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.
re: the offer, hmmm
Just spoke with Scottrade, soon to be Ameritrade. I've received inconsistent information depending on when I asked. When I initially called and went over the offer, seemed all one was required to do was own shares by the record date to buy in.
The update is that the offer is not open to shareholders in the US or Hong Kong until, possibly, later. I did not get a clear answer there.
BTW, +46 (0) 31 710-3201 is a fax number. To get a recording or a human voice dial
+46 (0)31 710 32 00
re: Would this give them [GE] 90%?
No.
Assuming the worst case, that GE can buy all of the offered shares before little ones have a chance, we have-
Shares outstanding before the preferential rights, 20.75 million.
Shares in the rights issue, 4.11 million.
Shares held by GE, approx. 75% of 20.75 million = 15.5625 million.
If GE could indeed buy all of the shares in the rights issue they would have (15.5624 + 4.11) million = 19.6724 million.
(19.6724 million) / (20.75 + 4.11) million = 79.13%
re: Not participating?
If Elliot participates fully, yes, they prevent GE from getting to 90%, but will Elliot participate? The point of my message was to provide a way of thinking about how the percentages work, that if we all fully participate then we'll all own the same percentages as before, because it seemed in a comment or two that someone didn't fully appreciate how percentages worked in these cases. I just chose to cover one scenario.
The links I could find in old posts did not work, but I have this summary from Charlie Colton's post # 5104-
The following might/will come into play depending on the GE share holdings after November 1st:
*30 % of the total number of votes in the company - substantial holding level which requires the holder to announce the magnitude of the shareholding and within four weeks place a mandatory bid regarding the remaining shares;
*Over 50 % of the total number of votes in the company - voting control of the target;
*Over 66 % (2/3) of the total number of votes in the company - holder can ensure that certain special resolutions are passed e.g. directed share issues;
*Over 90 % of the total number of shares in the company - confers the ability to compulsorily acquire remaining shares in the company.
re: Interim report
Having just read through the report it's my opinion that GE's investment in Arcam is positive in that GE is able to support the industrialization of Arcam's technology during a challenging period.
Although Arcam has the only technology that can produce parts for low pressure TiAl turbine blades with the unique microstructure, and the resulting mechanical properties needed for that task, and they appear to have the only technology that can generate objects with site specific microstructure (the Holy Grail of 3D printing), that technology moat doesn't necessarily mean success. Promoting the technology, and research on the technology, on the scale that GE and Avio Areo have, while proving that the technology is practical, is just what Arcam needs.
Anyone still hesitant about the rights issue with regard to us little ones losing percentages should consider the following example that illustrates how percentages will behave before and after shares have been sold. Assume, for the sake of simplicity, that GE owns 75% of outstanding shares, that Elliot and us little ones own the remaining 25%, and that the number of outstanding shares is 1000 (I know, the number is much greater but this scales up and I'm too lazy for those calculations now.)
So assuming that case, before the rights issue GE owns 750 shares, and we own 250. After the rights issue GE would own 750 + (.2)(750) = 900 shares and we would own 250 + (.2)(250) = 300 shares. So then the total number of outstanding shares is 900 + 300 = 1200.
Then, after the share issue GE would own (900/1200) * 100 = 75% and Elliot and the little ones would own (300/1200)*100 = 25%, so the percentages remain the same.
You can generalize this using variables like x, y, and z to show it works for any number of shares outstanding.
This works as long as all of us take full advantage of the share issue, so, to me, this is not so much gambling as it is the prisoner's dilemma. I'm assuming that we're all rational individuals that understand that participating in the share issue is beneficial. That doesn't mean that we will all cooperate. I just hope we all do. After all, the "prison" of holding a good investment for awhile for good returns isn't as bad as putting our gains to risk.
re: Why price subscription rights at a 30% discount?
I'm reading through the paper on the underwritten rights issue but haven't finished it yet. Before I make comments on the paper itself it should be noted that if everyone takes full advantage of the subscription rights, we will all own the same percentage of Arcam shares as we did before the rights issue. So, GE does not have a hidden share percentage advantage in this transaction if we all buy the maximum allowed. An equation will show that clearly.
