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.
Solar energy will get a boost from affordable batteries. That's why I'm posting an article from the New York Times. You can view that free of charge but the similar article on the Wall Street Journal requires a subscription. From the article-
The Bloomberg forecast is far more aggressive, projecting that plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles will make up 54 percent of new light-duty sales globally by 2040, outselling their combustion engine counterparts.
The reason? Batteries. Since 2010, the average cost of lithium-ion battery packs has plunged by two-thirds, to around $300 per kilowatt-hour. The Bloomberg report sees that falling to $73 by 2030, without any significant technological breakthroughs, as companies like Tesla increase battery production in massive factories, optimize the design of battery packs and improve chemistries.
Batteries enable introduction of electric cars
Arcam originated electron beam melting (EBM) for printing metal and, according to Cullen Hilkene, CEO of 3Diligent Corp (El Segundo, CA), “became the biggest player in the metal printing market” that uses the technology. Hilkene has also written that “Arcam has an effective proprietary choke hold on powder bed Electron Beam Melting (EBM) technology, which is especially valued in the med tech and aerospace industries for its abilities to effectively print titanium.”
GE Now a User and a Major Seller of AM Technology
re: Arcam's EBM technology is that the spot positioning is done electronically/electrically/magnetically.
I don't think it's terribly inaccurate to look at Arcam's technology as a cathode ray tube type device that can be opened to insert powder but their ray is powerful enough to melt metal. I guess we're in an era when many don't remember what cathode ray tubes were used for, television sets. That should help anyone understand how fast Arcam's technology is. Television sets had refresh rates of 50 to 100 Hertz for a fairly large area. Color sets had 3 electron guns that excited red, green, and blue phosphorescent dots. I suppose black and white sets had one gun.
So Arcam can program a build image and tweak melt pool and solidification development with software, up to a point. That's especially reassuring for anyone investing in Arcam equipment; they're not locked into technology developments for as long as when using laser, or so it looks.
Overall there appears to be much more flexibility in developing "build software," build rates, and mechanical properties of builds. I hope they have that down to site specific properties but I don't know. Jack Beuth has mentioned that as a possibility, site specific mechanical properties.
News about battery development comes often, but industrializing what's discovered is another matter.
Johnson Controls is deeply involved. That's where I would look for another angle on industrializing the latest battery technology. From 2013-
Johnson Controls advanced battery industry creation project
We have the co-developer of the lithium battery making noise, but critics say the laws of physics have to be rewritten to accommodate the technology.
Goodenough introduces new technology
Suppose Tesla makes lithium batteries affordable but they're not as good as a hypothesized new technology? That's happened before as when alkaline batteries were the expensive new option for the old style batteries, and now lithium is the expensive new option for alkaline. That may pressure the margins on lithium but companies continued to make older technology batteries and I don't think they did that because they were loosing money.
I'm talking about flashlight type batteries for now, but I don't think it's wrong to extend the argument to cars and such. After all, Tesla's battery for cars is lots of small batteries linked.
I don't know of anyone that can see the future with certainty. Maybe Goodenough or the nano battery developers have something that's economically disruptive to Tesla, maybe not. It's just I don't believe battery developments are always economically disruptive.
I saw $39.99, and now $39.98 but not $40.00.
It is comical to see that. Maybe I should put in a limit to buy at $40 for one share to see what happens.
Come on, just a little more, $40 please?
Don't know what's driving the share price up but it's comically frustrating to see it nudging up next to 40 over and over.
re: Federal government policy verses local government and the market.
People that run for president will try to do what they say they will do. In this case, coal, oil, and gas are favored. There's some state and many local governments fighting the Trump administration's policies on global warming and renewable's by initiating their own policies. When there are many un-coordinated initiatives on renewable energy it's much harder to gauge renewable energy company's outcomes, and the risk we're exposed to on the market. That Sunpower is a global concern with backing by Total is reassuring, still, there's our policies. We've handed renewable energy initiative to China and Europe with our latest policies.
Meanwhile, some have been writing positive statements about President Trump's statements about border wall solar when instead everyone should be watching the administrations actions and policy enactments. Most disturbing was Travis Hoium of Motley Fool as that organization has some credibility for a sizable population of investors. It's good to put these events in perspective. Two to three hundred thousand homes fed by solar is dwarfed by a nationwide, Manhattan Project style initiative on carbon emissions. The later is closer to what we had with the incentives for renewable energy and disincentive for fossil fuel.
