually breaks apart. Then you measure the maximum tension force that it took to break the test part, and measure how much the part actually stretched before it broke, and these pieces of data give you the tensile strength and the elongation.

Now, you can see that these two pieces of data are very fundamental to the material. It is the heartbeat of the actual nature/character of the very bonding of the atoms that make up the metal. So to say that PR3D should know or be able to tell you what is going to happen at the atomic level during a print build is a very big deal indeed. To say that any two parts printed according to a fingerprint, that has been shown to be good, should have the very same fundamental metal character is a big, big leap of a statement. The metal AM industry does not have anywhere near enough years of building parts, and the requisite supporting data of all those builds, to be comfortable that that is so. It would have been a gigantic step forward in the history of manufacturing if IPQA could have been proven to accurately predict these most fundamental aspects of a metal coming out of a printer.

So the issue is two fold. High-reliability critical use parts have no room for question marks. They simply must be capable of standing up to their intended use, without exception, and must have incontrovertible data to show that the parts meet those quality characteristics. Therefore, until IPQA can predict these types of characteristics, if it ever can, which I doubt will ever happen, then some kind of destructive testing, whether it be a simultaneously printed test specimen, or destructive testing of a statistically significant number of printed pieces in a multi piece printer run will have to happen.

But, it should be the case that when a printer run deviates from a known good fingerprint, that there is a very high likelihood of the part proving to be a bad part. Therefore it would be necessary to know when a print run deviated from the fingerprint. This is where PR3D comes in. It can tell you when the run had deviations and by how big a deviation it was. The degree of advancement that PR3D has, hopefully anyway, over the competition, is in the fineness, the resolution, of the fingerprint that can be monitored against. The more detailed the fingerprint, the better chance you have of knowing a part is good if no deviations occurred. You would still have to figure out some way of determining the nature of the metal characteristics that IPQA can't determine. Otherwise, it is a case of 'but for the grace of God go I'.

All the best,
Silversmith

I read all your stuff KMey.
But if you are referring to the post where you state that you are an America Makes member,a good post by the way, then I have an issue with the following statements:

"As a America makes member I can only legally say so much, but what GE has publicly stated, is that the CTQ portion of the project was secondary to the main objective of discovering if ipqa is a valid software for process monitoring of a print.

GE stated that the finding of ctqs using ipqa would be the Holy Grail of inspection software. They stated that even if ipqa cannot detect CTQs, it's use as a process monitoring software is still a very valuable asset.

They go on to do studies with Concept laser using a photodiode and Camera saying that this type of inspection is the most advanced that there is available, and that is the same exact technology that we used and have patented."

The issue I have is that these statements are not truly public knowledge. I cannot find them anywhere. Apparently you have to be an America Makes member to have access to them. So, while I hear what you are saying, and I believe you are telling the truth, I still require my own verification; which I do not have as of yet.

But I am grateful for your access and knowledge, and I am with you. It looks like GEA is looking for a way to not have to go the SGLB route for IPQA. They paid lots of money for Concept Laser, and they would like to make their version if IPQA work for them. But I suspect that SGLB has them cornered with patent rights. It won't surprise me if GEA goes with PR3D anyhow in the end, unless some new loop hole or breakthrough come about for IPQA.

All the best,
Silversmith

Hawks,
America Makes confirmed that PR3D indeed does do that. But what is unclear is whether the other items tested for, porosity, toughness, and whatever else they looked at, is actually a part of the fingerprint of a known good part, or were these additional parameters tested for simply them looking to see if PR3D was truly capable of determining metal characteristics yielded from a print run. Currently, the only way to determine toughness is through destructive testing. Always has been that way. I suspect they were simply looking to see whether PR3D could give insight into the parameters that require destructing testing, and if so, then they could get away from having to do so much costly and time consuming destructive testing.

All the best,
Silversmith

No Hawks. The only way you could do that is if true closed-loop feedback control was somehow in place. PR3D is only watching the build at this stage of the game. It is telling you if you in fact had a print run that met the parameters identified as yielding a good part. That set of parameter data identified as yielding a good part is what comprises the 'fingerprint' of a good print run.

All the best,
Silversmith

Not even close Pisd. There is too much variability in the printing process for that to even be hoped for. That is the whole reason for the need for IPQA. They want IPQA to tell them when the printing process has deviated from the data set that is being used as the fingerprint. This then flags the print run as being suspect and requiring post-inspection consideration. PR3D is not responsible for making an unlimited number of identical parts. It is responsible for telling you when you have made one that is not identical. You are way off track if that is what you actually think is supposed to happen.

