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.
Criticalnugz, I wish that I could be a fly on the wall at some of those Honeywell/DARPA ICME meetings. The whole ICME thing got me to start investing more funds along the slightly over three years that I've been invested in SGLB. I considered this to be a huge validation of their IPQA.
Here are a few of my reasons for this consideration.
1) The ICME framework is utilized by companies such as Alcoa, Ford, GE, etc.
a) Ford Motor, for example, is using ICME to reduce the time and cost of developing aluminum castings for engines.
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/lean_and_manufacturing_production_why_advanced_manufacturing_boost_productivity/
b) ICME is being used by ALCOA, Dr. Ball noted, to
optimize the forging process, to predict process-induced bulk residual stresses, and to characterize intrinsic material properties
http://www.nap.edu/read/21821/chapter/6
c) ICME is being used by GE, Lockheed Martin, Pratt and Whitney, Boeing and others.
Please see slide 8
http://chimad.northwestern.edu/docs/SRG2014/SRG2014_Spanos.pdf
2) The establishment of the Lightweight and Modern Metals Manufacturing Innovation (LM3I) Institute as part of the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI). The intent of the LM3I Institute is to bring together materials designers, materials suppliers, product designers, and manufacturers to collaborate on the design, production, and commercialization of affordable, manufacturable, lightweight systems.
Guess who is leading the LM3I?? Our friends EWI and of course they are utilizing ICME.
https://ewi.org/ewi-to-lead-new-national-lightweighting-institute-in-michigan/
EWI is dedicated to the development and advancement of materials joining and manufacturing technology, however they have become one of the leading researchers into metal additive manufacturing applications and processes in the country. They hope to develop a 3D printing quality certification that can be implemented industry wide.
The challenge is to determine how multiple sources of uncertainties are propagated in a model developed specifically for an AM process, such as in reference [2], and then how to quantify the uncertainty of the resulting material properties and microstructure to predict desired performance in probabilistic terms. Keeping this challenge in mind, the topic requires: a comprehensive approach [3] to quantify the uncertainties of material and process model parameters; recommendations on minimizing both material and process uncertainties in production; and suggestions for acceptance metrics/criteria and tolerances for decision making.
One approach could be the use of physics based models or ICME tools to run simulations of the AM process to narrow down the uncertainty.
One approach could be the use of physics based models or ICME tools to run simulations of the AM process to narrow down the uncertainty.
PHASE II: Further develop and finalize the concept, processing methodology and/or tool from Phase I for metallic materials relevant to naval aviation. Design and perform experiments to validate the approach and to quantify uncertainty in standard test methods for determining material and process characteristics. Develop an uncertainty analysis method to assess the impact of parameter/model uncertainties on the output of metallic AM parts certification approach.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Deliver a capability to provide rapid uncertainty quantification for the mechanical performance of a broad range of additively manufactured metallic parts. These new approaches can be used to accelerate the FAA certification process as well as the NAVAIR process. Fast uncertainty quantification will promote a wider acceptance of AM technology within both the military and commercial sector.
In order to enable rapid qualification, Honeywell is developing a holistic risk based probabilistic framework that relies significantly on ICME models to optimize process to design intent and mitigate risk by incorporating process monitoring and IPQA. A high level schematic of the probabilistic framework is shown below in Figure 16. It integrates an ICME framework for predicting material properties based on processing parameters, with design and lifing models.
Dr. Ball’s presentation focused on the application of ICME (Integrated Computational
Materials Engineering) and ICSE (Integrated Computational Structural Engineering) at the airframe level, particularly the design phase of an aircraft structures development program
The particular application for ICME on which his presentation focused includes both the design and manufacture of large aluminum forgings for advanced fighter aircraft and the sustainment of those aircraft structures. ICME is being used by ALCOA, Dr. Ball noted, to
optimize the forging process, to predict process-induced bulk residual stresses, and to characterize intrinsic material properties
While noting that there are well-established NDE
methods for estimating residual stress, such as x-ray and neutron diffraction techniques, he focused on a destructive technique called the contour method (Bucci et al. 2014, slides 19-28).
Developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the contour method is based on the concept that residual stresses will result in deformations of the surface of a freshly cut cross-section of the
part in question (Prime, 2001)The BA-11 Team and Alcoa are also using the contour method to investigate the variability of residual stresses for both different locations in a complex final structure and
different specimens (six to eight samples) of that component. Dr. Ball reviewed some of the results from this work that were presented at the 2013 Residual Stress Summit (James, 2013).15
The contour data, he said, confirm there is good consistency across multiple forging samples of the same component in both stress field pattern and the tight distribution of stress values within
15See slides 23 through 26 in the presentation by Dale Ball.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Applying Materials State Awareness to Condition-Based Maintenance and System Life Cycle Management: Summary of a Workshop
PREPUBLICATION COPY—SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION
67
the manufacturer’s target zone of ±10 ksi (80% were within ±5 ksi for the six forgings tested by
the contour method).
In his closing summary, Dr. Ball said that the exposure of the airframe community to ICME up to this point has been limited. Now, with the availability of sophisticated models to simulate the forging and fabrication effects on materials state, and the increased use of ICME in
design of new materials, he anticipates that the airframe community will begin turning more frequently to ICME-informed applications.
In addition to the R&D work mentioned above, there are many active investments by various industries for utilization of AM parts to capitalize on the value-added properties provided by AM as shown in Fig. 4, which highlights some industrial examples for AM parts. In particular, General Electric (GE) has received Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification for fuel nozzle implementation in the GE LEAP engine, and GE Aviation will produce more than 100,000 3D-printed parts via laser-based powder bed AM by the close of this decade. In this case, AM reduced the total part count and replaced more complex brazing of multiple components to create a lighter, simpler, and more durable product. Other components are also being considered for potential replacement such as brackets
Most recently, America Makes co-sponsored an event51 to help coordinate U.S. standards development activities for AM. Key standards developing organizations (SDOs), including ASTM, SAE, ASME, SME, AWS, etc., along with a number of OEMs, gathered to discuss and facilitate collaborative efforts with the goal of initiating a dialogue on joint standards development for AM. These activities are being viewed as one mechanism that can facilitate product qualification and certification. For example, aero engine parts could be certified by FAA while biomedical parts could be certified by FDA. The overarching goal of these coordination efforts is to produce a roadmap that will minimize the amount of overlap activities across the various standardization organizations.
The qualification procedure prescribed in AMS4999A is a classic example of statistically-based qualification, wherein the uncertainty in the production of a particular component is understood and mitigated by massive upfront testing, followed by ongoing quality control testing during production. It is very similar to the procedure that has long been used for aerospace castings,79 where any other than very minor deviation from the qualified procedure triggers a re-qualification process. While such a procedure is suitable for serial production of numerous identical parts (such as the fuel nozzle mentioned above), it represents a high barrier for production of customized, repair, and low-volume components where AM techniques are often most desirable, and demonstrates a clear need for holistic, ICME-based qualification schemes that encompass pre-process, in-process, and post-process data to facilitate demonstration of part suitability according to a “qualify as you go” paradigm.80
This article is provided as an attempt to capture an overview of the various challenges to be considered in the qualification of metal AM. These include the need for various modeling and experimental activities, along with the integration of such efforts at the size and length scales relevant for intended applications. In addition, a proposed example of multi-organization collaboration towards addressing some of the qualification challenges was demonstrated via an implementation of an ICME approach via BigData analytics and cloud computing.
Ford invested $15 million over five years in this ICME experiment, which involved 15 of its own engineers and 10 university researchers. So far, the company estimates that it has generated cost savings of more than $120 million—a 700 percent return on investment—while development times have been cut by 15 to 25 percent.
DWOL, Yes I agree. I think they are fast approaching that tippingpoint where PrintRite3D would save quite a bit of funds. I'll continue to watch LEAP production developments but I do believe that Mark made his move to uplist because he's anticipating a substantial contract before EOY. All IMHO.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/safran-monitoring-leap-ramp-up-428118/
Safran monitoring Leap ramp-up
02 AUGUST, 2016 BY: DOMINIC PERRY LONDON
Safran is keeping a close eye on the production ramp-up of the CFM International Leap engine series as it works to meet demanding delivery targets over the coming years.
The CFM joint venture, in which the French engine maker is an equal shareholder with GE Aviation, has so far delivered 11 production engines – all Leap-1As to Airbus – from a five-figure backlog across three variants.
"We have 11,100 on order. We have delivered only 11, so we still have a lot on our plate," Phillipe Petitcolin, Safran chief executive, said during a 29 July half-year earnings all.
