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.
There is a very great deal of rumbling going on in the 3D print space, both from the manufacturing and the investing side of things. There is now evidence of hedge funds beginning to take a look, and in fact, buying positions. Some serious maneuvering is coming to this space. SGLB will be greatly served by up-listing to the NASDAQ. In my opinion there will be a strong movement into SGLB with the up-list. GE has served to cause the power-houses of investing to take a look at the 3D print space with a much more focused eye. The nature of the real manufacturing process for metal AM is coming into focus for investors. The players that will be making the tech and process go forward for real are beginning to come clear for all. In my opinion, with GE stating along the lines of unparalleled product integrity, quality and uniformity coming with sensor based technology, I fully believe that SGLB is going to be a huge success. Things are probably about to get very interesting around here.
All the best,
Silversmith
There is a huge amount of discussion going on in other circles about the ramifications (to the 3D print industry)of the GE buy out offers. Just as I mentioned the other day about SGLB investors willfully pushing down the market cap of the company, and doing themselves a disservice, some prevalent ARCAM investors are now coming to terms with the same feelings over there. There is some strong sentiment that maybe GE will get the company for far too little money. At least they fully understand that it is the ARCAM investor's fault entirely for not recognizing the real value of the company.
Over in the wall-street analyst circles, there is a lot of jaw-boning about what this all means for the rest of the 3D print industry. And yes, little ole SGLB has come up in the discussion. But basically, the analysts are starting to see that all hell is about to break loose with moves by the players in the industry. GE has without a doubt put a big boot up the backside of the industry. We aren't even close to seeing the fall-out of the move.
Have you heard that Siemens, a member of our EAP program, has taken a majority stake in the UK company Material Solutions, a large user of laser printers and an aerospace process and manufacturing company? I wonder how many printers they have and expect to have.
Have you heard that EOS has sold its first MeltPool application to a major aerospace repair and manufacturer? Seems clear to me that sensor based IPQA is going to be the winner in metal AM.
PR3D is machine agnostic. GE stated that they see unparalleled production consistency with upcoming sensor based technology. Do you think they mean Sciacky, whose in-process inspection is entirely only for their machines. Do they mean MeltPool, again dedicated to the EOS machine? And did they buy EOS because they had to have MeltPool? No, they didn't. Did they buy Sciacky because they had to have their in-process technology? No, they didn't. What other sensor based IPQA solutions are there? None that I am aware of. Is SGLB the sole sensor based IPQA solutions invitee to the final commercialization phase of the America Makes project? Yes, indeed they are. Is the only sensor based IPQA software solution incorporated into the suit of control tech employed by Honeywell, PR3D? Yes, indeed it is. I have never seen any other method mentioned by Honeywell, anywhere.
Make your own conclusions. There is going to be an announcement that will blow the top off of this thing. SGLB will likely issue secondary offering shares. That is what growing companies do. All of them. Including the majors. It should be no different for SGLB. Our authorized share limit is very modest. The secondary offering is not a deal breaker of any kind. In fact, I expect that as the company continues to grow, and especially if it wins large corporate contracts, it will need to grow even more rapidly. I expect to see that one day they propose that the authorized needs to grow. I believe we will see a forward stock split, keeping investor ownership percentages constant, but expanding the authorized. That is part of how growth happens. Of course it has to be accompanied with robust actual revenue growth. Any thing else is just value loosing dilution. But winning the IPQA war will provide that.
All the best,
Silversmith
jeffxtrade,
My initial take on the matter is that SGLB has only minimally played around with PR3D on EBM. I have heard or read no information that leads me to believe that a serious effort to incorporate IPQA on a EBM platform has been undertaken. I'll bet that there will be a move to do so in the near future though. It would not surprise me to hear that SGLB is already looking at it.
All the best,
Silversmith
3d,
That is why SLM was also acquired. The conference call stated that the SLM side of the offer was the larger proposal acquisition. GE said that they have been doing some very complex research and trial work with SLM for a while now.
Also, I remember someone asking if GE had AM production certification from the FAA yet for the LEAP platform. They stated that that is all done. The fuel nozzles are all cleared with FAA and actually in commercial flight already.
All the best,
Silversmith
Two other things stood out to me. GE stated that they are going to need 1000 printers in 10 years, and that they see that as being only 5% of the world metal AM printer demand in the same time period. Holy Cow Batman! I am beginning to see what Cola was meaning when he was alluding to the demand that he sees in the industry.
The other thing that stood out is that even the big-dog wall street analysts- Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Citi, BAC, all of them, have no damn clue about metal AM and what it means to the changes coming. They are stunned by what the guys at GE are telling them. They have no idea what the hell GE is talking about.
All the best,
Silversmith
Great question Hawks.
I would have to say that this news is pretty disappointing to EOS. I would have to say that GE won't be going with EOS in much of any way at all from here on. GE clearly stated that their road map entails the need for 1000 printers over the next ten years. They pretty clearly illustrated that the new acquisitions are their means to do so.
I highly recommend that all who want to keep abreast of the industry go to the recording of the investor call and listen to it. There are many things to glean from it. This industry will change the map for large amounts of production and all the associated aspects of production( QA, materials, accounting, order desks, packaging, shipping, loading etc. - the entire chain of production manufacturing from design to build to delivery of product).