I've paraphrased a lot from "the paper" in what I've written below.
I'm assuming this is an offensive rights offering, not a defensive rights issue. Arcam is developing, they are not paying debt or keeping itself out of financial trouble. That's clearly stated in the link Arcam provides.
Rights issues associated with risk means Arcam has an appetite for risk. From what we know about their technology, it's a risk worth taking. But to reduce risk (risk to the underwriters), discounting the stock reduces the chance that underwriters have to buy any of the stocks they underwrote. In the worst case, companies are selling discounted shares to underwriters while paying compensation for it. I believe our case is better than that, Arcam is developing by selling discounted shares to underwriters while paying compensation for it.
By buying into the rights issue, shareholder's money increases Arcam's cash balance. Shareholder value comes from a company investing in value creating projects. Arcam is investing in value creating projects with this offering. So shareholder value is in the works. What's written below seems most related to the case of issuing rights to reduce debt, but, it seems clear that anyone not involved in the underwriting is at a disadvantage to the underwriters. That does not mean we don't have a chance at profiting!!!
"However, there is a conflict of interest regarding underwriting agreements as it is only the large shareholders, private investors and institutions who receive compensation from the company to underwrite issues (Handley, 1995). All but the smaller shareholders benefit from this system. If an issuing company are making a rights issue to reduce its debt, then the banks that have lent money to the issuing companies obviously are very keen that the issue are underwritten as it ensures that the companies are receiving the money to reduce its debt burden. Managers are also ready to do a lot of sacrifices to ensure that a rights issue gets fully subscribed, like setting the subscription price at a high discount for instance, as a not fully subscribed rights issue is seen as a failure (Cooney et al, 2003; Kunimura & Iihara, 1985). This means that it is only the smaller shareholders who can criticize the choice of using underwriters and the compensations the company pays for it. In the end it is also the smaller shareholders who are paying the price for the unused and expensive underwriter agreements."
Agreed, I misread it.
That makes more sense in other ways too. A nagging question I had was, how is 4,109,286 shares going to cover preferential rights? 20% of the outstanding shares, 20.75 million, is very close to 4,109,286.
Thank you!
I hope I'm right as well! That's why I've stated my assumptions and calculations.
So, if anyone else has anything to add regarding assumptions or calculations, I'm interested. I only know to use the assumptions that: market valuation will not change unless investor sentiment changes, and supply-demand determines stock price so if there are more shares offered the price drops. This is an unusual case of supply-demand in that the shares are offered only to those that are on record as owning shares on October 19.
re: share price after preferential rights
I'll do a weighed average to answer this, "Won't the share price drop after the record date to the subscription price therefore >34."
I'm assuming that additional shares force a drop in share price in proportion to how many shares are offered and that market capitalization remains the same.
The calculation-
There are 20,750,000 outstanding right now. They are offering up to 4,189,286 shares. Using a weighed average we get-
(20,750,000 * 40 + 4,189,286 * 30) / (20,750,000 + 4,189,286) = $38.35 a share after the preferential offering.
So, with as much confidence as I have in the market, (clearing my throat nervously), those that have bought in at $40 and have shares on the date of record, and fully use their preferential rights, come out ahead at least by 11%.
re: SEK 240 ~ $30 for preferential shares
By allowing us to buy 1 Arcam share for each Arcam share owned on the record date, October 19, for SEK 240, we are able to double our share holding without doubling the money tied up in the investment, but there's more, see the italic section below.
Lately Arcam has been trading at around $40, + or -, so that allows anyone that buys in at $40 to bring the average cost basis down to around $35, a slight premium to GE's offer about a year ago, but there's more to it than that. See the italics section below.
The statement about subscription rights is, "Shareholders receive one (1) subscription right for each ordinary share held as of the record date. Five (5) subscription rights entitles the holder to subscribe for one (1) new ordinary share in the Rights Issue."