The production schedule foresees the joint-venture handing over around 100 engines in 2016, followed by 500 next year.
With General Electric planning to 3D print more than 100,000 aviation parts a year by 2020, including the fuel nozzle for its upcoming Leap jet engine, this figure is widely expected to rise, because it'll likely validate the technology for other mission-critical manufacturing uses.
I agree. Those numbers are realistic and I believe they will be achieved as long as CFM believes that their ramp up of LEAP engine goals of 100 by EOY and 500 by next year are still achieveable. Indications from industry are just that. I'll continue to follow what AM industry leaders are doing and saying. My recollection is that CFM produced about 8 LEAP engines in the first half of this year. They have a plan to rapidly production and validate those fuel nozzles and other AM parts of the LEAP. I firmly believe that SGLB is part of that plan.
This will require a rapid ramp-up in production rates: around 100 engines are scheduled to be built this year, jumping to 500 in 2017 and 1,100 in 2018, heading for a target of 2,000 a year by 2020. Total LEAP orders have now exceeded 10,820.
“With a backlog of more than 13,700 engines, the biggest challenge we face over the next few years will be to produce the engines at record levels while maintaining the quality and reliability our customers expect,” CFMI president and CEO Jean-Paul Ebanga noted.
Silver, Onvo has been my case study; thus, I personally think that it is fairly relevant. There are a number of comparisons such as being
1) Being a 3D play
2) Being listed in OTC
3) Doing a reverse split
4) S-1 filing
5) dilution of shares
6) Being a company with a ton of potential but no significant revenues yet
I've mentioned before that SGLB is following a very similar path to uplist.
They did a private placement on the OTC to raise funds just like SGLB did.
The company says it raised total gross proceeds of $6.5 million through a private placement of its securities to qualified investors. Organovo had previously raised about $3 million in debt financing that could be converted to Organovo shares.
The obviously overvalued penny stock of Organovo Holdings Inc. (ONVO) had their 2nd largest volume trading session Thursday for all the wrong reasons. ONVO stock price rose to as high as $4.50 after falling from their prior Seeking Alpha PR pump high of $10.90 after some of the truths already available to the public were exposed. We are willing to go even further to state that ONVO, not only will be at $1 before the end of July, but that it will fall below $1 soon after. Why?
SAN DIEGO, July 9, 2013 /PRNewswire/ — Organovo Holdings, Inc. (ONVO), a biotechnology company focused on delivering breakthrough three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting technology, is pleased to announce that its common shares have been approved to list on the NYSE MKT and will begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange on July 11, 2013. The Company will continue to trade under the symbol “ONVO” but will withdraw its shares from listing on the OTC QX concurrent with listing its shares on the NYSE MKT, the premier US equities market for listing and trading of small growth companies.
The company’s flagship commercial product is the exVive 3D Human Liver Assays and although management has decided not to reveal information on its sales until later this year, there is no doubt that the potential market is massive. Also, Organovo won’t be banking on this product alone as it plans to develop a kidney which will command higher prices compared to the liver. With the increased visibility of a national listing, the company will be able to raise capital to fund subsequent trials at more favourable terms.
Steve,
True, I do understand you have a very good concern and good ones at that given that more dilution is on the way towards raising funds for investment and uplist. I shall temper my excitement a bit as I continue to read thru the S-1. You have been waiting much longer than I. It's only been three years here for me. I'm down but also confident! Good Luck!
Yes indeed! Thanks Silversmith. We are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel to uplisting and production contracts. We knew that hiring CFO Murray Williams was an indicator. This S1 is another big one. I'm looking forward to the announcements.
Awesome Thanks jeff. Expecting news sooner than later now. Dot + Dot + Dot = Success!
Thanks for the post.
Thank you
I for one am upbeat about the CFO addition. I certainly view this as another step toward uplisting. It was exciting news to me as I believe that Mark is doing a great job. Great progress is being made SGLB is the market leader in in process quality assurance and is perfectly positioned to capture business as it come to fruition. I like the slowly but surely approach. Mark is following a similiar approach that ONVO took toward uplisting IMHO. Good Luck.
Thanks Z. Great news indeed. CFO is another checkbox filled towards uplisting. I'm thinking maybe my expectation of a GE order maybe sooner than EOY or Q1 2017. Guess we'll see in the next several months. Some uplisting reading for the curious minds.