If one wants good long view or near long view investment advice, go to Valueline. If you can't afford it, got to a library that has a subscription. Motley has some excellent advice, but one should always remember that the investor takes all of the risks so follow up with deeper research.
Tesla leaving the Trump round table doesn't surprise me. Musk has vision that Trump doesn't understand. That's frustrating beyond anyone's skill with words to describe.
A primer on Musk vision
re: osseointegration of EBM verses DMLS
Thanks goes to Flanker100 for finding this.
DMLS doesn't make fully dense parts like EBM so I hope someday to see research on the long term integration of not fully dense parts. So far, EBM appears to be far superior for implants judging by implants being fixed to bone-
"The fixation strength of coarse textured implants provided superior interlocking relative to fine textured implants without affecting BV/TV or BIC in both cohorts. Coarse EBM implants in a transcortical model demonstrated an 85% increase in removal torque relative to the fine DMLS textured implants. The thrust load in the intramedullary model saw a 35% increase from fine to coarse DMLS implants."
EBM vs DMLS 3D Printing: Which Method and Surface Texture is Best for Titanium 3D Printed Implants?
The entire paper-
Osseointegration of Coarse and Fine Textured Implants Manufactured by Electron Beam Melting and Direct Metal Laser Sintering
Pyrogenesis rumors
I didn't get a hint of a whiff of anything about any offer for any part of Pyrogenesis. I could generate a similar amount of interest in me by broadcasting the following, "rumors saying that I've inherited a million dollars are false." That's what this last comment by Pascali sounds like, a way to generate interest.
Pyrogenesis further remarks on trading activity
Duplicitous- Given to making deceptive statements.
The evidence mounts. His past statements about Pyrogenesis: (i) being the only company, that to his knowledge, is the only company that makes ti powder of the quality they do using plasma, when clearly they [and AP&C] are not Powder metallurgy ALD Vacuum Technology (ii) that Pyrogenesis invented the Plasma atomization technology (they bought the patent rights), and this, (iii) that rumors about a buyout are false.
Disclosure: I want to be a millionaire too but I doubt this is the way, though I might just be crazy as I'm still in.
With comments like that, my doubts in Pascali increase.
Trump and congress are hostile to renewable energy so it's not a good idea to put too much stock in his suggestion, building a solar border wall.
- Congress has proposed cutting 69.3% from Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Department of Energy FY 2018 Congressional Budget Request
- Trump appointed Scott Pruitt to the EPA. He's a lawyer with no understanding of the mission of the EPA especially with regard to CO2 emissions. If he understood the issue, he wouldn't be saying what he's said in the past.
From March 9, 2017 -
EPA Chief Questions Agency’s Right to Regulate Carbon Emissions
- Trump's budget proposal eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, the Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program, and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing rogram because 20 Department of Energy the private sector is better positioned to finance disruptive energy research and development and to commercialize innovative technologies.
America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again
Comment: With margins going so low due to oversupply it's difficult for solar companies to make a profit. Recent bankruptcies and quarterly losses in the solar industry prove this. So it's dubious to say "the private sector is better positioned to finance disruptive energy research and development and to commercialize innovative technologies."
- We've withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement, so there's no incentive to develop solar power to meet the climate agreement.
Serious government initiatives to support solar would dwarf a 1.4 gigawatt solar installation, enough to power about 220,000 average sized homes.
"Multiplying 812,307 by five, you get 4,061,538 panels in total. Since 72-cell modules usually produce 350 watts (W), you end up with about 1.4 billion W (or 1.4 GW) of power. Grieser says that's enough to power 220,000 average-size homes annually."
How many homes Trump's wall could power if it was covered in solar panels
Pyrogenesesis, Pascali.
Pascali quotes-
At 4:40 in the video at Pascali interview June 6, 2017
"... and of the quality that we make, as far as we know there's only one other company that uses plasma atomization. It's a company that we allowed to use our technology."
