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.
Luke, I hope this alleviates a couple of concerns. This is from America Makes
https://www.americamakes.us/other/item/865
Q2 – If I get support from a materials company, must all of the work be publishable? I understand that the purpose is to support the America Makes community, but could some of the work remain proprietary (or would the proprietary part need to be funded separately)?
A2 – If the work is based on Background Developed IP then that portion of the work stays with that organization, but if the work is developed within the project as Consortium Developed IP then the work must be shared with the membership.
Q3 – Who owns IP that is produced as a result of this work (including matching funds from a commercial company)? If IP is owned by America Makes, is there a requirement that IP be licensed to members, and if so, what are the terms?
A3 – The IP is owned by the organization that developed the IP however that IP is subject to the rules outlined in the membership agreement.
Led by General Electric Aviation, in partnership with Aerojet Rocketdyne; B6 Sigma, Inc.; Burke E. Porter Machinery Company; Honeywell Aerospace; Montana Tech of The University of Montana; and TechSolve, Inc., this project will address the need for the development of a commercially available, platform-independent Quality Assurance technology for high-volume AM production of aerospace components, which is currently lacking within the industry. The proposed effort will be achieved through the maturation of an IPQA™ technology solution that leverages a development approach, incorporating multiple AM machines and multiple super alloys.
Happy New Year Everyone! Just saw this article which to me confirms that standards are key for AM to move to full production. I believe that SGLB is perfectly positioned.
https://www.designnews.com/materials-assembly/3d-printing-and-additive-manufacturing-will-grow-2017-new-and-better-materials/191795147946197
Here are a few quotes
Making high-quality end-production parts with AM and 3D printing methods requires some carefully defined standards and guidelines for materials and printed parts, as well as machines and processes. This is especially true for metal parts, which continue to be the fastest-growing segment of commercial 3D printing,
In 2017, materials for 3D printing and additive manufacturing (AM) will be getting better and more closely fine-tuned for higher-quality and larger end-production parts
Previous research found that most tensile properties of 3D-printed titanium components made with Ti-6Al-4V alloy on an EBM machine met or exceeded conventional manufacturing standards. But because of excessive porosity, the fatigue properties of parts were consistently inferior. The team found that most of this porosity can be eliminated by adjusting the printer's process parameters, but methods must include enough information to properly characterize it.
Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory discovered interactions that can lead to porosity in parts produced by laser powder bed fusion metal processes, contributing to future better part performance. (Source: Julie Russell/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
Buppy, I sincerely believe what I've read in the AM market. There is a lot of test and evaluation still taking place. Sigma Labs has been way ahead of the curve doing independent quality assurance. The latest guidance for America Makes and ANSI is just scratching the surface of in process quality. I remember writing to Lloyd's Register in Jan 2016 when they came out with their AM Guidance book. I emailed their team and they claimed to have a keen interest in how in-line inspection was developing.
I was quite surprised and started to realize SGLB has quite a head start on the competition. See part of my email. I had to X out the names
Lxxx,
Thanks much for your response. I was more curious about the in-line inspection that ensures the quality of the part being built to design intent. I see that I was mistook the in-service inspection for in-line inspection. Was in-line inspection considered in the Guidance Notes? Is it is another section that I overlooked; maybe, control of production? I was curious about what vendors products were evaluated.
I'm an investor in the AM sector and aware that in-line quality assurance is critical to the AM market moving forward into mass production of parts. I'm particularly interested in vendors that maybe addressing this need such as Sigma Labs and any others. I was interested in what vendors were evaluated in determining the Guidance Notes for in-line inspection if you are at liberty to say. I certainly understand if you are unable to reveal any vendors or products utilized; however, I'm interested if in-line inspection is addressed in the current guidance and where or will it be evaluated and addressed in future guidance.
Regards,
Axxxx
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:57 AM, xxxxx, Lxxx <lxxx.xxxxxx@lr.org> wrote:
Hi Axxxxx,
Thanks for reaching out. I wanted to clarify with you – 11.4 refers to in-service inspection (i.e. once a part is completely built, and implemented in a live environment), rather than in-line inspection (during the build process).