Tracking potential uplisting candidates is well worth the effort because uplistings typically result in a significant inflow of new investor demand to a previously underfollowed stock. There are many institutional investors who may be very interested in a specific sector or company but who will simply not invest in an OTC stock.
As soon as the stock becomes Nasdaq or Amex listed, those funds will jump in immediately, giving the stock a boost. Due to the lack of institutional following, many research analysts are reluctant to initiate coverage on OTC stocks, which in itself contributes to a lack of investment by institution funds.
In order to identify and track potential uplisting candidates, it is important to understand the criteria for an uplisting and watch for OTC traded companies that are actively looking to fulfill these criteria.
The most obvious criteria that issuers seek to satisfy are stock-price thresholds and corporate governance requirements. The Amex requires a minimum share price of $3 and the Nasdaq requires $4. As a result, small-cap companies that intend to uplist will typically undergo a reverse split in order to meet the minimum share price level. DEER, RINO, CBEH, PUDZ and CAGC all underwent this identical process.
A second tip-off is a ticker change or other corporate governance changes that are done to accommodate the listing. For example, Puda reincorporated in Delaware just prior to the uplisting. Another change to watch is changes to the composition of the board of directors. These are done to satisfy listing requirements at the Nasdaq and Amex which require a certain minimum number of independent directors on audit and compensation committees.
A third tip-off is when institutional investors are already taking an interest in an OTC stock. This was the case for both CAGC and PUDZ, which both presented at Rodman & Renshaw ( RODM). It is also the case for potential uplisters LLFH and CBPO, both of which still trade OTC and yet were featured presenters at Rodman & Renshaw.
China Biologic Products, China Digital Communications and L&L International Holdings all show signs of being in the next round of uplistings.
CBPO recently presented at the Rodman & Renshaw conference in New York and recently raised more than $9 million in a private placement. The company completed its reverse split in 2008 and currently trades at $5.80, well above the threshold for Nasdaq or Amex.
L&L also attended the Rodman & Renshaw conference. Last year the company conducted reverse split and changed its accounting firm to Kabani & Co., a well-known U.S.- listed small-cap firm. The stock is currently trading at $4.75.
China Digital has publicly stated that it is looking into an uplisting and is currently looking to hire an international CFO. Following its 10:1 split in July, the company now trades at $4.30.
Many investors had accurately predicted the up-listing of Puda and China Agritech for much of this year, and yet when the uplisting occurred, there was still a significant run-up in the stock price. Why does this profit opportunity persist?
I believe it is simply because institutional funds and research providers avoid OTC stocks, leaving that category of investing to the individual investor. For those of us willing to play this corner of the market, this seems like one case where the individual investor might have an actual advantage over the institutions.
-- Written by Rick Pearson in Beijing
Fact No. 1. Uplisting isn't automatic. After a company meets all of the requirements for an uplisting, including financial requirements, corporate governance requirements and share price, it is still up to Nasdaq or Amex to give final approval. Sometimes, as in the case of SinoCoking ( SCOK), this happens almost immediately. Other times, as in the case of Subaye ( SBAY), it can take a number of weeks. The conclusions are that timing on uplistings is uncertain, timing depends entirely on Nasdaq approval, and it pays to be patient. Because I missed out on the massive Sinocoking run and a few others, I typically try to get in early and then be patient rather than waiting until it is too late.
Fact No. 2. The required share price to uplist to Nasdaq is $4. The price is determined by the bid price, not the closing price, of the stock. In April 2009, Nasdaq lowered its share price threshold to $4 from $5. This was presumably due to the impact that the financial crisis had on share prices, but could also be seen as a move to take some business from the Amex exchange. Both the Amex and the Nasdaq charge substantial listing fees to companies for listing on their exchanges and both are eager to maximize revenue. Amex has a lower required share price of $2 to $3 for an uplisting.
Fact No. 3. It doesn't take 90 trading days with a bid above $4 to uplist to Nasdaq.
The 90-day misconception comes from the fact that some companies that are not yet profitable and that lack an adequate operating history can still list on Nasdaq, but only if their bid price is above $4 for 90 consecutive trading days and if they meet other criteria.
Fact No. 4 . Reverse splits are a sign of good things for companies on the way up, but a sign of bad things for companies on the way down.
In order to meet the minimum share price requirements for Nasdaq, many companies will conduct a reverse split. This is perfectly acceptable to the exchange, and the post-split share price will be evaluated accordingly.