Let's say you own 100 shares of Arcam on October 19. That gives you 100 subscription rights, so that entitles you to subscribe for 20 additional ordinary shares in the Rights Issue. So, at an attractive price, they're giving shareholders of record the right to more than double the number of shares they hold. Having 100 shares as of the record date actually means you can buy 120 shares at SEK 240.
At approximately the exchange rate we are seeing today between the SEK and the dollar, the weighed average cost basis of someone buying 100 shares at $40 that takes full advantage of the subscription rights is-
(100 * 40 + 120 * 30) / (100 + 120) = $34.55
I say that opting for the subscription rights will be good protection against share dilution. Having everyone participate fully, including Elliot Management, will prevent GE obtaining 90% ownership of Arcam, and all that follows under Swedish law.
Arcam resolves on a preferential rights issue of approximately MSEK 986
re: game of poker
It's that way for all of us. I, for one, have a relatively large part of my investment in Arcam because they are the only ones that have the particular printing abilities that GE needs for turbine blades, and others will see they need for turbine blades and more.
At some point, it will be unwise to invest more.
re: preferential rights
Thank you Charlie, that's a valuable post. I know I'll be visiting my broker for a talk very soon.
subscription rights
re: €29 MILLION REVENUE, contract update
SLM SOLUTIONS ANNOUNCES LARGEST SINGLE CONTRACT IN THE HISTORY OF COMPANY
Some excerpts from the article below-
“The total sum depends on individual requirements of the customer for each individual machine. The customer has the possibility to call up different versions of SLM 280 machines from the framework contract (for example single-laser or multi-laser machines). Depending on the configuration there are price differences between the individual machines.”
To put the deal in context in the first half-year 2017 SLM Solutions sold 26 SLM 280 machines, 65% of the total number of machines sold in H1/2017. For the previous financial year of 2016 SLM Solutions sold 65 SLM 280 machines 55% of the total number of machines sold in 2016.
re: GE Expands, But in a Different Way
That's the kind of news I've been looking for. Best practice demands that when GE buys controlling interest in a company, say Arcam, they assist in developing the company so it's worth more than the purchase price.
re: Manufacturing vision
Very odd that three of the same messages show up when I submitted one.
Manufacturing vision.
A talk about the use of artificial intelligence to create a "solution space" of designs to find the optimal design for an application. Additive manufacturing is the only way to build these optimized designs.
The Incredible Inventions of Intuitive AI
Manufacturing vision.
A talk about the use of artificial intelligence to create a "solution space" of designs to find the optimal design for an application. Additive manufacturing is the only way to build these optimized designs.
The Incredible Inventions of Intuitive AI
Manufacturing vision.
A talk about the use of artificial intelligence to create a "solution space" of designs to find the optimal design for an application. Additive manufacturing is the only way to build these optimized designs.
The Incredible Inventions of Intuitive AI
Electron verses laser beam speed.
I think a visual comparison between electron beam and laser beams best illustrates how fast EBM is compared to laser. The old cathode ray tubes once used for television should give you a good idea of how fast an electron beam can be guided using electromagnets. EBM is no different in that regard. There is no way to guide lasers using electromagnets. They have to use mirrors with mechanical aiming devices.
Titanium 3D Printing in Action - Electron Beam Melting (EBM)
About 2 minutes in you see the laser heating the powder.
Inside Concept Laser, The Maker Of The World’s Largest 3D Printer For Metals
re: GE and Arcam
I think lack of EBM promotion by GE has to do with GE not fully owning Arcam. So, returns on research and investment for GE aren't so clear.
EBM has far more potential as far as speed of production is concerned. Laser beams are mechanically controlled while EB is magnetically controlled. The later is faster by far. EB does not require post build heat treatment to relieve stress. Both laser and EBM require HIP treatment for the most demanding applications.
EBM has qualities that are uniquely suited to aerospace, for instance, the low pressure turbine blades and the mechanical properties they've obtained using EBM. That should hold true for structural members as well but they're promoting laser produced structural members more, or so it seems. There's something not adding up unless it is that GE does not fully own Arcam.