Does this still align with your question below?
The team would be happy to have a further chat as we have a keen interest with in-line inspection and how it’s developing.
Best,
Lxxx Xxxxxx
Senior Specialist, Global Technology Centre, Lloyd’s Register Energy
Hi Axxxxx – apologies again for the delay in response.
Although we considered the inclusion of in-line inspection methods in our first version of the Guidance Notes, we decided that given our view of the printer/machine as a key variable in the manufacturing process, in-line inspection would not reduce our post-build inspection requirements at this time.
We are pursuing investigation and validation of in-line inspection methods (i.e. testing that in-line processes are as reliable as post-completion processes) and measurement of how these may positively impact the confidence in a AM part in the future. The timeframe for this investigation and validation should be over the next 12-18 months, and will rely on cooperation from software and hardware vendors.
The team and I would be happy to discuss further, and in addition, we’d be happy to keep you in the loop for future development cycles of industry guidance on AM.
Best,
Lxxx Xxxxxxxx
Funny to me that some are writing GE off and yet Honeywell and GE are building parts for the same Boeing 737 MAX plane and GE is even using ICME concepts for their material applications. I'm positive there is much collaboration taking place between the two and SGLB is a piece of this collaboration.
I still believe that the GE connection exists. As they are working with Honeywell on the ICME framework. Most Longs on this board know that I think Sigma Labs inclusion in the ICME framework is the SGLB's biggest achievement to date. I will agree that the pps does suck and most investors have moved on to other pastures. I'll give props to Alanthill for calling this a long time ago. I have disagreed with him over the years but his assessment has been on target based on where the pps is now. I still strongly believe in the future success of SGLB and maybe that's my downfall but I'm pretty pigheaded when I believe in my DD. I'm still here holding my bag of shares. These days I tend to review my DD to verify my position. It's DD like this that continues to keep me right here.
The framework presented in Fig. 2 contains within the dotted line box the set of ICME tools needed to achieve rapid qualification. A micro-model which describes the melting of the powder and solidification of the material to form the part, and a macro-model which describes the residual stresses that build up as a result of the rapid cooling and solidification of the material. Both of these models were developed by ESI to simulate the powder-bed laser additive manufacturing process. QuesTek® developed the models to predict the material microstructure that develops as a result of the heat treatment process along with a model to predict the tensile properties of the resulting microstructure. Sigma Labs and Stratonics developed techniques for in situ monitoring of the process. Sigma Labs uses a pyrometer to monitor the response of the melt pool whereas Stratonics uses a digital imaging technique to capture the response of the melt pool. Furthermore, Sigma Labs has implemented their In-Process-Quality-Assurance (IPQA) technologies to determine if and when the process may be out of control. Honeywell is implementing non-destructive evaluation (NDE) methods to determine if defects that may develop in the part during the manufacturing process can be detected by inspection. SwRI® is developing the probabilistic design and uncertainty quantification tools to be able to define the minimum predicted material property and risk derived from the novel manufacturing process. Lastly, Honeywell is developing the overall rapid qualification framework to bring all these technologies together in order to demonstrate an acceptable means of compliance with extensive use of simulation models.
A probabilistic framework is proposed for rapid qualification of aerospace components. It leverages knowledge generated by ICME models regarding the manufacturing process and material behavior that can be used to identify testing needed for model development and for evidence of compliance.
In-process monitoring is used to validate the models as well as In-Process Quality Assurance™. The sensors and corresponding IPQA® provide the link between specification and numerical process window selection to the actual build and final product. The uncertainty quantification tools provide a probabilistic foundation for decision making enabling the assessment of overall process risk.
Are you saying he's speculating on working with GE on the America Makes program? Not sure what you mean by huge speculation?
GE connection is still going strong per 3Q 2016 con call
Mark Cola
So I can’t speak for GE, I can only report what they do in terms of what they are currently doing. I can’t project a future for them. They are evaluating our technology and the milestones along the way are being validated as we work through this program with them of record with America Makes. So that’s the milestones that we are checking off and marching against.