Using a reverse split to raise the share price and obtain an uplisting is a very positive sign for a company and is much different than companies that use a reverse split to prevent being delisted.
DWOL, Thanks for sharing. My speculation is when a multi-license contract is announced with GE. No doubt ever in my mind that major developmental work continues between GE and Sigma Labs. I'm anxiously awaiting the completion of the work between all these companies in the supply chain. My expectation is that Printrite 3D will be selling like hot cakes.
BMW and Rolls Royce both signed NDA's with Sigma Labs.
“Additive technologies will be one of the main production methods of the future for the BMW Group – with promising potential. The integration of additively-manufactured components into Rolls-Royce series production is another important milestone for us on the road to using this method on a large-scale. By utilising new technologies, we will be able to shorten production times further in the future and increasingly exploit the potential of tool-less manufacturing methods.”
Stocker,
Thanks for sharing.
Kanya, Yes, I believe that end 2016 to 1st quarter 2017 will be the time that rapid qualification is ready to be implemented to maintain the projected production schedule. The dots continue to line up.
This will require a rapid ramp-up in production rates: around 100 engines are scheduled to be built this year, jumping to 500 in 2017 and 1,100 in 2018, heading for a target of 2,000 a year by 2020. Total LEAP orders have now exceeded 10,820.
“With a backlog of more than 13,700 engines, the biggest challenge we face over the next few years will be to produce the engines at record levels while maintaining the quality and reliability our customers expect,” CFMI president and CEO Jean-Paul Ebanga noted.
Thought some Longs would find this interesting:
Major Manufacturers Analysis of Military Aircraft Actuation System
1 Honeywell International
2 Moog
3 Parker Aerospace
4 Rockwell Collins
5 United Technologies (UTC)
6 Curtiss Wright
7 Eaton
8 GE Aviation
9 Saab
10 Woodward
http://prsync.com/wiseguy-research-consultants-pvt-ltd/--global-military-aircraft-actuation-system-consumption-market-size-share-trends-opportunities--forecast-1001421/
Yep. I'm one of those upside down investors. I saw the future a bit too early based on the pps. This news is excellent for us visionaries who see where this is going. There's no doubt in my mind that PrintRite3D will be utilized across GE once all the process is in place. GE will be the first and others will follow as the process is adopted by standard bodies such as ASTM, NIST, etc..
Kanya, Thanks much for continuing to share your DD on this board. Would be awesome to team this software to understand the oodles of parameter settings required to ensure consistency and identify that recipe that IPQA will utilize to ensure rapid qualification of parts.
Additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing, is exploding right now. GE estimates that by 2025, more than 20 percent of new products will involve additive processes of some kind. But there’s no cookbook that standardizes the recipes, which have oodles of parameters that determine the properties of the final part. “It’s like baking a cake. You need to start with the right recipe, then you need to have the right ingredients and the right oven,” Vinciquerra says. “A cup of materials science, a tablespoon of design and a whole lot of machine-control strategies must come together and yield perfection.” Technologies like direct metal laser melting (DMLM), for example, can involve several lasers as powerful as 1 kilowatt—enough to burn a hole in a wall—fusing as many as 1,250 layers of fine superalloy powder into the desired shape. Some large builds can take days to finish.
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?”
Well said Jackle. I always encourage investors to watch what's happening in the AM industry. There have been delays but things should be ramping up later this year.
Airbus is renegotiating delivery schedules for its revamped A320neo jet and has told some airlines it will be delayed by about two months, industry sources said.
The European planemaker missed a 2015 target for delivering the first aircraft, an upgraded fuel-saving version of its best-selling medium-haul jet, by a few weeks due to what it described as issues with documentation for new Pratt & Whitney engines.
Industry sources have pointed to delays in deliveries of the newly-developed Geared Turbofan engine from its U.S. manufacturer, a subsidiary of United Technologies.
There was no immediate word on the number of aircraft affected or the full range of expected delays.
Airbus and Pratt & Whitney confirmed they were in talks over deliveries, without elaborating.
Pratt & Whitney, the entity that manages the engine business of the United Technologies, claims that it has about 7,000 orders for the engine. However, nearly 44% of the company’s 6000 suppliers are unable to ensure timely delivery and quality control targets of the company. This has put the engine delivery schedules of the company in jeopardy. To avoid the delays, the company has resorted to duplicate manufacturers for engine parts. However, it is yet to yield significant results.