That's some careful skating around some thin ice when he says, "... of the quality we make, as far as we know." On the AMG - ALD Vacuum Technologies website there's this about plasma atomization-
PIGA
For the production of ceramic-free powders and for the atomization of reactive, and/or high-melting alloys, melting can also be accomplished by means of a plasma jet in a water-cooled copper crucible. PIGA stands for plasma-melting induction-guiding gas atomization. The bottom of the PIGA crucible shown above is connected with an inductively heated discharge nozzle, also made of a copper base material. This ceramic-free discharge nozzle system guides the liquid metal stream into the gas atomization nozzle, where it is disintegrated by the inert gas.
At 3:20 in the video at Pascali interview June 6, 2017
"... 3D printing was still using plastics, we didn't know they would evolve into using titanium powders and we gave somebody else the right to use it."
This I call a lack of vision in Pyrogenesis management. At the time much was already written about developments in 3D metal additive manufacturing.
AMG-ALD plasma-melting induction-guiding gas atomization
I believe it's a good idea on everyone's part to read Pyrogenesis past filings at Sedar company filings search
One risk that the company is exposed to
In addition, the Company has experienced and has been dealing with technical issues under an existing contract with a customer based in Asia since December 31, 2015. At the date of this MD&A, these differences have not yet been resolved and the timing of the resolution remains uncertain. Management believes that the Company has respected the terms of the contract and expect to recover the full amounts owing under the contract from the customer. As such, the timing of the delivery of the remaining nine units, which was initially expected in 2016 for an amount of $9.6 million, is also dependent on the resolution of the differences between the Company and the customer. There is no assurance that the Company will be able to resolve these differences with the customer in its favour either through settlement or litigation. If the Company is unable to resolve these differences with the customer, this will adversely affect the Company’s financial position, financial performance and cash flows.
See Pyrogenesis management discussion and analysis
Disclosure: I'm in but I'm watching very closely.
re: mesh size, Pyrogenesis
Thank you Nobahamas.
I spent hours on that trying to find an answer and never found one.
Anyway, glad that's out of the way!!!
On the other hand, guys and gals, I still have my concerns about Pyrogenesis management. I can't help but believe that they never wanted to manage an industrial operation, that any technology they generate is to be spun off to another company, or sold, or licensed for use by someone else. They're honest in that they've announced spinoff plans, but if I were buying powder, even if Pyrogenesis is making the gold standard in powder, their business plan doesn't give me a lot of confidence in them being a supplier. Who's the management team in the spinoff? How golden is this powder?
I would want to have confidence that I could sign a contract with them and get powder of a quantity, and during a time period, that I could get operations under way. Why not instead establish a relationship with ATI Powder Metals, or Teckna, or ALD Vacuum Technologies? On the AMG - ALD Vacuum Technologies webite there's this about plasma atomization-
PIGA
For the production of ceramic-free powders and for the atomization of reactive, and/or high-melting alloys, melting can also be accomplished by means of a plasma jet in a water-cooled copper crucible. PIGA stands for plasma-melting induction-guiding gas atomization. The bottom of the PIGA crucible shown above is connected with an inductively heated discharge nozzle, also made of a copper base material. This ceramic-free discharge nozzle system guides the liquid metal stream into the gas atomization nozzle, where it is disintegrated by the inert gas.
http://www.ald-vt.com/cms/en/vacuum-technology/applications/powder-metallurgy/
The other concern is management's vision. Powder metallurgy was a growing field during the time that Pyrogenesis claims to have invented the technology of plasma atomized metal and went into commercial production. Then, in Pascali's words, they gave the technology to AP&C. About that claim that Pyrogenesis patented the technology. Here's a patent application filed August 15, 1995. Note that the original assignee is Pegasus Refractory Materials.
Method of production of metal and ceramic powders by plasma atomization
Do a search on Pyrogenesis within the page and you find that the patent was assigned to Pyrogenesis after the file date, on July 14, 2000.
Plasma atomization goes commercial under Pyrogenesis, looks like around November 1998-
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026065799800071
We do have this positive news about a recent patent application from Pyrogenesis. I hope it's granted!
Plasma apparatus for the production of high quality spherical powders at high capacity
Question: Can Pyrogenesis shoulder a spinoff that has shareholder value when demand for Ti powders will increase at an exponential rate while at the same time there are competent suppliers of Ti metal powders.