That GE was pulling some of its fluid mechanics specialists into laser additive suggests to me that they are trying to get laser to approach EBM results with regard to mechanical properties, however, they'll still not be able to approach EBM build speed, and they'll still need to post process to relieve stress, and they still are no where close to EBM with regard to site specific control of mechanical properties.
Arcam is developing closed loop build management for it's machines. That's a very important part of industrializing. By closed loop I mean they're able to detect what's going on in the build and closely monitor and control the electron beam to adjust for what is occurring in the build. The closed loop management is not possible for laser, to my knowledge, at least yet.
Maybe this is the question to ask, given the new CEO. Which process, laser or electron beam, offers the best profit margins? Which process has the nearest, in time, revenue-cost break-even point? Which offers the greatest growth in profit? It could be that a mix of both technologies is best. That's my thinking, because the printing abilities of laser and EB are complementary. One prints to finer detail, the other is faster, etc. Again, decisions don't seem to reflect what capabilities laser and EB offer, but that was under Immelt.
I think it's safe to assume that Flannery is not especially interested in excessive quality or pushing the frontiers of research. I'm still worried that Flannery will focus on quarterly profits in what looks like profit tactics, not the strategic way the Immelt guided GE. That suggests to me the Flannery will guide GE to use the manufacturing manufacturing process that makes parts that are at least acceptable with regard to failure rate and lifespan, and offers greatest profit. If part quality is the best and comes with profit, all the better.
Does this mean that under Flannery GE might actually choose EBM over laser for more manufacturing projects? I just don't know.
re: If similar decisions are made at GE Additive ...
It's always good to watch the changes that new leadership brings but that means using statements of probability.
The tricky part is that GE Additive doesn't oversee completely mature or industrialized technology yet, but it is technology that has the promise in increasing worker productivity in a robust and meaningful way for the first time in decades.
I'm going to assume that Flannery knows that productivity gains are promising and GE is invested in additive to the point that backing out entirely is counterproductive. So, he'll look for ways to increase profit in that division in the near term to fund longer term needs. He's most familiar with healthcare, and demographic trends favor orthopedic implants, so he'll prioritize implant manufacturing. Many additive parts in aerospace have been developed and approved or well on the way to approval, so aerospace additive manufacturing is secure at current levels.
On the other hand, I suspect that he'll look for ways to cut or not increase funding to aerospace research. Since a lot is already known about laser and electron beam production, and the mechanical properties they're obtaining, he'll want to make automation of additive production a priority for products in the civilian market. He'll try to find military contracts for research and production that assist GE in keeping their technology moat rather than funding research as they have recently. I haven't looked at company statements on this matter though, how much they spend on research.
There's rumors about Desktop Metal playing a part in all of this. I haven't looked into them yet, I just doubt, after reading so much of Arcam's research, that they have something to offer that should hold GE's interest.
Desktop Metal
I've seen similar things occur before where I've been employed. New management comes in that puts a priority on short-term gains. Everyone is focused on near term results so much that they're constantly surprised by new developments. I think of that as tactical thinking, not strategic thinking. It's tactical to ask how much profit GE Additive generated in the last quarter, it's strategic to ask how one develops a technology that promises gains in productivity and quality. The tactical question doesn't provide focus, the strategic question reflects GE's return to focus on their original mission statement, to develop and manufacture new technologies.
Valueline's statement is that GE management just went through a shakeup, however, their analysis shows GE to be a good investment. Apparently Warren Buffett no longer thinks GE is a good investment but for reasons I don't care so much about, that is, it appears he believes GE's sale of its financial division wasn't wise. Again, what is counterproductive about focusing on what you've done best for so long, the development and manufacture of new technologies?
"Meanwhile, Buffett feels bullish on a business that GE recently got rid of — he acquired $521 million in shares of Synchrony Financial, the provider of private-label credit cards that GE owned for 80 years before spinning it off in 2015."
Warren Buffett dropped GE and signaled the end of an era
GE, from Immelt to Flannery, the shift.
