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.
Here it is.
As I have said previously I'm come at this Sigma handicapping exercise as a businessperson, not as a technician. And I agree, from the businessperson's standpoint, that the 3DSim partnership is the most intriguing recent development. I have also had the impression that this may be more meaningful because of Ansys' purchase of 3DSim.
I would add, as far as Ansys is concerned, that in addition to a much larger company selling FLEX, what's notable to me and could reflect some confirmation of value in PrintRite is:
Flex, as 3DSim's new, soon to be released product launch, would seem to be a product that Ansys is excited about -- (otherwise why buy 3DSim? It's not as if they have 20 different software products. Yes they could also be buying some other points of value -- such as impressive engineers and perhaps IP, that aren't necessarily apparent from the outside...but they must believe in FLEX or they wouldn't have been impressed with the team, the technology, etc...and they would not have purchased 3DSim ). And there may be an indirect nod of validation here of PrintRite from Ansys, in addition to a vote of confidence in PrintRite by 3DSim.
Also, relatedly, Ansys' purchase of 3DSim having closed, (closed, as opposed to an announcement of a deal which could have meant that Ansys' due diligence remained incomplete), within a week of the announcement of the PrintRite module inclusion within FLEX - indicates to me that Ansys liked the idea of the PrintRite module -- that their engineers had seen whatever data 3Dsim had on PrintRite working together with FLEX and found that persuasive enough to be fine with 3Dsim advertising the optional connection to PrintRite within FLEX, a mere few days prior to the announcement of Ansys' done deal with 3DSim.
Does this mean anything in the absolute? No. But I find it notable and encouraging.
Vis,
The Harting computational device, approximately when did it come to be used by Sigma and is there a connection in time and/or otherwise between the Harting hardware and the OXYS collaboration? Can you review what the OXYS work/ technology consists of?
Thank you
No, the algorithms we're developed, and then the data collected creates a database for the algorithms to calculate said data into actionable data.
Our value is created by the algorithms that were first discovered at Los Alamos laboratories and perfected over the past few decades.
Our algorithms are proprietary IP that allows our software to be the most advanced in the industry.
PR3D is in real time because of our software and hardware combination that takes this data and deciphers it immediately, creating actionable data.
Our use of Harting computational device, which is arguably the most advanced in the industry in it's field, is able to quickly compute the data to an IIoT platform.
By combining our software with this hardware, we have created a unit that is capable of extremely quick and precise analysis of data provided from our sensor hardware within the AM machine.
The algorithms were developed as a result of data collection over the years? Is that right? So, what would be required for another firm, say EOS, to develop their own set of algorithms? (The passage of enough time, while running many prints over that length of time?)
Also, can you identify what aspect of PrintRite makes it able to monitor consistently in real-time?
Vis -
Ok, so can you please identify/review the differences between what is described here that EOS has developed from PrintRite?
Nice pivot, facilitated by excerpting and re-posting one portion of a multi-point post.
Appreciate your well-reasoned argument. Lots of specificity, complexity and depth.
JMHO
HTRE - What is your explanation for other participants in America Makes 4027, Aerojet Rocketdyne and Honeywell International Inc. continuing on with Sigma? They were privy to the same information as GE, including GE's final remarks regarding PrintRite, of course
And if GE acquired joint rights which enables them to move forward with their own technology spawned out of PrintRite why not these other firms? And if PrintRite fundamentally isn't of value why would they bother further with Sigma?
For the sake of discussion, I'll assume that you would consider GEA to be a prime example of your point. What's interesting to me is that GE produces videos, examples of which have been posted here on the board, that seem to indicate efforts toward a very similar approach to in-situ inspection and problem-address as Sigma. This of course follows the history of their having applied for a patent for what appears to be a very similar solution to Sigma's, one day after Sigma.
I think nobody is jumping on the Sigma bandwagon because the first thing interested companies and govt projects (DARPA, AM, etc) do after working with Sigma is go try to figure out another IPQA solution (because it doesn't perform well - like the Sigma executives).
Jeff, I appreciate your balanced, dispassionate view. As I have said previously I'm come at this Sigma handicapping exercise as a businessperson, not as a technician. And I agree, from the businessperson's standpoint, that the 3DSim partnership is the most intriguing recent development. I have also had the impression that this may be more meaningful because of Ansys' purchase of 3DSim.
I would add, as far as Ansys is concerned, that in addition to a much larger company selling FLEX, what's notable to me and could reflect some confirmation of value in PrintRite is:
Flex, as 3DSim's new, soon to be released product launch, would seem to be a product that Ansys is excited about -- (otherwise why buy 3DSim? It's not as if they have 20 different software products. Yes they could also be buying some other points of value -- such as impressive engineers and perhaps IP, that aren't necessarily apparent from the outside...but they must believe in FLEX or they wouldn't have been impressed with the team, the technology, etc...and they would not have purchased 3DSim ). And there may be an indirect nod of validation here of PrintRite from Ansys, in addition to a vote of confidence in PrintRite by 3DSim.
Also, relatedly, Ansys' purchase of 3DSim having closed, (closed, as opposed to an announcement of a deal which could have meant that Ansys' due diligence remained incomplete), within a week of the announcement of the PrintRite module inclusion within FLEX - indicates to me that Ansys liked the idea of the PrintRite module -- that their engineers had seen whatever data 3Dsim had on PrintRite working together with FLEX and found that persuasive enough to be fine with 3Dsim advertising the optional connection to PrintRite within FLEX, a mere few days prior to the announcement of Ansys' done deal with 3DSim.