Question: Is what I've outlined above the reason why they aren't getting much press attention?
Disclosure: I own some shares. I hate doing legwork like this to hold a company's feet to the fire, but I believe it's necessary so folks know what they're dealing with, after all, the shareholder assumes all risks.
Pyrogenesis, the curious notation
I still don't know what notation like -45µm/+15µm means but I've now found it on another document that's worth reading despite being published in September 2012. They mention nearly a dozen metal powder companies.
Titanium Powder Metallurgy: A Review – Part 1
re: protecting Arcam patents
If this news were about Taiwan instead of Japan, I would be much more concerned. Taiwan is not a Patent Cooperation Treaty member. Anyone out there familiar with patent law?
Messing around, looking at things side by side-
Arcam Q20 plus, the one for production of aerospace components, specs
Maximum electron beam power: 3 kw
Build chamber: 2400 x 1300 x 2945mm (W x D x H)
Maximum build size: 350 x 380 mm (Ø/H)
Arcam brochure
Japan's EB R&D machine
Maximum electron beam power: 6 kw
Build size: 300 mm x 300 mm x 600 mm
Build speed: 215 cc/hr as of March 21, 2016
Current Status and Outlook of Japan's AM
It doesn't seem to me that electron beam power would be too much of a trick to increase so I'm guessing that Arcam's 3 kw beam comes from design parameters. The minimum beam diameter is 140 µm. Question? Can they have maximum beam power at minimum beam diameter? I'm asking because beam power density might be a better way of looking at power.
AP&C's Ti6Al4V grade 5 powder has particles between 45 µm and 100 µm. So their beam is melting a few particles at a time at minimum diameter, but their beam can be redirected almost instantaneously, so melt pool size can be larger than the minimum beam diameter, and the number of melt pools can be more than one.
What a micron means, 10^(-6) meter. Below, a 6 µm diameter carbon filament, compared to 50 µm diameter human hair.
What a micron means
re: [Pyrogenesis] Thank you all for sharing your ideas. Even those I don't necessarily agree with.
It's always good to have skeptics around when investing as there's no protection for a shareholder.
I'm trying like the devil to find good powder dimension data on Pyrogenesis's new process. Regardless of how uniform in size and quality of powder generated by the new plasma process, sifting sorts powder sizes and reduces variation in powder size. I'm guessing they're saving sift time and expense with their improved powder generator?
So, it would be good to know what Pyrogenesis offering in terms of powder dimension. First, here's some powder dimension data from AP&C that I can understand-
Titanium alloy powder: Ti-6AI-4V
... with material safety data sheets that I can find-
AP&C Spherical Ti-6Al-4V Powder (Coarse)
Here's information I don't understand, e.g., -45µm/+15µm. What's up with that? Yeah, I'm assuming that means the range of particle diameters is from 15 µm to 45 µm, but why not follow everyone else's convention?
Pyrogenesis metal powder
... and I can't find the material safety data sheet.
I'll really commit when I'm convinced by someone that their notation comes from engineering convention somewhere, and someone produces a material safety data sheet. That might seem trivial but I don't think so. Stuff like that concerns me because communication is very important as is adherence to industry standards. I want to know whether or not the staff of Pyrogenesis have crossed the t's, have dotted the i's, and understand the engineering institution. I don't want to be concerned about company management and company culture.
The demand is great, and the likes of Pyrogenesis can do well, but I still look at them as too risky for a major commitment.
Disclosure: I'm in but I ain't "all in."
re: batch of faulty castings in France
Group LPF looks to be the supplier.
"The LPF Group is a historic partner of Snecma (Safran)."
"Our site at Savigny has an independent unit dedicated to the development and prototyping of engine parts. We are partners on the new LEAP and Silvercrest programs."
There's no mention of 3D printing on the page, just machining of forged and cast blanks.
In the "Assembly" section there's a photo of a technician working on a CFM56 5B or CFM56 7B turbine disc, maybe that disc is the same for both, and it looks like one of the low pressure discs. The CFM56 engine is used in the 737.
Group LPF
re: intent to dilute, Elliot
Market capitalization of AMAVF is 791 million USD or 6886.12 million SEK. (Google finance, I'm supposing their figures are in USD).