Immelt's training was in applied mathematics and economics, then he obtained an MBA. Flannery's was in finance before he obtained an MBA. I believe Immelt's background gave him a greater appreciation for what's involved in technological development than one who's background is in finance.
This is the first sign of the change in direction that GE will take under Flannery that I've seen, what's in the article below. There's a clear emphasis on near term profit for GE digital. There have been problems with the operating system, Predix, that GE has been developing. In response, GE Digital Chief Executive Officer Bill Ruh said, “Our resources will go to our fastest-selling markets.”
From the article-
GE estimates the industrial internet market will be worth $225 billion a year by 2020, and Flannery, who became CEO on Aug. 1, appears committed to Immelt’s vision of being a major player, according to two people familiar with his thinking.
But the 55-year-old leader, known for finance skills and making tough decisions, is likely to press GE Digital to reduce costs and lift profits next year. He also may restructure how GE Digital operates, bring in more partners and possibly sell a minority stake in the unit, they told Reuters.
This is not directly related to how GE will handle its additive manufacturing but the decisions being made now in other divisions should provide some guidance as to the decisions that will be made about GE's additive division.
GE shifts strategy, financial targets for digital business after missteps
re: "We could see a way to automate it."
My wild-axxed-guess.
They believe that additive machine management using computers and instruments can be developed that automates what currently requires human supervision.
Mesh size. I found out since I asked the question what the notation means. Pyrogenesis is using a standard notation for mesh size.
For -45/+15µm powder, powder with all sizes of particles is sifted through 45 µm mesh so all sizes of powder smaller than 45 µm is collected. Then what's collected is sifted through 15 µm mesh so everything that's less than 15 µm is collected on one side, and everything that's between 15 and 45 µm is collected on the other side.
re: New patents
Have been and will be in a place for another couple of weeks that isn’t the best for internet communication.
I like the patents. They show Arcam's depth in technology, and in protecting what they developed.
If I understand correctly, the closed loop in quality control requires monitoring both the build surface and beam power. I look forward to reading more soon.
re: LayerQam and xQam
These constitute the closed loop. One documents the state of the build in the powder bed, and the other completes the feedback loop by calibrating the electron beam. Okay, that's really powerful technology.
No laser technology has a closed loop. All monitor only the state of the build in the powder bed, not the laser beam.
So, that makes the moat much deeper for Arcam's EBM.
re: Real-time monitoring of laser powder bed fusion
I'm going to need to re-read everything carefully, just not now. That said-
The Arcam patents, if I read them accurately, which isn't a promise when I'm trying to read fast, seem to use the Compton effect to monitor the electron beam itself. They do not mention the Compton effect in the patent that I read. There's an inverse Compton effect, so one can use X-rays (and a spectrum of electromagnetic [particle] wave frequencies) to monitor electron beams, and one can use electron beams to monitor electromagnetic [particle] waves.
The difference in laser verses electron beam monitoring is that laser machines do not operate in a vacuum, so I ask, if you're using electron beams to monitor lasers in the presence of a gas, how do you get accurate results? In a vacuum, or near vacuum, using X-rays (high energy waves) to monitor electron beams with accurate results is possible. Can one use X-rays to monitor lower frequency laser beams? That I would like to know. Theoretically I say yes, but is it technically possible?
Monitoring the powder bed is another matter. You're right, it's there, so they must not have been saying that build monitoring isn't possible in laser bed manufacturing, but that the technology has not been developed yet. But I don't believe it's possible to document processes in the laser machines as completely as in electron machines for the reasons I gave above. In the latter, both the beam and the bed can be monitored, not so [far] for laser. I hope I'm right, because my money is on electron beam and that's one reason, the technology and physics moat.
So many articles, so little time (right now). I hope to read more soon.
Not necessarily off topic, I (Feinman really) submit to you the strange and incomprehensible quantum world, a.e., why the Compton effect, which takes advantage of the particle nature of electromagnetic waves, makes sense in the non sensical quantum world. What's this particle-wave stuff about anyway? Gotta have fun once in awhile.
particle wave dual nature of electrons
Why I kept saying [particle] waves-
Thomson_scattering
Why doesn't the particle wave dual nature of the entire electromagnetic spectrum doesn't make sense? Particles cannot be in more than one place at one time but waves are in more than one place at one time.
re: Arcam's most important patents?