GE is saying that they are creating a whole new company, within the GE umbrella, for the full extent of the metal AM ecosystem. I would think that Honeywell will be making some moves as well just to keep from being usurped in the space. I would also think that SGLB is on some lists for being looked at as a strategic fit in the space. In fact, I would say that we will see a number of response moves by the key players in the industry to wrap up the potential revenue generators in the space. I think that this GE announcement will start a whole cascade of events in the space.
I had been thinking all along that GE was simply being an end-user of metal AM. Clearly not the case. GE is looking to be a one-stop-shop for all things metal AM before all is said and done.
All the best,
Silversmith
Pisd,
The same exact statement can be said of every single 3D printing industry company, without exception. If you were to actually read the character of discussion and wall-street analysis for every other AM player, you would find the same statements made by investors- nothing happening, no sales, need more, stop diluting, what are you doing, need more, please make it crystal clear to me that you are a company that deserves to exist, and on and on. Yet here we are with GE offering over a billion dollars for two companies. Why? Because this industry is going to change efficiency, cost and timeliness in an incredible way for a vast majority of manufacturers.
Enjoy the show.
All the best,
Silversmith
Which is why I keep harping that current SGLB investors are doing a vast injustice to themselves and SGLB by selling down the market cap of the company. How are you going to feel if HON or GE makes a bid for SGLB for 100% of the current market cap? If they know that the tech is going to be a critical piece of the AM puzzle, but the current investors think that SGLB is a disaster, then the company can be had for a song. Investors would be holding the bag because of their own stubborn stupidity. I, for one, would be unhappy about it, but I would know that our illustrious investors would have gotten what they deserved.
This company should be currently valued at somewhere around the 75 to 100 million dollar mark right now. With evidence of growing revenue and actual contracts for production use, it should immediately be priced for a market cap between 200 and 300 million dollars. I have never agreed with the way that our investors have viewed this company.
All the best,
Silversmith
Max,
I read it. There isn't much there to go on, and no conclusion can be drawn from the article. It sounds like it is playing around in the same areas and methods as PR3D, but there is no way to tell from that article. SGLB's patents would definitely limit the action-ability that could be incorporated into the EOS system. If they cross SGLB's patents, then I would expect that EOS would have to approach SGLB for obtaining licensing of the tech and paying royalties. It won't be third party inspection for sure.
I look at it as a good sign that sensor based IPQA for the metal AM industry is indeed going to be what is adopted by the industry; right in SGLB's wheelhouse.
And yes I did buy a lot more yesterday. Someone was wondering about why the volume was so high yesterday. I wouldn't consider that high volume in any stretch of the imagination. There are many SGLB investors who themselves alone own considerably more shares than were traded totally yesterday. It was likely just a down day in a very thinly traded stock, spurred by someone selling shares.
All the best,
Silversmith
The upside with SGLB so very far exceeds the down side here. $10.5 million buys the entire float at $2.50 per share. If you take out the holdings of the true investors who will be holding tight, it is even less than that. With the number of printing machines that are slated and probable for metal AM, the plans of the corporations working to implement metal AM production, the expectations of the size of the projections for the metal AM industry, any confirmation of SGLB being the IPQA go-to company means that this thing is going to explode. It will probably jump to a market cap of $200 million in two or three days time. We will see the entire outstanding and float trade multiple times over in two days time. I don't see any way to capture the significant money transfer other than already being positioned. It may be time to double down. I am seriously thinking about it.
All the best,
Silversmith
jeffxtrade,
The authorized is fixed in size unless a shareholder-wide vote is taken upon a resolution to change the authorized. The offering shares and the shares underlying the warrants, all must fit within the authorized.
At this point it is anyone's guess how many shares will flow to the float as a result of the secondary offering.
All the best,
Silversmith
That's the whole point of the article Pisd.
Your view is priced in. So now you can't make money on it.
My view is not priced in. So now I can make money on it. Assuming that my view is a more correct view than your view.
All the best,
Silversmith
I believe it will change, HIIGUY, when we are on an exchange in which a whole different kind of investor can dig in and read between the lines at what the story is.
I am not saying that a move to the NASDAQ will be an immediate panacea. There will be war there as well. The traders and flippers and shorts and unknowledgeable will still take SGLB out behind the wood shed for a whopping from time to time. This will happen until the bulk of the shares are in the hands of knowledgeable investors, having displaced the flighty people playing in SGLB shares. It will take a little time for that as well.
All the best,
Silversmith
I cribbed this from another document I came across; written by a chap named Sam Ro. Most of us know it already, but it reminds me of where we are here.
"Good businesses don’t necessarily make good stocks. Similarly, bad businesses don’t necessarily make bad stocks.
One of the biggest mistakes you can make in investing is to assume that the direction of a stock price will be dictated by your current personal assessment of a business. Thinking like this is an embarrassing mistake that is almost certain to come with money-losing consequences.
Stocks are discounting mechanisms, which means current prices come with two implications: 1) they account for expectations for the future of the company, and 2) those expectations are largely guesses, which mean they could be wrong.
If everyone you ask and all of the literature you read reflect this sad and bleak assessment of the business, then it’s not unreasonable to assume that this information is priced into the market. In other words, this information won’t make you any money.