5 million SEK is about 6 hundredths of 1 percent of 6886.12 million. If Google is showing market capitalization in SEK, it's 6 tenths of 1 percent of 791 million.
My opinion, that's not going to dilute nor threaten Elliot's position.
re: factory mix, EBM, laser.
Unless something has changed stressed parts are best made using EBM and precision parts are best made using laser AM. Also, EBM low pressure turbine blades have gone through, and I think passed, FAA tests. Since this is a gas turbine factory I suspect they will need more EBM than laser AM machines.
re: metal powder by plasma
I suspect the improvement in the plasma metal powder generators is due to fluid mechanics. Dr. Christopher Twigge-Molecey is a member of the Pyrogenesis board. There's no mention of plasma in the patent, linked below, but a couple of ideas there have me thinking: sublimation, and shear layer. Twigge-Molecey has a doctorate in fluid mechanics.
"A gas mixer is disclosed which is used for mixing different gases in order to obtain a solid by sublimation or chemical reaction." There's the trick I believe, they may be actually atomizing the metal wire to obtain very small liquid drops that cool and solidify.
Gas mixer for sublimation purposes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You wrote- "I believe this spinn-of is worth double of what you calculated for these big AM companies."
Honestly, I have little feel for the value of the possible spin-off but I did want to add a little structure to speculation. At least we have a believable prior in what I wrote, what Arcam paid for AP&C, $35,000,000 CAD. $50,000,000 for Pyrogenesis spinoff? I think that's possible but I also wanted to write a conservative estimate.
I think it's very safe to assume that plasma generates the best spherical, pure, and fully dense powders for AM so demand will be highest for that technology, however, risks to that assumption are: maybe powders don't need to be that good, and maybe it's possible for AP&C to ramp up production enough to monopolize the powder industry. Right now I'm wishing Pyrogenesis's technology moat was deeper, or at least, better defined. They have something of a moat, but what is it precisely? Here's where I enjoyed my investment in Arcam so much, their technology moat was well defined and so deep that it amounted to a natural monopoly.
Another risk in this investment is that there is no proven industrial management group to build the powder segment up to the level of AP&C. While Pyrogenesis has a history of developing valuable technology, they do not have a history of large scale production. I think it's somewhat similar to the concern we had in the past about Arcam needing to industrialize their machines, and industrialize the production of their machines when at the time they seemed a bit too much like a metal 3d AM boutique.
re: the spinoff
How do we measure the value of the spinoff? Arcam acquired AP&C from Raymor for $35 million CAD in late 2013 or early 2014. Revenues in 2013 were around $6.5 million CAD in 2013 and they had 29 employees.
The question is, how much did Raymor pay Pyrogenesis to acquire the rights to produce Ti powder, or the equipment to produce it, or both? Raymor is private so no financial statements are available. Pyrogenesis was listed on the TSX by late 2011 but the transaction occurred around 2005. So no document that's publicly available has details on that.
So, the way I see it now, the expected value of the spinoff, with entirely subjective probabilities, is based on Pyrogenesis being able to manage industrial scale powder production successfully. If they're successful like Raymor I'll guess the outcome for value is $35,000,000 CAD. If not so successful, I'll guess $18,000,000. If a complete failure $0. I'm going with 45%, 45%, and 10% respectively, so we have
EV = 0.45 (35,000,000) + 0.45 (18,000,000) + 0.1 (0) = $23,850,000 CAD
They have 104,650,000 shares outstanding. Price per share of PYR is around 0.90 CAD on the Toronto exchange, so the market value is $94,185,000 CAD. They're now in micro, not nano, range in terms of valuation.
Anyway, we can expect about 0.25 CAD per share going by the EV above. They have several other products and services going. I'm just looking at the powder division by itself.
Now for a purely imaginary scenario. Let's suppose PYRB is a new company that has just been listed on the TSX, and has only this powder production facility they bought for 23.85 million CAD and has shares that sell for 0.90 CAD each with 104.560 million shares outstanding. Book value per share would be about $0.23 CAD so the price-book value ratio ends up being around 0.9/0.23 = 3.91.
For comparison, Arcam's price to book value is around 7.7 but peaked at around 20 in late 2013.