If they've reached the goal of developing closed loop quality control, I see why it's important as they can document processes for all parts made during manufacture.
Somewhere in all the articles I remember reading that X-ray inspection wasn't possible in current laser systems. Maybe it's that they cannot characterize a laser beam using an X-ray detector.
Gotta read those patents, just not now.
re: meltless titanium and more
Meltless titanium powder seems to be a category that includes milled titanium powder. Meltless seems to correlate with "less expensive to produce" and not necessarily with much less quality. The topic appears to be a new one when I do searches on Google Scholar because there's not much. I say stay on top of it as best you can.
ATI or Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, is not a company to be trifled with. They've been in the business for some time. Recently they reorganized to focus on metal product production and when you visit their site it's really clear they're not new to the game. Here's a Motley Fool starter but I caution you, Motley has some real nincompoops writing for them so do extra research. In fact, a nincompoop writes about ATI occasionally, just not this article. I just use Motley to "window shop" for investments for that reason.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/13/5-best-titanium-stocks-to-buy.aspx
I have some money on Pyrogenesis but I'm not comfortable with their CEO, Pascalli. Current or ex "investment banker" doesn't a friend make me, however, some of the people on their board and some of their employees have a clear understanding of their products so that's where their potential lies. Management and company culture are very important to me when considering an investment so I'll keep a small percentage invested, look for opportunities to trade, and wonder if they can replace Pascalli without making their stock crash to nothing. That said, metal additive is a very real game changer. It's not often and in no way insignificant, when technology comes along that makes meaningful changes in productivity. So, there could be room for a company like Pyrogenesis to take off in a meaningful way.
Yes, I posted a press release on the warrants and it does sound promising. Where to find filings for Pyrogenesis? Here-
Sedar
I haven't researched these warrants but I bet you'll find them embedded somewhere in those filings. Let me say, I would LOVE that a solid and major investment strategy would include Pyrogenesis. Finance is my weak point. I'm not so solid on management. If someone can do the research on these documents and say they're very promising with a convincing argument, I'll change my mind about Pyrogenesis and think of investing more for the long term.
GE has been awfully quiet about Arcam developments and I believe that has to do with GE not owning Arcam but having controlling interest. For example, I've seen enough pictures of that laser printed fuel nozzle, and not enough said about Avio Aero's EB additive, which is major. They're setting up a factory for production of LP blades and repair of LP blades. They have a new turboprop based partly on EB parts. There is huge future value in all of that.
Seen from GE's point of view, they're making a monu mental commitment to additive that involves developing an institution, a company culture, and research around additive manufacturing. They want commitment on Arcam's part as well, and they do have that, but GE doesn't own them. My bet, Elliot isn't mentioned favorably at GE but I believe Elliot is doing the world a favor by keeping powder EB additive a somewhat democratized technology. Think of the technology moat and the natural monopoly GE would have if GE refused to sell Arcam machines outside the company. That won't happen because GE would loose their involvement in the additive dialogue, but you get my point. Elliot has also done anyone with stock in Arcam a favor, from the offer price of 33 a share to around 40, that's a 21% increase in less than a year thanks to Elliot.
I don't know the agreement about profits between GE and Arcam. It would seem to me that GE can gain by helping Arcam increase its capitalization.
re: 3D printed induction coils
I was wondering where the induction coils would be used in a car and it looks like induction hardening.
GH Induction, leading manufacturer of heat treatment machines for automotive transmissions parts.
Induction_hardening
re: Over 40!
Hey, it'd better be. Arcam closed at 335 Sek on the Nordic Nasdaq today. That equates to $40.69.
Since I lasted whined about Arcam trading a hen's tooth away from 40, at 39.98 then 39.99, then back to 39.98, then 37.64, it's been to or over $40 twice.
38 reasons why GE bought into Arcam and Concept Laser. In the link below, replace SLM Solutions with Concept Laser.