All the best,
Silversmith

Hawks,
I don't see how they could have expected the test to be conducted in a controlled manner if they were to do what you are questioning. There would have been no guarantee that the second printing would have contained the same type and degree of porosity, metal grain structure, etc as the initial defect laden samples had. It seems more appropriate that they would have printed the test slugs, monitored the print cycle with PR3D, destructively tested to yield actual post print data, then evaluate the correlation of the findings with what PR3D interpreted the print run to yield.

All the best,
Silversmith

Standing from afar, I've been watching AMDA for about a year and a half now. It really does look like ya'll have been drinking the Kool-Aid here. But the volume is pretty steady for a stock less than a buck with all the business issues present. I might take a small position on the off chance there is something here. But the market certainly does not share your enthusiasms. It's almost never the mm's playing games. It's almost always just a weak stock trending to more weakness.

All the best,
Silversmith

What you are saying KMey is entirely reasonable. It may very well be that you are correct about it. I doubt that we will ever find out what the real truth of the matter is. If C-level players start flowing into position fairly rapidly, I would have to agree that it was probably all part of a plan. Whether Cola bought into the plan or not is another matter. I still feel that an explanation of the America Makes report is the key and vital question to be answered. I know your position on it, but I want verification.

All the best,
Silversmith

I predict that SGLB's corporate offices will reside somewhere other than New Mexico within the next 18 months. I'll bet it goes to CA.

All the best,
Silversmith

Excellent, first rate post Jackle. I yield to your force majeure, and recant my earlier tempest. Thank you.

All the best,
Silversmith

Drama doesn't have to be catastrophic, it just has to be dramatic. And you're right, Cola might have been in full agreement that his baby needed a new CEO and wholeheartedly resigned for the betterment of the company. But I doubt it. CEOs don't get replaced when things are just peachy. I doubt that things are peachy.

All the best,
Silversmith

Cola has been sacked as the CEO. It really does look like there has been some heavy duty infighting in the corporate office. My gut tells me this is a good move. But this will be a delicate time for SGLB. We now need some powerhouse talent to come in at the C-level. High drama in New Mexico indeed.

All the best,
Silversmith

Okay. So by implication, what you are saying is that the America Makes study was to see what further capabilities PR3D could provide, beyond just monitoring a print build run, right?

All the best,
Silversmith

The analytics is certainly more than just that. For instance, if the laser beam x-y axis scan speed is higher than nominal, you would expect that the energy density of the melt pool would be lower than nominal because the laser is passing by too rapidly. But, if simultaneous with the higher than nominal speed, the beam energy intensity is higher than nominal, then the two deviations balance each other out and you get a proper energy density in the melt pool. This should be the kinds of things that the analytics software is performing beyond just noting if the printer is at the right transverse beam speed and beam energy. It is way more complicated than that.

All the best,
Silversmith

Your position is indeed one side of the story. And I tend to agree with it. But all along SGLB has touted that PR3D is capable of actually seeing what is going on in the build, through analytics, via transform mathematic algorithms. SGLB's position was that Materialize's Inspector and Concept Laser's QM and EOS's EOSTATE IPQA systems were not predictive; they were 'pretty pictures'. The thing that set PR3D apart was its insight analytics. But what is it analyzing? Does it truly take analysis to determine that a printer is following a certain parameter data set? I tend to think not. I tend to think that the printer manufacturer's IPQA systems are probably capable of knowing if a printer is following a proscribed profile of parameters.

Cola agreed with the statement that the word on the street was that PR3D was good at determining when a print run deviated from a given parameter data set, but that no IPQA system could tell if a part that experienced a print run deviation was indeed a bad part. So what I want to know is, is the America Makes report a report on the results of them looking to see if PR3D was capable of making an accurate determination that a deviated print run part was indeed bad, or does it mean something else. If the report merely is the culmination of finding the limitations of PR3D, beyond the ability of certifying a compliant print run, then we should be good to go, and the best and luckiest team will eventually develop an IPQA system that can determine metallurgical traits within the IPQA function.

All the best,
Silversmith

The elephant in the room is whether or not the America Makes report is the whole story. The value added component to PR3D is the transform mathematics enabling insight into the build, and prediction of the part quality, all through algorithm analysis. If this was indeed supposed to reveal metallurgical traits used to determine certification, then what now? If it is accurate that this ability was necessary for PR3D certification, and is shown to be less than reliably correlated to actual results, then PR3D is no better than all the other printer manufacturer's IPQA solutions. PR3D will have no advantage, and could wither and die on the vine.
This is the single most important question for the upcoming conference call.