General Electric, the main competitor of United Technologies, is currently in the process of ramping up production of its single-aisle engine, the LEAP, developed under a joint-venture with French engine manufacturer Safran SA. GE holds the largest market share in the single aisle jet category. Both conglomerates do business with the same suppliers. This has put the suppliers under tremendous pressure.
The indicative price of LEAP engine is $13 million. However, aircraft industries pay only $3.7 million for the engines. This corresponds to a whopping discount of about 70% on the listed price. As the research firm Cowen found, to manage the competition, United Technologies had to trim its price for the GTF planes. That was more evident after CFM International (a subsidiary of GE) became the main engine supplier for Boeing 737.
Since new aircrafts are not developed frequently, the engine manufacturers are more concerned with grabbing as many orders as they possibly could as the opportunity will not present again for a long-span of time.
United Technologies also had an issue with its software recently. The software that manages the engine was sending out ‘nuisance messages’ while flying. Similarly, a key engine component had to be tweaked to avoid the need to cool the engine before starting it again.
I agree 100 percent.
T&L, Much thanks to you and the Longs that provide DD to the board. It is through your dedication and research that you confirm that Mark Cola is addressing AM needs. We are confirming our belief through research and not spouting opinion without backing them with sound research. It is important to pay attention to what the AM experts are saying and what the AM companies are doing. I appreciate your efforts and well as others here who are SGLB investors.
Thanks for the post concerning
Dr. Schafrik mentioned that GE has formed a joint venture with Sigma Labs
for real-time quality control. It is investigating a number of different concepts, and
preliminary results are encouraging. The intent is to make the resultant quality
control system available to the industry.
Thanks for the post. I really enjoy watching the moves that are being made. Mark is setting SGLB up for long term success. I like the S2 in place to raise capital. I like the reverse split. I like the the patents that have been filed. Everything is in place to capitalize on a big contract that will get the pps moving northward. Throw a little dilution in there to raise capital for the uplist. Uplist as other contracts are starting to hit and away we go! The SGLB story will be a big one and stoke institutional interest. I'm looking forward to that time. Good Luck.
http://www.design-engineering.com/features/barriers-additive-manufacturing/
The first step when trying out additive manufacturing is to understand the new design framework and capabilities, working alongside application engineers to redesign your part or product for the additive manufacturing process. This means creating a design that embodies the benefits AM has to offer.
Once the design is established, it’s time to turn the concept into metal, which means rigorous testing and objective benchmarking. It typically takes several design iterations to optimize the product design and the AM process.
For any new product design, the manufacturer needs to be confident that the production process is predictable and consistent, so a period of pre-production is needed to establish AM process capability. They also need to understand the finishing and measurement processes and tools they might need to make dependable parts.
These process steps will not necessarily be stages of a linear process for every project. Normally, several design iterations are needed before the ideal design is identified and often, designers will have to go back to the drawing board – or in this case, CAD software – to rethink certain aspects of the product. However, this is where the flexibility of additive manufacturing comes in, making it easy to create new design iterations should additional requirements be added.
Leading disruption in your market
Additive manufacturing provides many attractive capabilities that will disrupt product markets, supply chains and business models. To take full advantage of this opportunity, however, firms will need to adapt their design thinking – something of a leap of faith is needed. However, if backed by practical experience and sound engineering practice, committing to AM need not be a leap in the dark.
The first businesses to take the jump will reach the furthest and benefit the most. We can’t force people to jump. We can only tell them, teach them and involve them.
Thanks Jpi for this post and link!
Thanks much for your comment! Be well.
Recent evidence of GE Aviation and Sigma Labs working together. See slide 10.
https://www.naefrontiers.org/File.aspx?id=54383
I believe that it will be $20 pps and more but only after an announcement of production run contracts. I'm anticipating that as I know that you are too. I'm tracking GE as they are the undisputed market leader in this space and firmly believe that they would be the first to benefit from PrintRite3D. I see the rest of AM industry is coming up to speed as more and more companies are investing in factories to ramp up to Mass AM production of critical metal parts fro industries such as aerospace, automotive and medical that must adhere to strict regulations and requirements.