Even worse, it’s possible that sentiment is so bad that the stock is pricing in a scenario that’s likely to be far worse than what is reasonable for a struggling company. In other words, the pendulum may have swung too far in the bearish direction.
To be clear, it is very difficult to truly know what is and isn’t priced into a stock at any given time. Furthermore, it is arguably impossible to know where a stock price is headed despite all the information you may have accumulated.
Investing is hard. The market often doesn’t make sense. Most professionals who try to beat the market, don’t. And of the few who do beat the market, almost all fail to beat it again.
The point: be careful and do your homework before investing. And importantly, don’t assume that a stock price will move in the same direction as an underlying business at the same time."
So basically the current realm of people aware of SGLB, who have established the current valuation of the company, have created the picture that there is low probability of any appreciable future revenue. This is the 'discounting' part of the stock price. The remaining part is the question of whether they are wrong about it.
SGLB has a product that claims to be a solution for arguably the most fundamental and key, core function, at the very heart of the manufacturing process for AM high tech production, that has been widely claimed to be the primary function necessary to allow true AM production to take off. It is proving to be a very intense and difficult thing to get full control over the whole AM metal process, and as a result things are moving cautiously and slowly across the entire world for metal AM development. There is an enormous amount of man-hours being expended on the development of metal AM across the world. So is it that SGLB's product really isn't a product that the metal AM needs and wants, or is it that big orders for PR3D are simply yet in the future?
Would a product that didn't really get the job of IPQA done for metal AM, as would have been experienced by GE and Honeywell during the initial evaluation years of PR3D, still spread to nearly a dozen other major national and international corporations, whose engineering departments are world class in themselves, for their own evaluation? Would GE and Honeywell have kept a perfect secret that PR3D didn't work; that they would have continued to include SGLB in DARPA and America Makes, and written white paper articles, including SGLB in the continuing development of the metal AM industry, in spite of the fact that PR3D didn't work? The clear answer to that is no. They wouldn't do that.
The world class engineering corporations of the world do not suffer fools. They do not commit hundreds of thousands of dollars for evaluating a technology without checking into it first. They are connected to the players of the world. They would have known whether PR3D was viable before buying product for evaluation.
So, in my opinion, the only conclusion is that the current discounting of the valuation of SGLB, with the expectation of little future revenue, is wrong. The current investors setting the price have got the picture wrong.
All the best,
Silversmith
I agree MD. There is some pretty good stuff in there. It seems to me that there is enough concrete work being done that wall street will go for it. Everyone here wants it done right this moment, but that's not the way it works. A year and a half ago, most of the S1 information hadn't happened yet. This company is growing. Barring some large setback in the industry or the PR3D tech, there will be an even larger body of success stories for SGLB in the future. That is what wall street will come for. All we have to do is get into the wall street NASDAQ sandbox.
All the best,
Silversmith
Those revenues are already inked Ted. It is stated in numerous places that the company has funds for the remainder of the year.
The S1 states that the offering will fund them for capex purchases and operations through 2019.
I don't agree with you about them using the S3 for funding. It is surely possible, but shares have already been issued for compensation to some of the players involved with the up-list and offering. The S1 is the pointy end of the spear at the moment.
And you have convinced me that the offering and the up-list are intimately linked. Some major document changes would have to be submitted and approved before they could do an offering in a different way.
All the best,
Silversmith
I'll tell you what HIIGUY, I fully expect that SGLB will newly mint a number of fresh millionaires. But it will only be those that earned it.
All the best,
Silversmith
I don't think that anyone is going to take a hit. I think that there is large demand for ownership of the potential in SGLB by national investors who are willing to take the risk. I believe that institutional entities will be buying.
All the best,
Silversmith
I'm sitting here laughing Ted. Yes indeed I can see where that would be a problem for the offering in anything other than the NASDAQ. I guess I would have to conclude that the S1 will require being altered if they wish to go forward with the offering on another exchange.
Enjoy your long weekend.
All the best,
Silversmith
Yes, but do consider Alan, that wall street invests with the expectation that growing revenue is coming. They certainly will consider that this is possibly an opportunity to own shares in what looks like a company with growth on the horizon.
And in any case, if that is so, SGLB will realize the offering funds no matter what actually happens, because the price per share of the units will be set and paid for by the underwriter group. Whether the units are actually in hot demand or not, SGLB pockets the money based upon the negotiation of maximum price for the perceived demand between SGLB corporate and the underwriter.
So it is a relative thing to say that the offering has fallen flat. Fallen flat for whom; SGLB, the underwriter, or the common shareholder? It won't be all three. In any case, I suspect that this offering is going to go mostly to institutional holdings. I believe that this is where institutional buying will get it's first position in SGLB.
All the best,
Silversmith
Alan and Ted,
I would be interested in where specifically you are being swayed that the secondary offering can only occur after the NASDAQ listing request has been approved.
I have just gone through the S1 again, and I certainly see that it is their intention to initiate the secondary offering after up-listing, but I do not see anywhere that states that the secondary is un-actionable if the up-list does not get approved.
One thing is clear, the mechanism and logistics of the secondary offering is completely through the underwriter and affiliates. This means that the underwriter and SGLB negotiate the price that the underwriter pays to SGLB treasury for the units to be sold in the offering. The underwriters are under contract to absolutely pay for, and take, all of the units agreed upon, regardless of how many units actually do get sold. The underwriter and affiliates are tasked with gauging investor demand for the units. This gauging will come from feeling out the various broker/dealers and investment firms. They will not be calling up any OTC goof ball investors and ask if they would be interested in buying some units. This will be dealt out to the real investment world, regardless of whether the NASDAQ up-list has been approved.