All the best,
Silversmith

Printing a high-reliability metal part is easy. Knowing what you have printed is very hard. High-reliability critical application metal AM has turned out to be a engineering, metallurgical and material science rat-hole.

All the best,
Silversmith

I believe that America Makes in now not necessarily SGLB's friend. Is that the same as saying that GEA is now not necessarily SGLB's friend? I don't really know, but probably.
All along SGLB and the world knew that PR3D was not a priori. It was always understood that a manufacturer, wishing to print a part, had first to determine the print parameters that would yield the material characteristics and finished part quality for passing quality assessments. Then PR3D could tell you whether any further print runs maintained those print parameters during the run. This was always understood as what PR3D did.
Then along comes America Makes reporting that the goal of the study was to see if porosity, tensile strength, toughness etc could be predicted by PR3D. They wrote the report in a manner that came across as if PR3D was inadequate as an IPQA product; even though they acknowledged that PR3D did properly perform the IPQA function of the print run for parameter quality assurance.
This is either a blatant attempt at smearing SGLB, or a very poor job of writing by someone, or a group of people. I have seen my share of engineers who couldn't write worth a damn, so I don't know which it is.
But PR3D has been shown to get the job done for print run monitoring for certification of a part. As such, I would bet strongly, and have with my share holdings, that the rest of the metal AM industry will utilize PR3D for production for what it can do. Time will allow the industry to make the scope of function for IPQA systems expand to include metallurgical trait identification.

All the best,
Silversmith

A minor 5+/- short ratio, only 5 to 20 thousand shares trading in a day, not much direct SGLB news scattered around the landscape, and with the exception of movement induced by SGLB corporate structure changes a PPS trading in a fairly narrow range, all indicates a simple waiting game. The stock is waiting to see which way the story unfolds. If it goes in the direction of production implementation, this thing will run long and sustained. Otherwise it is a simple waiting game until another company or the industry makes it clear that PR3D is not the solution. Even another one or two quarters of no revenue won't change the broad picture that the market is waiting.

All the best,
Silversmith

I wouldn't expect anything much for a great long while from the OXYS collaboration. The intent of that project is to facilitate integration with i4.0 in industry. Such integration will be necessary to be king-of-the-hill, and even to stay in the game, a number of years from now; but not anytime soon. i4.0 is currently only on the drawing board for the elite types of manufacturing companies. By far the vast majority of manufacturing in the entire world is very far from implementing i4.0. Much capital expenditure must occur for any manufacturing company to bring processes into the new age of i4.0. That is simply not happening, except at the elite level. There are many articles lamenting the small, medium, and large business entities' lack of progress in bringing themselves into the i4.0 fold.

All the best,
Silversmith

Interesting that you should bring that up Jackle. I was just running some holdings numbers myself. It is all back of the napkin stuff, of course, because there is no way to know for sure. But I get your 41% plus some. And with the secondary offering buyers seeming to be holding long despite being under water. I think you are exactly right about the float being tighter than we think. I estimate that the daily fringe trading of shares being passed back and forth across the table is about 12% of the float. If we get one solid, big named manufacturer, contracting PR3D for production, the stock will likely run very hard indeed. If we get another one shortly afterward, it will be lights-out. The roof will blow off the top.

All the best,
Silversmith

Of course money talks, and BS walks, we still haven't sold any production run licenses, but it looks like GE tried to throw SGLB a nasty curve ball, and SGLB stroked it right back out to the gap in left-center.

All the best,
Silversmith

Tensile strength, elongation, and the resulting toughness characteristics of a material are some of the very most fundamental pieces of data that any materials engineer wants to have in their tool box of material knowledge for any material. I can assure you that all involved with IPQA efforts already knew that either PR3D wasn't capable of correlation with these parameters, or that no one knew whether or not PR3D could provide the data. The testing apparently shows that PR3D currently has the limitation of not being able to provide this data on the fly. It's not a mater of it being a deal breaker. Its simply a limitation of the IPQA current concept. It will take more work by the industry to enable IPQA to be able to capture the data that leads to an interpretation of what the printed part's character set is for tensile and elongation. So in effect, the industry does not have a means, other than post build sampling and destructive testing, for real-time prediction of this data set. If PR3D is incorporated in production run manufacturing, it will be for the rest of the IPQA data sets that it is capable of predicting.
I can see where IPQA, even with the limitation of not being able to predict toughness, will largely allow a production facility to reduce its destructive testing costs to only those tests that are not captured by IPQA.