I base $20 pps and more based on another former OTC 3D play company which uplisted. For the newcomers Check out ONVO's story.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1550072-uplisting-to-expand-organovos-valuation
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/32221011/these-companies-prove-that-reverse-splits-can-be-a-very-good-thing-for-stakeholders
I base GE as undisputed market leader based on
GE Aviation will be producing 35,000 printed fuel nozzles per
year at the world’s first mass additive production facility in Auburn, Alabama
My name is Ed Herderick, and I am the Additive Technologies Leader for GE helping to spread the application of additive technologies across GE’s industrial portfolio.
Jet fuel injection nozzles are just the beginning at GE Aviation’s Auburn plant. Markiewicz says there are many other parts currently being evaluated for additive manufacturing in Auburn, but that they cannot be disclosed at this early stage.
"By conducting those inspection procedures while the component is being built, GE Aviation and Sigma labs will expedite production rates for GE's additive manufactured engine components like the LEAP fuel nozzle."
GE will use the technology of Sigma Labs in the production of the 3D printing of the fuel injectors for LEAP aircraft engines.
Thanks Jeff. I thought I'd share a couple of my reasons for supporting Sigma Labs. I appreciate your posts to the board as well. Good Luck.
We do have confirmed sales. What we don't have is a steady stream of sales or a steady drip of sales because SGLB is early to this space and waiting for mass AM production to catch up. The Early Adopter Program is so appropriate as it clearly demonstrates where AM is in it's life cycle of mass production of critical metal parts requiring FAA/FDAapproval. The companies that requested quotes are the Early Adopters in the AM industry for critical metal parts which will need to adhere to the strictest of standards while being mass produced. We know that GE Aviation is the hands down leader and many others are working toward the AM mass production of metal now.
I one big thing holding PrintRite3D sales up and that is Standards.
The standards are still being developed See: https://www.americamakes.us/news-events/events/event/264-astm-nist-workshop-on-mechanical-behavior-of-additive-manufactured-components
Once these standards have been developed I'm betting the floodgates will open up as Sigma Labs is working hand in hand with these organizations that are developing the AM standards.
The production problems are being worked out. The first mass producton line of critical metal parts will come from Aerospace which is specifically CFM international. The fuel nozzles are first then fan blades, turbines etc. The AM parameters are still being set.
Additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing, is exploding right now. GE estimates that by 2025, more than 20 percent of new products will involve additive processes of some kind. But there’s no cookbook that standardizes the recipes, which have oodles of parameters that determine the properties of the final part. “It’s like baking a cake. You need to start with the right recipe, then you need to have the right ingredients and the right oven,” Vinciquerra says. “A cup of materials science, a tablespoon of design and a whole lot of machine-control strategies must come together and yield perfection.” Technologies like direct metal laser melting (DMLM), for example, can involve several lasers as powerful as 1 kilowatt—enough to burn a hole in a wall—fusing as many as 1,250 layers of fine superalloy powder into the desired shape. Some large builds can take days to finish.
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?”
Siemens, Local Motors Partner for Development of Large-Scale Additive Manufacturing of Cars
Dr. Helmuth Ludwig, executive vice president and chief digital officer with Siemens PLM Software, says, “We recognize the growing importance of additive manufacturing and 3D printing for the global manufacturing industry. That is why we are delighted to partner with innovative companies like Local Motors who are leading the way for large-scale 3D printing. By working closely together, we can help advance this technology so that all manufacturers can better realize innovation.”
Local Motors plans to open three new facilities in 2016, all of which will feature LM Labs. Siemens PLM Software plans to be a sponsor of all three LM Labs.
“Between now and the first quarter of 2017, UPS and SAP will be working with co-innovation partners Jabil Circuits and Moog to develop the solution,” the UPS spokesman said. “When it’s completed, Jabil and Moog would determine through their SAP software what the optimal solution is for parts inventory. It will be as simple as a push of the button for the decision. Before then, we’ll be working to digitizing inventory, test and certify product quality from 3D printing – all the things that have to be done before going full scale.”
Moog another company who could very well be utilizing PrintRite3D soon.
http://www.logisticsmgmt.com/article/ups_rolls_out_plan_for_full_scale_on_demand_3d_printing_manufacturing_netwo
Rolls Royce Design Director, Giles Taylor said, “We will use additive manufacturing, what people call 3D printing. After all using mallets and aluminium costs time, and making a set of press tools for one customer’s car is prohibitive. So we’re actively forging links with additive manufacturing companies now.”