Also, there is wording in the S1 explaining that the underwriter and affiliates and dealers are legally allowed to support the open market bid during the offering. That may be an indicator that the NASDAQ offer threshold of $3.00 will be supported with a concurrent up-list/offering. Additionally, if the demand is higher than the number of shares given over to the underwriter, plus the underwriter's option to purchase more units, then the net effect is that a short position forms. In this instance the underwriter/broker/dealers will buy on the open market to cover the short position.
As I said before, there are a lot of moving parts here.
There is an enormous amount of information in the S1 about SGLB. The entire company is laid bare in it. The latter third of the S1 contains some real honey-hole information. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of current SGLB investors haven't looked at anything beyond page ten of the document, let alone dig all the way to the end.
The 'sky-is-falling' mentality of the fringe that is driving the stock lower is, in my opinion, out of their minds and unknowledgeable about the real story here. SGLB clearly states in the S1 that they expect significant orders of PR3D from the backlog of quoting that built up since the first of the year. They clearly state, where they discuss financials for 2016, that they have indeed closed deals that will bring significant revenue yet in 2016. That is clearly stated in the S1. It is not stated that they 'hope' to recognize this revenue. It says that it is coming in 2016. Yet our illustrious goof-ball investors think that they should just close the doors; nobody wants what they have. It is completely ludicrous to me.
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would illuminate the part that leads you to believe the S1 is dormant if the up-list does not get approved.
All the best,
Silversmith
SGLB employees have got to be shaking their head over the behavior of the share price.
Yes sir, this really looks like a stock who's company is at the core of arguably the next industrial revolution, is growing, is on the verge of probable large orders with the very biggest corporations of the world, is in the process of trying to up-list to the NASDAQ, is in the process of capitalizing for growth to the tune of $10 million, and looks to be set for a prized, key, position in the AM industry.
NOT
For the most part, investors who know about the company and it's story, and it's efforts, and would invest in an OTC stock, are flatly telling SGLB that 'They Do Not Believe Them'.
They do not believe that the company is in a promising position. They do not believe that the company is a serious player in the AM industry. They do not believe that good things are coming to SGLB.
Somebody is wrong. We will soon find out which.
All the best,
Silversmith
MODs, when we get the release of news about the up-list or successful secondary offering, or whatever is going to get sticky'd on the board web page, please go ahead and take my post down. It isn't applicable any longer.
All the best,
Silversmith
Just to make it clear to all, I won't be selling a single share of the common I already own, anytime soon. SGLB could come out with the mother of all announcements at any time. I want to own shares if that happens. Its called being there before everyone else wants in.
All the best,
Silversmith
My guess is that SGLB corporate has gone to the primary shareholders to help them achieve up-listing by buying open market shares to ensure that we meet the $3.00 minimum close. The underwriters put their proceeds shares on the ask at $3.00. The up-list effort buying at $3.00 ensures that the underwriters get paid.
The underwriters are responsible for whipping up investors appetite for the secondary offering. I wonder if any preliminary taste of the demand for the offering has already been had, or is going to be carried out prior to the fixing of the offering prices. It seems clear to me that the best scenario is that the offering goes fast and hard and to its full extent. Get the up-list done, and continue to grow the company. We are going to see some real volatility between the onset of the offering and through a period of time after the lock-up period ends. It is going to be early 2017 before the dust settles around here.
All the best,
Silversmith
September should prove to be an interesting month.
By the end of this week the NASDAQ approval team should have completed their initial review of the SGLB request for listing. They will return questions to SGLB corporate for responses. Then SGLB will provide the responses. Then we should see the NASDAQ answer for the listing request by the second week of September.
Meanwhile, the S1 is being reviewed by the SEC and should come in approved about the same time.
But already, the fun has started. Someone is going to be spending a lot of money buying SGLB stock; current primary shareholders, the company share buyback fund, and or others. The NASDAQ Capital Market tier requires either a sustained bid minimum of $4.00, or a share price close of $3.00.
Page 56 of the S1, near the bottom, I think I am recalling, states that the SGLB employees and directors are subject to a lock-up period for the offering of 90 days. However, the underwriting house and associates are explicitly stated as not being subject to the lock-up period in any way. My guess is that the underwriters and associates are the ones who put up the nearly 3% of the entire outstanding share count for sale on the ask yesterday at $3.00.
If the underwriters are only interested in getting the offering completed for the max cash raise, then they are not necessarily also obligated to support the up-list effort. Someway SGLB is going to have to insure that at least the close price becomes and remains $3.00 at a minimum.
There are a lot of moving parts here. With the wording in the S1 for the warrants covering three separation trigger events, and the 5 year anniversary expiration date, it seems that they are being looked at by the financial guys as a form of options for SGLB. The underwriting firms also have the option to buy more units if the demand is high, so that SGLB can take advantage of the cash available. It is sure going to be interesting to see how it all goes. The next few months are going to be busy like we haven't seen it before.