The industry has a ways to go yet to be considered a mature manufacturing process.

All the best,
Silversmith

I think Cola should see if Immelt would be interested in the Board of Directors position now that he is stepping down. That would be a huge win for SGLB.

All the best,
Silversmith

Driftin,

Who knows how much of PR3D they will move to board level, but they specifically imply that the transition from distal observation data collection, ie sensor data collection, to conversion and injection of the data into the circuit board level stream of the analytics function and the digital thread is what they are after here. Essentially PR3D will be to some degree more integrated into the printing machine and digital control function than it currently is. It is likely also completely necessary to do this if closed loop control is ever to be realized in the future. It is possible that they could be after totally eliminating the metal computer carriage cart that we have historically seen in photos sitting next to printers. PR3D might entirely reside inside the electronics of an array of circuit boards in the printers.

Like a pendulum, I keep alternating between yes and no concerning a GEA buyout. I'm currently in a no state. GEA bought Concept Laser and most of Arcam for what I believe is a whole other set of reasons than what would apply to SGLB. For the printers, having the machine manufacturing under their umbrella means that a capital expenditure in one division shows up as a sale and profit in another division. You get a capital expenditure and a productivity gain in one place, and a profit from a sale in another place. It is a net win transaction within GE. Plus, printers will have a functional lifetime and then need to be replaced due to age. The capital expenditure is ongoing. It makes perfect sense for GE to own the printer manufacturing capability.

That doesn't seem to be the case for the IPQA function. Once IPQA is perfected, other than maybe sensors wearing out, you just have licensing costs going into the future. It is not so capital intensive as the printers themselves. So GEA can wait for a long time to see how the IPQA function shapes up, and with whom it will be supplied to the industry by, before making any decision about ownership of the tech.

What I would like to know is what is the driver behind the effort to move PR3D to the board level. Is it the gift of vision at SGLB, feedback from the EAP/OEM program, movement toward closed loop control, or keeping up with competition that might already be going in that direction?

All the best,
Silversmith

GE is a metal AM big dog. No doubt about it. But even if SGLB ends up not doing any business with them, they are not the only dog. This month's Fortune 500 survey magazine queried the fortune 500 about directions these companies are heading in. 26% of them stated that they are heading for 3D printing. That's 130 companies. Aerospace may be leading the way, but it is far from the only discipline that will end up with metal AM.

It's an interesting place to be right now. Little ole SGLB may be a large revenue company one day. From the likes of Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft, you name it, it takes most of a decade to get rolling significantly as a company. I'm not saying SGLB will ever be as big as these titans, but for the growth potential to come to fruition, it takes more than the three years most here have been invested for. The tension and drama is palpable.

All the best,
Silversmith

This is pretty good confirmation that GE, and probably the bulk of the metal AM industry, will go with in-situ IPQA certification. Good news for SGLB. But what is probably in the works is something else entirely. This is a pretty strong indicator that GE chooses to have tech/IP ownership in the IPQA space. I think before long we will see GE make a bid for SGLB in order to obtain the patent suite IP for IPQA. I wouldn't be surprised if this is in the works as we speak. I think we are going to find out what the industry thinks the tech and patents are worth.

All the best,
Silversmith

Here's why GE and SGLB have gone nowhere.

All the best,
Silversmith


GE publishes patents for powder bed fusion acoustic monitoring processes to qualify metal 3D printed parts
View Larger Image Direct Metal Laser Melting solution from GE Additive. Photo via GE Reports/Chris New


GE has published two patents for additive manufacturing acoustic monitoring processes. Referring specifically to powder-bed fusion techniques, GE hopes to simplify the qualification of printed parts with an in-situ monitoring method using acoustic waves. In turn, the company intends to improve the workflow of 3D printing functional metal parts.

Adding sensors to the build chamber

Both filed in 2015 and published in May 2017, the patents refer to the incorporation of sensors inside the build chamber to monitor and verify production.

GE is familiar with the certification process for 3D printing metal parts as the company incorporated a 3D printed component in its LEAP engine, the nozzle, which has now also been certified for use by the Federal Aviation Administration.