Unidentified Analyst
And any sense of when that will be – when those projects would be finished, is that also kind of 12 to 18 months out.
Mark Cola
No, that program with the America makes in GE & Aviation should be finishing up in the first quarter next year on.
Yep. I'm looking forward to picking up some more cheap shares!
Jeff, Thanks for the post. I enjoyed listening to Godfrey's insightful talk.
Latest FDA guidance November 2016 on Quality Metrics. Getting closer to SGLB's time??
For emerging technology, the use of new, in-line analytical technology used for real time release testing with increased sensitivity might result in better detection of in-process OOS results used for Real Time Release Testing and thus, a temporary increase in total OOS results. However, improved detection that allows for the diversion and rejection of poor quality product will provide improved assurance of quality. In this instance, it may be appropriate to provide an explanation that new, improved technology was implemented and that there is data demonstrating that more robust product was released to the market as a result of this change
FDA's draft guidance recommends using test coupons, defined by the agency as "a representative test sample of the device or component," for process validation. Cola said that in that same vein, the PrintRite3D system provides "witness coupons." These "become a record of the build and provide a link back to the quality and repeatability of the process," he explained.
"Our unique selling point comes from the fact that we've gone to the trouble of taking the information we gather and [made] it actionable for the end-user, the manufacturing engineer on the floor," said Cola.
The agency's draft document is also helping to close that gap, Cola said. "Things like the FDA guidelines bascially pave that bridge that we've established with our software."
Truthandlove, Thanks for the post. The good thing is that SGLB has worked with half of the membership. NIST check. DOE check. DOD check. NASA check and DARPA check.
Membership now includes NIST, DOE, DOD, NSF,
NASA, NIH, USGS, NNSA, DARPA, NSA, and OMB.
Thank you very much for posting this! Wow!!
Yes, I'm very certain that this is the joint proposal with Moog. It would be great to win it. We are being used to certify parts for the Air Force with Aerojet and a win with the Navy would go a long way toward solidifying SGLB's future in AM. I have not heard anything about the DARPA Phase 3 with Honeywell in the ICME framework. I look forward to hearing back from C Witty via mrbagray!
What Mark said regarding MOOG in Q1 con call.
So the work that we're proposing to do with Moog was, we were approached by them to team and put together a proposal to the navy to leverage government sponsorship in return for bringing the Moog products to market more quickly using an in-process monitoring approach. And so, what I can comment is that you are accurate that we have put together a proposal with them and as I enlisted as a name team member on their proposal. It's about all I can say with respect to the Moog proposal.
It's in other than to say that their proposed approach is in lockstep with trying to bring a new technology like a PrintRite3D in-process monitoring approach into an existing traditional market space where again they are used the manufacturing in one step and inspecting in another. Because at the end of the day, when they all do their FMEA analysis, which is Failure Modes and Effects Analysis.
If they have done it right, they are going to learn that there is opportunities to incorporate a PrintRite type technology to ensure that they don't have any under inspection scenarios or in other words escapes or parse that would make it into their final end applications. So now, they have been very sharp and have a keen eye to that.
AeroDef Manufacturing Mission Statement
AeroDef® Manufacturing is the leading exposition and technical conference for the aerospace and defense manufacturing industry. Produced by the SME, in partnership with industry OEMs, our mission is to foster innovation across the extended enterprise to reduce costs, expedite production times and maintain manufacturing competitiveness in the global economy.
AeroDef® showcases the industry’s most advanced technologies across an innovative floor plan designed to facilitate interaction and business relationships between exhibitors and buyers looking for integrated solutions. Our keynote speakers and panelists come from the highest level of government and business. They come to share their vision of the potential of technology, collaboration and public policy to transform manufacturing – concepts that attendees can actually experience on the exposition floor and in our in-depth conference sessions. It’s the one event that brings together high-concept, integrated solutions and real-world applications.
Did someone post this already? Mark to speak at AeroDef Manufacturing conference in March 2017.
http://aerodefevent.com/speakers-advisors/
Anyone up to purchasing the latest SmarTech report? They discuss Sigma Labs.