With the warrants having a 5 year expiration date, the prospect of significant gains with ownership of them is probably high. I think we all expect that within 5 years SGLB will be a much more highly profitable company. I am thinking I will hold off on further share purchases now. I am probably going to go after the warrants.
All the best,
Silversmith
Nice amount of money on the ask. It clearly isn't a big short. I am of two minds about it. I tend to agree with Jackle that it is the corporate securities firms involved with the S1. If SGLB paid them with shares, which you know they were to be paid someway somehow, then they are converting to cash now for payment. Or it may be a somewhat arranged sale. I wouldn't be surprised if the shares are taken by someone. Either way, it is 2.7% of the outstanding and a nice chunk of change. If they are taken before too long, it will be nice to see much bigger money beginning to move in SGLB.
Go get em boys and girls. Hopefully that will be the last of the 3.0 ceiling that has been holding us back for weeks. We have an absolute saw-tooth chart pattern crisply capped at the 3.0 point. These shares, or some just like them, have been available for many days. I have been buying my butt off already for days now, or I'd go get some of them. We have to eat them up.
All the best,
Silversmith
Thanks for that jeffx.
I would say that somebody needs to catch up on their DD.
All the best,
Silversmith
As best I can tell, this is a submission from the end of 2015. It is quite long. What I have attached here is the leading portion of it. It talks about how to do closed loop for the magnitude of heat output in the heat source, laser/beam etc. It might be some of the patent work Mark was referring to recently that they made more robust.
All the best,
Silversmith
MULTI-SENSOR QUALITY INFERENCE AND CONTROL FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
Document Type and Number:
WIPO Patent Application WO/2016/081651
Kind Code:
A1
Abstract:
This invention teaches a multi-sensor quality inference system for additive manufacturing. This invention still further teaches a quality system that is capable of discerning and addressing three quality issues: i) process anomalies, or extreme unpredictable events uncorrelated to process inputs; ii) process variations, or difference between desired process parameters and actual operating conditions; and iii) material structure and properties, or the quality of the resultant material created by the Additive Manufacturing process. This invention further teaches experimental observations of the Additive Manufacturing process made only in a Lagrangian frame of reference. This invention even further teaches the use of the gathered sensor data to evaluate and control additive manufacturing operations in real time.
Inventors:
DAVE, Vivek R. (3900 Paseo Del Sol, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87507, US)
CLARK, David D. (3900 Paseo Del Sol, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87507, US)
ROYBAL, Matias (3900 Paseo Del Sol, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87507, US)
COLA, Mark J. (3900 Paseo Del Sol, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87507, US)
PILTCH, Martin S. (3900 Paseo Del Sol, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87507, US)
MADIGAN, Bruce (3900 Paseo Del Sol, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87507, US)
CASTRO, Alberto (3900 Paseo Del Sol, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87507, US)
Application Number:
US2015/061420
Publication Date:
May 26, 2016
Filing Date:
November 18, 2015
Export Citation:
Click for automatic bibliography generation Help
Assignee:
SIGMA LABS, INC. (3900 Paseo Del Sol, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87507, US)
International Classes:
B22F3/105; B29C65/02; B29C67/02
Domestic Patent References:
2013-02-14
2013-10-31
Foreign References:
US5962065A 1999-10-05
Other References:
GASTEUIL, Y ET AL.: "Lagrangian temperature, velocity, and local heat flux measurement in Rayleigh-Bénard convection.", PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS, vol. 99, no. 23, 2007, XP080288082, DOI: doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.234302
DUNSKY, C: "Process Monitoring in Laser Additive Manufacturing.", INDUSTRIAL LASER SOLUTIONS FOR MANUFACTURING., 12 September 2014 (2014-09-12), pages 4, XP029437399, DOI: doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2016.01.099
Attorney, Agent or Firm:
WIGGER, Benjamin D. et al. (Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton, Two Embarcadero Center 8th Floo, San Francisco California, 94111, US)
Download PDF:
View/Download PDF PDF Help
Claims:
WHAT IS CLAIMED IS: 1. An additive manufacturing method, comprising:
monitoring the temperature of a first portion of a build plane during an additive manufacturing operation using a first optical temperature sensor;
monitoring the temperature of a second portion of the build plane that includes the first portion using a second optical temperature sensor;
detecting a change in state of material within the first portion as a heat source passes through the first portion of the build plane with the first sensor;
calibrating the second sensor by correlating the change in phase detected by the first sensor with information collected by the second sensor during the detected phase change; and
changing an amount of heat supplied by the heat source in accordance with the calibrated temperature information provided by the second sensor. 2. The additive manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein changing the amount of heat supplied by the heat source comprises shutting off the heat source. 3. The additive manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein changing the amount of heat supplied by the heat source comprises increasing the amount of heat supplied by the heat source in response to detecting solidification of the material within the first portion. 4. The additive manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the first optical temperature sensor is a single color pyrometer. 5. The additive manufacturing method of claim 4, wherein the single color pyrometer detects both melting and solidification of the material within the first portion. 6. The additive manufacturing method of claim 4, wherein the on heating liquidus temperature is identified by taking the derivative of the temperature and correlating the on heating liquidus temperature with the greatest value from the temperature derivative.