Arcam chart price/book
Remember, I used only the imagined book value of "the spinoff" to calculate book value and the price/book ratio. Only the expected value of the powder facility was used in calculating the book value The scenario I've given is entirely speculative but helps me evaluate, with not the most confidence, the value of the shares that we may eventually own in "the spinoff."
re: metal powder production
I can't find anyone else that produces metal powder using plasma atomization. Plasma atomization generates particles with diameters ranging from 0 to 200 µm. Other processes generate particles with at least a 50 µm diameter, [Wikipedia] so it appears Pyrogenesis and AP&C are capable of generating the smallest particle sizes.
Just looked at the Pyrogenesis site again. That's the notation they use for tolerance.
Pyrogenesis powder tolerance
Like Beaver used to say, "Get's me." I have not yet found any reference in any engineering book, nor in any site on the web, nor in any mathematics book that agrees with what they're doing. All dimensions have to have a tolerance and the dimension is listed first, followed by tolerances.
I'll be happy to learn something new, however, I'll not bend so far as to agree, for instance, that the direction east is actually north.
Tolerances are not written like -45/15, there's a plus over a minus sign used for that.
If they're writing that way they should be directed towards their typo.
Particle size.
I don't understand the -45 part of -45µm/+15µm. In dimensions such as length, width, and height, there's no such thing as negative measure. That's like saying that a tree is -200 feet tall.
I understand, say, 45 + or - 15µm, not what you've typed.
re: consumables, real money
I'm not sure where the best profits can be found. I look for greatest profit margin. I'm guessing that, roughly-
profit margin = revenue - initial costs - variable costs
For powder, initial costs should be fixed as I don't see how the machines are exposed to much wear. The variable costs are the cost of raw material in the form of wire and employee salaries.
I don't see powder overproduction being a problem for some time so powder producers should see demand keeping prices up at a healthy level, so margins should be healthy. I don't know what margins to expect for 3dam manufacturers because they are labor and technology intensive machines. The technology changes at such a rate that variable costs are high due to the research needed to stay competitive. It would be best to dig into some Arcam and Concept Laser quarterly reports to find out.
"Buying into Pyrogenesis now is almost a two for one if you look at the value the spinoff has to the current shareholder."
That appears to be the answer to the your question about whether current shareholders will automatically own shares of the spunoff powder producer.
Pascali also seems to be using 3D capability and powder production to describe the same business that produces powder for 3D AM.
Just read the Pyrogenesis update on additive manufacturing strategy.
Pyrogenesis strategy
Pascali says, "As previously announced, it is indeed our intention to spin-off our Additive Manufacturing capabilities into an independent entity."
I'm not sure what he means because powder production is not additive manufacturing and I've not found any reference to Pyrogenesis doing AM. It looks like 3D modeling and engineering services are as close as they get.
Pyrogenesis engineering services
Does anyone have another source on the planned spinoff?
With regard to a Pyrogenesis split into plasma and powder products, I would say look into the Alcoa/Arconic split as a guide. It only makes sense to me that if you're a shareholder in Pyrogenesis that you would automatically either: (i) own shares of the powder business or (ii) be compensated for the diminished Pyrogenesis with cash.
However, I don't understand why such a small company would consider splitting.
Pyrogenesis, the building.
I don't know what to think of it. I know that greater things have happened in a garage but their building shows some wear. At least it's not dilapidated. It makes good sense to keep overhead as low as possible, but I expect at least a sign with Pyrogenesis on it.
I'm betting that recognition from the military is, at least in part, due to Major General Robert Michael Radin. The quality does indeed seem second to none but somebody has to get the word out. Maybe we should be thanking Major General Radin for that.
I can believe a 20% gain and no mention of it anywhere. I can believe it tripling in 3 months and no mention of it anywhere. That's an obscure company doing things very few people are aware of, and it's a micro-cap. There are 104.5 million shares outstanding. Share price has gone from about 0.15 to 0.70 in 3 months. So while market capitalization has increased from about 15.68 million to 73.15 million and Pyrogenesis has gone from nano-cap to micro-cap, they're still in a very high risk category capitalization wise.
Major General Robert Michael Radin and Dr. Christopher Twigge-Molecey might just push them towards expanding the way we hope, I'm just not convinced yet that the rest of management really wants that or understands what that means.