SmarTech Publishing believes that the already quite large number of suppliers in this space, more firms will enter in 2017. Some providers have also begun developing application-specific or parameter specific titanium alloys based on customer needs and offering them to the broader market.
In addition, capacity expansions at existing leaders in the titanium powder supply chain are underway. Among the organizations that we examine in this report are: 3D Systems Additive Works, Advanced Powders & Coatings, Airbus, Arcam, ATI Metals, Concept Laser, CSIRO, DiSanto, Divergent3D, EOS, Farsoon, Fonon Technologies, Fraunhofer Institute, Fripp Design, GKN Hoeganaes, H.C. Starck, i.materialise, K Home International, Linde Gases, Lockheed Martin, LPW Technology, Matsuura Machinery, Metalysis, Norsk Titanium, Osaka Titanium, Oventus, Oxford Performance Materials, Phenix Systems, Praxair Surface Technologies, PSA Group, Puris, Pyrogenesis, Realizer, Renishaw, Sciaky, Shapeways, Sigma Labs, Sisma, SLM Solutions, Tekna, TLS Technik, Wacker Chemie, Xi'an Brightlaser and Z3DLab.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING to the Board!! I wish you all a great day to reflect on what we are thankful for in this life.
Awesome! I like this pick! He actually knows the facts. Thanks.
Z, Awesome! That's for this post. I'm patiently waiting for the day of a production run announcement. I'm still of the opinion that it will happen pretty much like GE's announcement to purchase Arcam. The pps surge will occur quickly with so many eyes of SGLB. IMHO
Thanks jeff. I'm looking forward to what 3Dprint has to say about Sigma Labs at formnext in the coming days.
Thanks Kanya for continuing to share your DD.
Dadx4, I hear ya. I have not sold but have not added since the 2's. I've averaged down since 2013 and I can't sell because I just believe in the DD. Us Longs have lived thru two dilution events and a number of the sky is falling advocates. I'm standing by what I believe will come for SGLB. I wish all the best.
Thanks Maxinkuckee, I certainly hope that we are both correct! I do not believe that Mark intentionally mislead investors as well. His reasoning would usually correlate with what industry was saying and identifying as issues with getting to full AM production runs of critical parts. Im betting that those roadblocks will be worked out sooner than later and that Mark will find a way to keep the lights on until the contracts do arrive. I believe that once the first one hits the others will follow in rapid succession as the first contract will be the indicator that full production is a go.
I'm still watching and waiting on that FAA AM guidance to come out as I mentioned several times before that it's the AM standards that will kick SGLB into high gear. Companies are awaiting that blueprint/framework to be laid out and unfortunately it's taking a little time to get there. I'm encouraged that SigmaLabs has been working with those standard's bodies for a while now and I'm confidence that third party in-process/in-line inspection will be included in those standards.
Thank you sir!
Thank you sir!
I agree with you. That's why I'm still holding unto my shares. I truly believe that Mark has been very optimistic about sales and they have not materialized. I'm waiting for what I believe will be an upside surprise. I believe that Fortune 500 companies and government organizations would not be wasting their time and resources with a product that did not meet their needs. Good Luck to you and All!
No call for that here. Please refrain from that language.
Nice to see that NASA working on developing AM standards internationally and Doug Wells is still doing it. Doug's been doing this for so time and I'm certain he's very well aware of SGLB.
Although various organizations have standards they follow for AM parts and flight hardware, many of these standards are customized, in-house standards that are considered proprietary and not shared nationally. Doug Wells, senior engineer for structural materials at Marshall Space Flight Center, is working to develop standards not only for NASA but also as a part of the national effort for overall qualification and certification of AM parts.
“What NASA and [specifically] Doug are doing can help bootstrap qualification of fracture critical AM parts for spaceflight applications, and more generally, qualification of AM parts for our national economy for commercial use, including the automobile and medical sectors,” said Waller. “NASA is contributing to this commercial enterprise to broaden use of this technology in commerce and industry.”