7. The additive manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein calibrating the second sensor comprises correlating the detected melt temperature of the material with a known melting temperature of the material and scaling the temperature data recorded by the first optical temperature sensor using the correlation. 8. An additive manufacturing system, comprising:
a processor;
a heat source configured to direct energy towards a layer of powder arranged on a powder bed in a pattern defined by the processor that corresponds to a shape of a part;
a first optical sensor configured to determine a temperature associated with a fixed portion of the part; and
a second optical sensor configured to receive light emitted by a portion of the layer of powder being melted by the energy from the heat source,
wherein the processor is configured to receive sensor data from the first and second optical sensors during an additive manufacturing operation and to calibrate the sensor data by identifying phase changes during an additive manufacturing operation. 9. The additive manufacturing system of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to send a signal to the heat source to change the amount of heat applied to the layer of powder in response to the calibrated data indicating a rate at which one or more of the phase changes is occurring is off-nominal. 10. The additive manufacturing system of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to periodically calibrate the sensor data throughout the additive manufacturing operation so that any fluctuations in the application of the heat by the heat source is recorded for characterizing an overall quality of a part produced by the additive manufacturing operation. 11. The additive manufacturing system of claim 8, wherein the first optical sensor is a pyrometer and the second optical sensor is a photodiode. 12. The additive manufacturing system of claim 11 , wherein the photodiode is configured as a Eulerian sensor and is able to detect heat emitted from the layer of powder in the powder bed. 13. The additive manufacturing system of claim 11 , wherein the photodiode is configured as a Lagrangian sensor and shares optics with the heat source.
14. The additive manufacturing system of claim 13, wherein the calibrated temperature data from the pyrometer is correlated with raw data from the photodiode to characterize temperatures of the part outside of the fixed portion of the part. 15. The additive manufacturing system of claim 8, wherein the first optical sensor is configured to be focused on a portion of the powder bed that does not make up the part being produced by the additive manufacturing operation. 16. The additive manufacturing system of claim 15, wherein the portion of the build plane that the first optical sensor is focused on is a destructible portion that can be separated from the production part. 17. The additive manufacturing system of claim 8, wherein an area across which the first optical sensor measures temperature is substantially larger than an area that is heated by the heat source. 18. An additive manufacturing method, comprising:
applying heat to a powder distributed across a powder bed using a heat source; measuring an amount of heat being emitted by a portion of the powder bed with an optical temperature sensor;
identifying when the portion of the part undergoes melting and solidifying phase changes;
calibrating the temperature data retrieved by the optical temperature sensor using the temperature at which the part undergoes the melting phase change and the temperature at which the material making up the metal part is known to melt; and
adjusting the amount of heat applied by the heat source in accordance with the calibrated temperature data. 19. The additive manufacturing method of claim 18, wherein the heat source is a laser. 20. The additive manufacturing method of claim 18, wherein the heat source is an electron beam.
Description:
MULTI-SENSOR QUALITY INFERENCE AND CONTROL FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No.
62/081,004 filed on November 18, 2014, and entitled "MULTI-SENSOR LAGRANGIAN QUALITY INFERENCE FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES," to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/185,910 filed on June 29, 2015 and entitled "System for Thermal Process Monitoring, Quality Assurance, and Control" and to U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/235,232 filed on September 30, 2015 and entitled "System and Methods for Additive Manufacturing Operations."
Came across this recently.
All the best,
Silversmith
Investment professionals target 3D printing industry for gains
View Larger Image
Investing in the stock market can be a risky business and an easy way to quickly lose a lot of money. However, the potential for returns in excess of those offered by more stable investments are an attractive proposition for many. This is especially true when interest rates are at such a low point.
I spoke with some of the team behind a new 3D printing focused investment fund to find out about opportunities for investors and how the experts select stocks.
Ark Investment Management LLC recently launched an investment vehicle focusing fully on 3D printing, “It’s a global equity ETF that is built to replicate the total 3D printing index that is owned and operated by ARK. It currently has 40 equity holdings and rebalances quarterly,” says Tom Staudt, Ark’s Director of Product Development. “The purpose of the fund is to provide direct access to investing in the 3D printing industry,” he adds.
Diligent investors must perform research to identify undervalued companies or opportunities for growth. This requires both a particular skill set and a fairly substantial time commitment. A professional investment manager can perform these tasks for you, in return for a fee of course.
Aside from research, fund managers aim to add value in another way; by reducing risk through diversification. Rather than place all their eggs in one basket, investors might purchase shares in multiple companies. Then if one company’s stock price falls this is not so problematic.
Individual company stocks often move through a wide range of prices, displaying what is termed volatility. Volatility can be reduced by half with a portfolio of 10 companies, and the standard deviation of returns continues to decrease, albeit a slower rate, when more companies are added.
However, portfolio diversification is not always practical for the smaller investor. This is due in part to the transaction costs involved. Buying and selling shares incurs a fee from the broker, and these fees will be a greater percentage of the total value when the sums involved are small.
What is an ETF?
An Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) is one way an investor can access the advantages of a diversified portfolio. Rather than buying shares in multiple companies the investor purchases shares in the ETF, incurring only a single transaction fee. The ETF uses the investor’s money to buy assets in a particular category; this could be commodities, bonds or shares of companies in a specific industry, such as 3D printing. Additional benefits include the favorable tax treatment of some ETFs. ARK’s 3D Printing ETF is traded on the BZX Exchange, the largest of Bats Global Markets (BATs) stock exchanges, under the ticker PRNT.