Jackle, Thanks much for this post. This definitely helps provide a timeline for anticipated sales. I completely overlooked this DD as I've been tracking GE and when full scale production is scheduled to start. I like to track AM industry news as a way of cross checking Mark's decisions. I've been impressed so far as SGLB is tracking with what AM industry says they need. I'm anticipating that GE will be ready for PrintRite3D by year end as the Leap engine production will finally start to ramp up as they will need more and more fuel nozzles each month to meet LEAP engine demand. The first two LEAP engines were just delivered April 2nd of this year. That is only 38 fuel nozzles which fits with low scale production and not mass production; thus, PrintRite3D not really needed to for big costs saving but as those numbers start to go up well... PrintRite3D sales here we come.
Safran is on schedule at least for now to produce 100 LEAP engines so 1900 fuel nozzles by year end and in 2017 should be 500 LEAP engines which is 9500 fuel nozzles. I'm thinking GE will be reaching that tipping point by year end. I have not been tracking Honeywell AM mass production anyone else been tracking where they are? Good Luck Longs!
February 25, 2016
CFM is about to start production of a new, more fuel-efficient engine called the Leap that will be the exclusive product on updated versions of the 737. It will also go on some of the upgraded A320 models.
CFM International (Villaroche, France) reports that it delivered the first two production LEAP-1A engines to Airbus on April 2, two days ahead of schedule. This delivery of the composites-intensive engines paves the way for installation on the first customer aircraft and for entry into service by mid-year. The name of the initial LEAP/A320neo delivery customer will be disclosed at a later date.
Speaking at a handover ceremony for the first non-test version of the engine in Toulouse, Safran engines chief Olivier Andries said output was on target and that CFM would produce 100 LEAP engines this year and 500 next year. The engine would be introduced with six airlines this year.
I agree that a foundation is being built here. I believe that the "boil" will be furious once industry is ready to mass produce critical metal parts which require certification via third party. Those quotes were requested by those companies because of interest as Mark mentioned several months back when the Early Adoptor program was extended. Mark cannot make those companies speed up their timeline to procure PrintRite3D which reminds me I need to ask at the next con call how long those quotes were good for.
AM non destructive testing is still in it's infancy and R&D is still taking place for the move to mass production. It is mentioned time and again in AM news. I still remain very optimistic. The recent increase in employees is very encouraging. It is a great sign that business is increasing and growth is expected to continue. The preparation for success is frustrating for many but the wait will be worth it. IMHO.
Thanks for the link. I think all this hiring is an excellent sign of business to come!
I agree. DR.Madigan is a great addition!!
It is the first year of an agreement of up to five years with the Army Research Lab to conduct this critical research. The potential value of the agreement is over $15 million, pending annual additions.
• Innovations in materials processing and additive manufacturing, involving Bruce Madigan, K.V. Sudhakar, David Hobbs, and Jeff Braun and their students.
http://mtstandard.com/news/local/updated-million-secured-for-montana-tech-research/article_b5e64420-7ab4-5127-87da-5abe1742e4d5.html
Patent application title: FEATURE EXTRACTION METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
Inventors: Vivek R. Dave (Concord, NH, US) R. Bruce Madigan (Butte, MT, US) Mark J. Cola (Santa Fe, NM, US) Martin S. Piltch (Los Alamos, NM, US)
IPC8 Class: AG06T700FI
Read more: http://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20160098825#ixzz4BDcuqaME
Optical manufacturing process sensing and status indication system
WO 2015148702 A1
Publication number WO2015148702 A1
Publication type Application
Application number PCT/US2015/022539
Publication date Oct 1, 2015
Filing date Mar 25, 2015
Priority date Mar 26, 2014
Also published as WO2015148702A8
Inventors Vikek R. DAVE, Mark J. COLA, Bruce Madigan, Martin S. Piltch, Alberto CASTRO
Applicant Sigma Labs, Inc.
Export Citation BiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
Patent Citations (6), Classifications (8), Legal Events (1)
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2015148702A1?cl=en
Asked if margins will fall in 2017 when GE ramps up production of its LEAP aircraft engine with partner Safran SA (SAF.PA) of France, Immelt said he expected GE to maintain or increase aviation business margins during that period.
"I'd be really horribly disappointed," Immelt said. "The LEAP is a big launch. But you have real adults that are doing this. They're as good a technical, manufacturing, engineering team as I've ever seen."