Some of the reasons not discussed or rarely discussed with key words to use in searches. I was not aware of the "high" error rate when using additive manufacturing, however, when the standard is "six sigma" that error rate may not be that high, just high in comparison.
The article makes clear that by bringing all of this in-house, GE can develop a culture of additive manufacturing that's conducive to industrialization.
38 reasons, why GE invested in 3D
- Spare parts for aircraft could be printed out on demand (or with intelligent planning) worldwide locally rather than shipped.
- GE can therefore focus its manufacturing risk and eliminate errors by concentrating its manufacturing risk on the Additive Manufacturing/3D Printing process.
- New developments such as gradient metals (whereby the hardness of a metal can vary throughout the part for example) will make new designs possible.
- Things such as the optimization of internal topology mean that leaps forward could be made with the technology. With 3D printing for example you could apply a texture to the inside of a combustion chamber to make it more efficient.
- Dual purpose parts can be made with 3D printing, so your bolt could be optimized to be a heat sink for example. Comment: I'll add, "n-purpost parts." Why can't a part can serve more than 2 or 3 purposes?
- They need to be able to control their entire supply chain in order to ensure that the LEAP nozzle and other new 3D printed products are launched well.
- The 3D printing market is growing by approximately 30% per year in revenue.
- Effectively if Arcam went bust GE would not be able to indefinitely continue printing out the parts for its aircraft. Since it may need to have spare parts on hand for two decades or more, in the case of 3D printing metal, it would have been too high a risk for them to rely on an outside vendor. Arcam or SLM’s demise would mean that GE could eventually not service its own engines.
- A complete industrialization process ending up in certified civil aviation parts is expensive and locks one even deeper into vendor relationships in 3D printing. Powder supply for example would have to be assured since any variability in this would have a high impact on the end use parts.
- More control gives GE not only more 3D printing knowledge but additionally also more room to tackle error rates in production.
When compared to many other processes 3D printing error rates are very high. By taking the entire process in house and industrializing two technologies GE can using its SixSixma and manufacturing experience drive down error rates significantly. This can give the company a comparative advantage in aerospace manufacturing in both cost and capability.
- Along with Additive Industries, Concept and EOS both SLM and Arcam are the furthest along in automating their 3D printing and post processing.
- Arcam EBM is quicker than competing technologies in terms of the part build rate (depending on the part and the requirements post processing could be much longer than this).
- Arcam EBM has demonstrable lower internal stresses in its parts than competing technologies.
- While DMLS has smoother surfaces and so (typically) requires less machining, EBM parts (typically) require less support structures which reduces labor cost in builds (again to a certain extent and this is dependent on part geometry).
- Their purchase now of both these companies puts other aircraft engine manufacturers in a tough spot. In my opinion other aero engine suppliers have to purchase a DMLS company of their own for fear of falling behind GE or not being given access to the technology.
- If GE were to take the Arcam and SLM machines off the market (as they did with Morris’ 3D printing service capacity, reducing global metal 3D printing capacity by around a quarter) the company would have the orthopedics and aerospace industries by the throat.
Comment: We knew that already, right?
Pyrogenesis mentioned in article on Ti powders. Look about a third of the way down the page.
GE Aviation and ATI developing meltless titanium alloy powder manufacturing technology for 3D printing
It's generally accepted that Pyrogenesis "patented" plasma atomization. I accept that Pegasus Refractory Metals is the original assignee and the patent was reassigned to Pyrogenesis via a merger. In the day of "corporations are people" what Pyrogenesis claims sounds too much like - Hedy Lamarr's patent for jamming resistant radio guidance for torpedoes, but the patent is attributed to John Loder because they married after the patent assignment to Hedy.
insert-text-here
In the patent application below they describe modifications that improve powder production capacity. This is all Pyrogenesis work. This appears to be what they're on about with recent plans to industrialize powder production.
Plasma apparatus for the production of high quality spherical powders at high capacity
If this allows high quality production of powder at lower prices than the main competition at AP&C, who produces "an estimated 70% of the metal powder used in additive manufacturing," they're really onto something. GE's recent joint venture with ATI is all about economizing powder production.