The 3D printing EFT trades under the ticker PRNT.
The 3D printing EFT trades under the ticker PRNT.
“We’ve done research on 3D printing for quite some time and we look at the industry as a whole. As companies surface in our research we add them to a big list that becomes our universe of the 3D printing index,” says Catherine Wood, CEO and Chief Investment Officer. Wood founded ARK in 2014 and was previously the manager of investment assets valued at over $5 billion for AllianceBernstein.
“We invest solely in disruptive innovation. Our research starts when we identify, a new general purpose technology platform,” she says. This is because, “You can innovate on top of platforms, and technology platforms tend to follow a declining cost curve which then spurs unit growth. We think 3D printing fits into this classification.”
Picking 3D printing stocks
Tom Staudt explains the process for including a stock in ARK’s 3D printing ETF, “The criteria is ARK’s research into the companies involved in the 3D printing ecosystem. The research determines the trajectory of the company and its focus, and whether or not it is included. There are also liquidity and minimum market capitalization criteria.”
Shares in certain public companies listed on a stock exchange may be less frequently traded than other companies. This means it can be more difficult to sell or buy shares if a counterparty to the other side of the trade is not immediately available. In such situations the company may be said to be illiquid.
An example of a publically traded 3D printing company not currently included in ARK’s 3D printing ETF is Nano Dimension. Staudt says, “They were included in the universe of our research,” but did not meet the market capitalization and liquidity criteria. “As they grow and become more liquid they might be included in the future,” he adds.
Such investment funds can be categorized as either active or passive. A passive index tracker simply replicates a reference index, for example the NASDAQ or FTSE 100, and holds assets or shares in the same proportion as that index. Active ETF’s aim to produce returns better than the market through the skill of the fund manager in appraising assets.
I ask Wood about the recent reports that 3D printing stocks are overvalued, “One of the things we like about starting the fund today is that we are very focused on s-curves. S-curves start out by going through a hype phase, which 3D printing went through in 2013 and perhaps into early 2014, there were a lot of mergers and acquisitions during that time. We think 3D printing is in the saddle phase of the adoption curve.” ARK investment analyst Tasha Keeney adds, “If you look at the market for end use products, which we think is the largest addressable market for 3D printing its worth about $500 billion in total, that market is less than 1% penetrated.”
saddle phase of s curve
“Thematic investing seeks to capitalize on long-term trends that cut across economic sectors and geographic boundaries,” say ARK
3D Printing market to reach $40 billion by 2020
ARK expect the 3D printing market to reach $40 billion by 2020, this is almost double the estimates of independent consulting firm Wohler’s Associates, Inc. Tasha Keeney explains how ARK reached this figure, “We take a top down approach, which is also how McKinsey size the market. We look at the different addressable markets that 3D printing can have an impact on.” Keeney says these markets are, “End use products.” Based on those addressable markets, “We say ok, well what is the penetration rate we expect for 2020? That’s where we get our $40 billion estimate.” McKinsey are forecasting a 3D printing market of almost half a trillion by 2025. “That’s because they expect 3D printing to become integrated in the industrial manufacturing process,” says Wood. This is still a relatively small fraction of the $12 trillion global manufacturing industry.
I ask ARK for their thoughts regarding the hype around the technology in 2013/14, when even mentioning 3D printing could result in a formidable boost to a company’s share price. “That was too much, too soon and we’ve had a shake out since then. We’ve got a clear delineation in the market between the industrial and medical names on the one hand, and the consumer names on the other hand,” says the CEO.
ARK Investment Top Ten Holdings
As illustrated last week, in 2016 3D printing does not guarantee a company’s share price will perform well. “One of the reasons for the earnings misses [across the 3D printing industry] was the restructuring and the shake-out that had to take place in the consumer part of the market,” explains Wood.
But this was not the only factor that dented market confidence and 3D printing stock performance. “The 25% increase in the dollar which caused U.S. manufacturing to look uncompetitive in the global market place,” also played a role. Wood continues, “Ironically that is one of the reasons we think people are revisiting 3D printing because its going to collapse the time and cost between design and production and that the antidote to what has happened to the dollar in the last few years.”
Investing is never without risks, and frontier technology investments are arguably more risky than others. “Nanotechnology in the 1990s was the next big thing and it never happened as a group of distinctive stocks but it is happening within organizations, especially industrial organizations. This is a risk we look at all the time,” says CEO Wood.
However, despite the recent crop of “3D printing is dead” type articles ARK are confident this is far from the case. Wood explains, “What I find interesting is the number of mentions [of 3D printing in earning reports] sky-rocketed through 2013, they peaked there for a while and then went through a slight decline. And just recently in the last quarter, [mentions have] broken out to new highs. As an investor I look at that and I think that is a signal that something is gaining momentum here.”
As ARK’s investment analyst Keeney says, “Its hard to say that something has hit its peak when it hasn’t really even started yet.”
Duly noted Windbag. I have added another criteria to my list of questions to be answered before I move into any future stock. Namely, what is the nature of the current investor base.
All the best,
Silversmith
We will find out before long chef. I looked briefly, but didn't see anything that proved to me I was looking at the right person. I didn't find anyone under those names, also listing MIT and Harvard for education, on LinkedIn. I'll spend some time on it in the next few days.