Pyrogenesis was established in 2006. Radin and Twigge-Molecey have been there since 2011 and it looks like 2013, respectively. They're both impressive but it's been some years now. Maybe it's their shoestring budget. After all, Ms. Maitre Vanessa Romano is both legal counsel and corporate secretary of the Company. -Reuters
Looks like Pierre Carabin has done a lot of published research. I would just feel better if there was a team of people at Pyrogenesis publishing a lot.
Pierre Carabin papers
Anyway, I hope all turns out well.
Pyrogenesis, markers for under or over valuation.
Look for good management.
Reuters company profile Pyrogenesis people
Governement of Canada company profile Pyrogenesis
Look for patents that provide a natural monopoly for a product that is or will be in growing demand. This is why Arcam has been such a good investment. Haven't looked through the Canadian patent office yet, but I will sometime soon. I'm betting that Pierre Carabin's name will be on a few of them.
Canadian intellectual property office
Some things look very promising with this company so I do have some money in them, but I do have some concerns. There will be growing demand for their product, their technology is promising, members of the board of directors look quite decent, and they have a history of researching and developing specialized plasma devices for customers. Flanker100, that video of McWhirter speaking about Pyrogenesis is reassuring. On the other hand they do not have a history of generating industrial product on a regular basis. The latter is their stated goal so I'm asking, can they manage this? So they're in an industrial area in Montreal, Griffintown, but has anyone seen a street view of their address?
Griffintown Montreal
Pyrogenesis on Google Maps
Maybe that's not the building where the titanium and its alloys will be generated, but those aren't the most reassuring photos from the street view. Why no Pyrogenesis sign?
I raise these points due to what I hope is not a similar experience in the past. I once had money in UQM after they recruited a manager from Chrysler and they seemed to be doing some meaningful research that lead to several patents leading to greater efficiency for electric motors for transportation. They had some bragging rights too. I had growing concerns after finding out that the manager was fired from Chrysler although, to be fair, it was a house cleaning. Then I looked at them on the street view and wasn't impressed. Then I asked what really differentiated their motors. Answer, not much, then I sold after a loss. Never went back and after looking at their stock just now, I certainly don't regret it.
Anyway, I did as much digging on Pyrogenesis as I have time to do for now. I believe they're worth investing in but I wish I had more confidence in their success.
GE's 3D "ad." Of all the places, I saw this linked on Facebook.
THIS TINY 3D PRINTED JET ENGINE COULD HAVE BIG PROMISE
Arcam research.
Some assertions about electron beam additive manufacturing need clarifying so we all know the advantages and disadvantages for EBM and laser AM.
It's been said before that EBM is the only technology that has shown promise for site specific manipulation of metal grain structure. That's true, but grain growth direction can be manipulated with laser which means, I suppose, that laser can't manipulate grain structure on as small a scale as EB.
"Within the context of AM, Dinda et al.5 were the first to report on the ability to steer the growth direction of grains through changing the direction of the laser heat source. Later, Dehoff et al.6 demonstrated the premise of texture control within AM materials in a site-specific manner in the electron beam melting (EBM) process, through manipulation of the thermal conditions within the melt pool in the different regions, although not in a perfect manner. Recently, Helmer et al.7,8 have shown the ability to influence the grain structure in the EBM process for Inconel 718 through changing the parameters associated with the standard raster scan strategy utilized by the process."
Strategy for Texture Management in Metals Additive Manufacturing
There's also discussion about producing anisotropic verses isotropic areas in a build.
re: self-flagellation
Investment discipline means adhering to a set of standards. Self-flagellation is how one perseveres in the face of a loss. So when investing, take your bullwhip with you.
However, thank you Flanker100. I put a little on Pyrogenesis. I've limited my flagellation to 20 strokes instead of 40.
Bullwhip
Whipping Post
re: imagining plastic by EBM
That's looking to me like a patent writer trying to cover all bases although they might be onto something. So I'm, for now, letting plastic forms by EBM remain in the plausible space of outcomes. After all there is this, and more-
The Formation of a Connection between Carbon Nanotubes in an Electron Beam
conductive polymers
I think that Arcam printing polymers would be a huge development and would not be something mentioned as perfunctorily as she did in the video. I find nothing on Google Scholar relating Arcam to search words "electron beam manipulation carbon atoms." I do get lots of citations on electron beams and carbon nanotubes.