Titanium alloy powder, I suppose Ti-6Al-4V. I think it's a useful exercise to shop for powder to see the prices. It's no wonder that GE is looking to economize Ti powder production by collaborating with ATI.
Titanium alloy powder for 3D printing
re: GE and Avio Aero 3D
I have to modify my conclusion in my previous post (5990) after reviewing this video. GE acquired Avio Aero is committed to the 3D manufacture and repair of ti-al turbine blades using Arcam electron beam machines.
GE seeks to improve the economics of ti 3D manufacturing through a joint venture with Allegheny Technologies Incorporated, stock symbol ATI.
Looks like, from the video, Greg Morris is leading the laser melting group. There are three sections in the article below, "The Fuel Nozzle," "The Turbo Prop," "The Formation of GE Additive," and "The Future of AM under GE Additive." A statement culled from the last section, but I think we all already agree-
“We’re at the dawn, not the day or the dusk, of where this technology is going to go. I applaud GE for taking the steps they have to get involved vertically as they have in the industry. GE, along with some other very good companies, are going to help make this a very neat industry as we move forward,” Morris concluded."
GE's Greg Morris Discusses the Formation of GE Additive
Ti powder, GE-ATI joint venture.
Assuming that all that's found in the following links are accurate, I believe we can say that GE is committed to producing ti-alloy blades at some stage of a jet engine, and for that reason, they are aggressively seeking to improve the economics of metal powder production.
Italicized excerpts precede the links within which they are contained.
The joint venture will lead to the production of a new meltless titanium alloy powder manufacturing technology, specifically for additive manufacturing applications. The terms of the agreement include the construction of a new R&D pilot production facility.
ATI Partners with GE Aviation to Develop Meltless Titanium Alloys for 3D Printing
Looking further into meltless ti, "The meltless Ti alloy powders can be consolidated into mill products, or used to manufacture near-net shape (NNS) components. A vision is outlined for creation of a new supply chain producing meltless Ti alloy powders, leading to the production and application of innovative turbine engine components."
Meltless Ti – A New Light Metals Industry
In summary, the attractiveness of titanium PM has been recognized for several decades, but its potential is yet to be realized as an industrial manufacturing approach. The major challenge to be overcome is economic. New titanium powder products from a few emerging meltless production processes may provide an improved basis for further development.
COLD COMPACTION AND SINTERING OF TITANIUM AND ITS ALLOYS FOR NEAR-NET-SHAPE OR PREFORM FABRICATION
Nanotechnology to incorporate silicon carbide, and printing copper, that's loaded with potential.
I expect a lot research about the results they're getting so thanks for giving direction to further searches.
Printing copper, I can't say I've ever seen a cornerstone in a moat but that is what this is, another cornerstone in the technology moat.
EBM verses laser additive, a video comparison of the build steps.
Wish I could find a video of them building the same object, however, the videos do illustrate how much faster EBM is.
Renishaw
Renishaw
Fraunhofer
Fraunhofer building a turbine blade
Arcam. Here's where you see the cathode ray tube television like performance of their machine.
Arcam EBM
After reviewing a some literature I ran across the waste ratios and found that waste powder was consumed by support structures in both the laser process and EBM. However, in EBM the support structures did not need to be as robust as they were in laser, so the conclusion is there appears to be more waste in using laser additive processes, except in the Fraunhofer process. I had never seen the later before.
Here, a bike builder discusses working with EBM and DMLS generated parts and you see him remove the support structures from both. The DMLS structures clearly use more raw material and so there's more waste. From everything I've read so far, additive manufacturing involving a melt has similar needs for a robust support structure, but I found no video for removing supports from laser melted parts. Fraunhofer appears to need no supports in their process.
I can't quite accept that laser sintering generates as robust a part as electron beam melting or laser melting as they're not fully dense but it looks like Spencer Wright, the fellow in the video, is considering sintered parts.
DMLS verses EBM titanium parts