Last year GE made a considerable move into the 3D printing industry as it acquired two European additive manufacturing companies in Arcam and Concept Laser. The two companies both manufacture powder-bed based additive manufacturing machines and thus it is likely the patent could be applied to these machines. Since the acquisition, the North American company has expanded use of additive manufacturing technology and recently committed $10 million in 3D printing machines for educational institutions.

Acoustic monitoring method

In the published patent, GE describes the proposed process as,


Generally stated, the acoustic monitoring process includes using an acoustic sensor (68) to measure acoustic signals during the build process and monitoring those signals for irregularities indicative of a defect in the workpiece W. The sensor 68 may be mounted in any location within the apparatus 10 where it can receive acoustic signals generated by the additive build process.

In the figure provided by GE, (fig.1) the acoustic sensors (68) are located just below the build plate (20).

Figure 1 from the published patent shows a "schematic cross-sectional view of an exemplary additive manufacturing process." The acoustic sensors, 68 can be seen underneath the build plate, 20. Image via General Electric.
Figure 1 from the published patent shows a “schematic cross-sectional view of an exemplary additive manufacturing process.” The acoustic sensors, 68 can be seen underneath the build plate, 20. Image via General Electric.

Comparing acoustic profiles

According to the patent, the acoustic monitoring process may take place upon completion of the build or it, “may take place in real time.” It uses a “known good” (fig. 4)workpiece as comparison, which means the acoustic profile generated by the sensors is compared to the profile of the already qualified part.

Figure 4 shows the acoustic profile of a 'known good' workpiece. Image via General Electric.
Figure 4 shows the acoustic profile of a ‘known good’ workpiece. Image via General Electric.



The patent states that “if the workpiece W is properly formed, then the fusing process is smooth and very little variation occurs in the amount of acoustic energy being induced by the fusing process.” While, “if the workpiece W experiences a defect such as a crack or void, it will cause a change in the nature of the acoustic signal propagating through the apparatus 10.” This change is shown, 72, in fig.5 and, in other words dips in the line mark the then the part as defective.

Figure 5 shows an acoustic profile of a workpiece with a known defect. Image via General Electric.
Figure 5 shows an acoustic profile of a workpiece with a known defect, 72. Image via General Electric.

Certification of additive manufactured metal

One of the hindering factors of using additive manufacturing to create final functional parts is the qualification of the resulting objects. Currently, the method typically involves use of a CT scanner which adds an extra process to production and can be quite time intensive. This is a known issue for companies in the industry of 3D printing metal parts, and GE’s Concept Laser has similarly developed a ‘QM meltpool monitoring’ system which uses a photodiode and a camera to monitor the printing of parts.

However, with its latest invention, General Electric believes it may have “the potential to eliminate post-build quality control processes such as CT scanning currently used in the prior art.”

The full patents have been published online, Acoustic monitoring method for additive manufacturing processes, and Non-contact acoustic inspection method for additive manufacturing process. For all the latest 3D printing news, subscribe to the most widely read newsletter in the 3D printing industry, follow us on twitter and like us on Facebook.

Featured image shows Direct Metal Laser Melting solution from GE Additive. Photo via GE Reports/Chris New

From GE's May 24, 2017 CEO/Investor presentation. GE continues to look at AM as a significant growth pipeline for the company.

All the best,
Silversmith



GE
Additive leadership

2017 goals

? Establishing product line

New product investment

Units ~400


Revenue $300MM


Revenue pipeline $500MM


? Growing capacity

? Building capabilities

? Materials

? Predix enablement

Establish breakout moves (size, speed)

Multiple modalities/hybrid machine Improve cycle times … design, production Lower cost of ownership


GE parts


200 prototypes

Financing platforms in place

Understand “Moore’s law” for additive



External markets

Aviation Healthcare Automotive



? Accelerating deployment …
internally & across the industry

? Resetting supply chain cost
entitlement

? No structural casting in
Advanced Turbo Prop

? Building momentum in the medical implant market

? High performance implants
(hip, knee, dental)

? On-demand, patient-specific production … reduced cycle time

? Heat exchanger: 242 parts?1 part , 50% weight reduction

? Weight reduction & better
aerodynamics

? Improved thermal management

Acceleration in the last 90 days:
1000+ application ideas identified
110 prototypes made
$500MM+ new savings identified

Too funny Alan.
Fees are not interest. If it were so, we would all be paying over 80% interest on our automobile loans.
SGLB could be paying a negative 2% interest on the principle, and still be paying +20% interest according to your math.
Too funny.

All the best,
Silversmith