Alan- do you think that a GEA or Honeywell, knowing full well that many months time would be needed for SGLB to supply a large order, might tip their hand in a communique to SGLB, thereby enabling SGLB to attempt to somewhat time the split/up-list/offering? Might a simple letter of intent do the job for you?
All the best,
Silversmith
I think the whole up-list effort and plan was in the works since before the reverse split. In the conference call Mark was asked if he is being counseled in the effort. He replied yes. I am sure that many here thought he was referring to the SGLB board, or maybe his neighbor next door. That is obviously not the case. He has real-deal corporate securities people working on this.
But if you look at the first three reader's comments on the copy page that is listed in the Seekingalpha document, you will see why SGLB has been mired in the mud for so long. I have no idea how SGLB came away with such a mishmash of investors with the mentality that they have.
'You got any ID?' 'Bout what?'
All the best,
Silversmith
So I take it, Alan, that you consider ONVO's numbers, as well as if SGLB's numbers were similar, to be pure lunacy?
All the best,
Silversmith
This is all retail RFB. Has been for a very long time. $82 thousand dollars trading hands on a larger volume day does not constitute institutional by any means.
MMs are making their money the only way they know how. It is an exceptionally good thing to be getting of off this market. SGLB retail shareholders and flippers have no knowledge or interest in how to move the stock up. It takes MMs being overwhelmed to get this move up meaningfully. Otherwise it is all tentative action and fear for the majority of our investors.
All the best,
Silversmith
I sure wish I knew of a current big board traded company that could be properly compared to what SGLB does. If anyone has any good ideas, I sure would like to hear about it.
If you look at ONVO, which has been traded on the NYSE MKT, and is in fact moving to the NASDAQ on August 8, the picture is rosy. But it likely isn't a good fit for comparison. ONVO has been moving up since the announcement that they are going to the NASDAQ. It is yet to be seen if SGLB will do that in any meaningful way prior to the move. SGLB is going from the pinks to NASDAQ, not from the NYSE MKT to NASDAQ. Different kind of investor base already. And all you have to do is look at ONVO's numbers to see that it is a very enormously different kind of investor.
ONVO has never has a profit, has less sales than SGLB, and more shares outstanding. SGLB has roughly $2M ttm sales, ONVO $1.48M. If SGLB raises $10M in the coming offering at a $4.00 average price, then 2.5 million shares will flow to the outstanding, for a total of 2.5+6.24 million = 8.74 million shares. ONVO has 92.4 million in the outstanding, and 85.3 million in the float.
Yet ONVO is priced at a price to sales ratio of 266.6.
If SGLB were priced the same, $2M ttm x 266.6 = $533.2M. This would equate to a share price of 533.2M/8.74M =$61.28 per share. Obviously ONVO's shareholders think considerably higher about ONVO than does SGLB's shareholders.
Shareholders don't think highly of Materialise either. If we could come up with a good comparison company for SGLB, it would be beneficial.
All the best,
Silversmith
The really cool thing about all this is that finally we are going to see what the world thinks SGLB is worth. Once this thing freely trades on the NASDAQ, essentially all the most meaningful restrictions on institution's buying into the stock will no longer apply. The real world market will speak. I hope it is a shout.
I can imagine that the CFO, CEO, BODs and large SGLB investors are sending the uplist prospectus to every one of their contacts, investment houses, and who ever else they can think of for creating a push for share demand.
It will be fun to watch.
All the best,
Silversmith
MD,
The common stock is included in the uplist. A 'unit' consists of a share of common stock plus a warrant to buy another single share of stock at a fixed price. The warrant price will be set by SGLB on the day of activation of the S1. The warrant's fixed share price will depend on the closing price of a share of SGLB common stock on some date just prior to the activation of the S1. Then the units and the common begin trading on the NASDAQ.
So lets say that the common share price appreciates in value during trading because the market feels that SGLB in undervalued and/or has growth potential. In that event, now, the common share price is higher than the fixed warrant share price that was set previously by SGLB. So if you paid $5.00 for the warrant, and the share embedded in the warrant is already worth $6.00 because that is what the common is trading at, then there is an embedded gain in the warrant. At that point the right to buy a share of SGLB common, under the warrant's rights, should be worth an amount equal to the common share price, plus the immediate embedded gain. Thus it should trade higher in price than the common.
As far as the decision to buy now or wait for the units, I have made my mind up that for CURRENT share holders(and probably for those sitting on the fence, not yet in, but won't have enough cash to buy a meaningful position once the dust starts flying) it is better to own additional shares now. Adding now, in my opinion, should capture the pop in price for the uplist, and reduce the number of shares that might be sold in the offering, thereby reducing dilution. With the S1 offering capped at a maximum dollar amount, if the common share price rises before the offering goes live, then they will sell less shares in getting to max cap. Keep in mind that they do not have to keep selling until they get to the cap either. They can sell less if they want to. I don't think that will happen though. I think we will see large demand for the offering, as I personally feel that SGLB is significantly undervalued.
All the best,
Silversmith
Just for your post's last sentence alone, I'm gonna have to fly out to NM to have a beer with you, brother. We'd both be on the floor laughing our butts off about it.
One thing for sure though. We are going to find out pretty quick.
All the best,
Silversmith