Hmmm ... , wish I knew more about physical chemistry right now.
re: ITER and EBM
The technological hoops to jump through to get this going are all enormous. I'm glad to see they're using metal printing.
Thanks to knowing a couple of the researchers, I got to see the stellarator fire up once at ORNL for a mircrosecond or two. That was back in 1993. That's all that was possible and that day, though I couldn't detect it, they had a good "run." The stellarator does not use a strict toroid geometry so the confinement space looks somewhat like a donut with spiraling ridges.
Talking first hand with these people helps you appreciate the enormity of the task, but they were strangely optimistic. I hope they're right, that we'll have harnessed fusion energy to produce electricity within, say, a decade.
ORNL fusion research
re: Listen closely to the speaker
No way around that, she said that Arcam is printing metal and plastic. Oops, but maybe serendipitous.
EBM can be used with only conductive materials, and carbon can be conductive as in the allotrope graphite. So, I ask, does conductivity have to be a property at the atomic level for EBM to work?
re: intelligent computer safeguards
Now there's a can of worms! There's no anser. I would say now that everything below is off topic, so I'll send out only one reply.
A fairly full description of why there's concern-
AI revolution
So far, thankfully, computers are pretty stupid and depend on our programming skills. They do poorly at common sense knowledge of the world around them, only recently has a computer been trained to see the difference between a dog and a cat, and they're terrible when it comes to doing anything that's not rule based, say, an android cracking an egg to cook in a skillet.
So Deep Blue beat Kasparov at chess? Here's how that went, Deep Blue had a library of all past chess games in its memory banks. Deep Blue could calculate what followed by moving every legally movable piece in a timely manner. Kasparov was looking at what followed from moving one or two pieces. The results weren't so one sided as most believe. There were 3 draws out of 6 games in both matches in 1996 and 1997.
Computers have a set architecture with adaptive software, but we have a fluid architecture since we continue making new neuron connections while alive, and we also with "fluid software," as we can learn different problem solving strategies.
Computers have a difficult time taking optical data and deciding what defines an object. Example: Tesla crash in Florida when the self driving car couldn't distinguish the side of a truck from the sky (or so says Musk). I know the driving data for self-driving cars is good, but think of the problem of taking in color, color difference, and distance data and defining an object recognition algorithm. We can be tricked by a magician but we're pretty good at taking optical data and then knowing where the objects are.
A more in depth description of why some aren't concerned-
Hubert Dreyfus views on AI
If you haven't seen it, time to see Bladerunner, because if we get there we have to ask if it's ethical to create a conscious being.
re: Software and hardware have to advance together.
I'm hoping Arcam/GE is headed in the direction of AI and generative design. From some Carnegie Mellon videos that I saw some time ago I suspect it is, as Jack Beuth says the designs can be more "organic." I don't have anything related directly to Arcam or GE or any Carnigie Mellon research below, but it's useful to see the direction that 3d printing and computers can go.
Wikipedia Generative Design
From a Ted Talk.
"I’ll give you an example. In the case of this aerial drone chassis, all you would need to do is tell it something like, it has four propellers, you want it to be as lightweight as possible, and you need it to be aerodynamically efficient. Then what the computer does is it explores the entire solution space: every single possibility that solves and meets your criteria — millions of them. ... And by the way, it’s no accident that the drone body looks just like the pelvis of a flying squirrel."
Ted Talk generative design
I couldn't find a webpage for the drone chassis design that wasn't a Ted Talk but I did find something for the Airbus cabin partition.
Airbus partition
I did, however, find a direct connection between generative design, ORNL, and 3d printing.
ORNL generative design 3d printing
A webinair from ORNL and that's worth the time. Highlights: 3d manufacturing is the only technology that gives site specific mechanical properties, they're working with Arcam on printing superalloys, and GE looks to laser for printing precision parts and to EBM for parts exposed to fatigue.
It's unclear whether in the talk that site specific mechanical properties can only be generated by EBM or only by 3d manufacturing.
Thanks to an individual that pointed me in that direction.
The webinair covers other topics like automobile manufacturing.
ORNL Arcam webinair