This nationwide guidance will help grow industry, create jobs and increase implementation of AM parts.
Just thinking about Big Data and what Mark mentioned yesterday
"And there, they are going to require basically connectivity to machines and an understanding of the domain space and the ability to extract the big data and makes sense of it. And that’s where Sigma Labs model is focused. At the moment, we are still a small collection of highly scaled technology folks that are bringing something new to the market. And companies like the one I just mentioned GE Aviation in particular, even IBM with their Watson and Bluemix, it’s all about what you’re doing with the data. So Sigma Labs has stayed true to that in terms of our ability not just to collect data and store it, but make it actionable for the end operator. And so that’s the tipping point we’re waiting for is that, when these technologies are at a point where people really understand what they can do with the data, that’s where software like Inspect and Contour and eventually Analytics, and new software that we’ll be developing are really going to take hold."
Through the partnership, data scientists, software developers and architects from GE and COMAC plan to work together to refine some of the ten billion data points produced by the aviation sector annually into solutions that can achieve greater fleet intelligence and operational insights.
In the past year, GE has opened collaboration centers in Shanghai, Dubai, Austin and Paris, connecting data, developers and Predix, the world’s first and only cloud-based operating system built exclusively for industry. Predix is powering innovative Industrial Internet apps that turn operational data into insight for better and faster decision making.
Yes indeed Progress! I'm hoping some of those other PrintRite3D quotes from the April 2016 shareholder meeting finally start hitting soon. It has been a long wait. Good Luck!
Jeff,
Thanks for posting. It's great to see that they are finally starting to look into "in-line" inspection. I asked them about in early this year. Please see my post http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=120924348 for their response. It still seems like SGLB is way ahead of the game with "in-line" inspection. I'm still hopeful to see a order of more than 10 PrintRite 3D's by end of 1st quarter 2017.
Stock futures lower today. I'm hoping SGLB does not take too big of a hit. I'm hoping for an well attended conference call tomorrow and strong indication of future growth. It would be welcome news if next week Materialise announces a PrintRite 3D option in that new software.
Interesting note at least to me.
A team of eight engineers, who designed the additive fuel nozzle tip on the CFM LEAP engine, led the design effort for the 16 additive parts tested in the CT7.
These additive components for CT7 and ATP tests are built at GE Aviation’s Additive Development Centre in Ohio.
Jeff, Thanks for posting!
Yep, I hear ya but I believe that they are still perfecting the recipe
Last week, GE opened a new industrial-scale 3D-printing center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It will work closely with Vinciquerra’s team, test their findings and get GE factories quickly cooking with additive.
His team has already started testing and tabling the powdered materials used in additive manufacturing and their properties. “We want to know how they come together, how they affect each other and what machines and processes are best suited for them,” Vinciquerra says. “It’s just like a gourmet recipe. We need to know how our ingredients are going to react in a mixer or an oven. And what changes can we make to those ingredients, the mixer or the oven to produce a more palatable dish?”
Concept Laser has their on QA but PrintRite3D was still installed on their machine.
Sigma was awarded related contracts from the subcontractor Aerojet Rocketdyne to install one of our PrintRite3D® systems on a Concept Laser M2 metal AM machine at Aerojet Rocketdyne's Canoga Park, California facility,
Thanks Jackle! A "Skunk Work" style project is as secret as it gets! I'm betting that SGLB is involved in validating parts.
Well, One thing I do like is that Concept Laser and Arcam machines have both been evaluated with PrintRite3D inside. I'm looking forward to the conference call and more importantly for that first contract with over 10 PrintRite3D's being sold. I believe that moment will alleviate some fears about the relevance of PrintRite3D to the critical metal AM market. The pps explosion will be remarkable. IMHO.
There are to many other investment opportunities out there that have better movement. Many will not invest until the pps moves north with an event that would lead to uplisting. I strongly believe that SGLB will be successful in the end. I do believe that a contract was definitely expected to come sooner than later and SGLB needed that loan because of the later. Good Luck!
Thank much for the response and the link!