Does this mean anything in the absolute? No. But I find it notable and encouraging.
Any add'l thoughts?
Jeff, from your standpoint as an engineer, among the recent news item developments, is there one that in your opinion you find a compelling confirming indicator of value behind PrintRite? Specifically, the 3DSim deal or the Dream3D Air Force Labs presentation? (Strictly asking in regard to the technology, not asking for prognostications about timing or likelihood of revenues which of course is another matter). Thank you
All, Below I've pasted a link to 3DSim's website. Their sales model appears to be subscription based. This page details the subscription options for their existing product -- the existing version that precedes "FLEX." Flex, which per the PR report that we read detailing the link to Sigma, is due to be released in 2018. March was it? Anyway, it's FLEX that includes a module that makes adding PrintRite as an option, possible... Assuming I have that correct.
I'm speculating that Sigma's management may determine that the best opportunity to move traditional sales along... that is, to move beyond the Beta contracts that Sigma has a history of entering into, which have provided less of a revenue stream than we all of course hope is forthcoming, that they may find they should switch to a subscription model. Of course this is speculation....
Anyway, let's put our heads together and analyze this. Note the "unlimited users" indication on 3DSim's site. Does this mean that a company which has several 3d printers, perhaps purchased from multiple OEM's can use just one subscription or download of this software across an entire company or large division? Is this software that operates remotely and disconnected from the AM printers themselves?
With respect to PrintRite, -- if Sigma is to try a subscription model -- would PrintRite lend itself to being limited to usage on a single AM printer in order to be able to sell several subscriptions for use within the same division/firm?
Also, am I understanding correctly, at least in regard to 3DSIM's existing product that this 1k - 2k per month deal represents the revenue structure per customer of theirs?
It seems, if that is the case, that a large company like Ansys, who we've recently learned purchased 3DSIM, their mgmt would have to be of the thinking that they could really sell a volume of subscriptions and that the recurring revenue stream would be expected to run for a good long while.
Appreciate thoughts from All.
https://simulation.3dsim.com/signup
Yes, there was much discussion re the patent race history. And of course the following is a matter of speculation, but the more I think about what we know of the history between Sigma and GEA the more strongly I am of the opinion that this subtext -- the jockeying and racing competition to claim the IP is not separate or unrelated to the status of the more limited relationship between Sigma and GEA, of today. And probably also was reflected in GEA's seemingly anomalous response to PrintRite in the final America Makes report, which as others point out does not seem to parallel other significant companies' experience with/ response to PrintRIte -- ie interest in the updated versions of PrintRIte, etc.
Also, in my opinion, there was something in John Rice's approach, in the Q3 call, to discussing the history with GE and his indication that Sigma has friends in their ranks that seemed perhaps a touch amused- and certainly interested in looking beyond some something, (IP squabble?), that may have drawn the entities apart. Sorta like a NO HARD FEELINGS HERE, GUYS message. Anyone share that impression?
Good point, Jeff. And another point, the video also comes across as a bit pulpy. There doesn't seem to be a lot of specifics or compelling substance there, in my opinion. It came across as pr/ marketing material and not even of a high order of quality, at that. In my opinion.
Jackle, Are you able to offer perspective on this question I asked earlier and post a copy of here...?
Jeff and Ted, Can you help place this in context a bit more...? I agree that this would appear to show Sigma and PrintRite serving in a very important role and in very distinguished company... At this stage though, am I understanding correctly that Dream3D can be used free of charge? And if that's so, does that mean that any organization that downloads Dream3D can use PrintRite in some capacity? Or, is this presentation only showing that for purposes of Dream3D's research they used PrintRite...but that a download of Dream3D by an organization would not include any access to PrintRite?
Thank you
Excerpt from Ted's post "...What this slide clearly shows is that PrintRite is the center piece used in DREAM3D to gather the in-situ characterization data. This industry open-source software does not replace PrintRite3D, but adds additional value to it and can help drive industry adoption of PrintRite..."
Jeff and Ted, Can you help place this in context a bit more...? I agree that this would appear to show Sigma and PrintRite serving in a very important role and in very distinguished company... At this stage though, am I understanding correctly that Dream3D can be used free of charge? And if that's so, does that mean that any organization that downloads Dream3D can use PrintRite in some capacity? Or, is this presentation only showing that for purposes of Dream3D's research they used PrintRite...but that a download of Dream3D by an organization would not include any access to PrintRite?
Thank you
Excerpt from Ted's post "...What this slide clearly shows is that PrintRite is the center piece used in DREAM3D to gather the in-situ characterization data. This industry open-source software does not replace PrintRite3D, but adds additional value to it and can help drive industry adoption of PrintRite..."
Yes, but I think his point is that value is ultimately recognized in the marketplace and in Sigma's case the value of its technology should hopefully come to be increasingly valued within the industry and if/when so, the equity market will follow suit and recognize the company's value with a boost to stock price.
This is a point of speculation, but it seems it may relate to this discussion point. If you were an OEM and you were hopeful of selling into what we think is an emerging trend towards series production, would you really want to promote Printrite? As I think I understood John Rice to say on yesterday's call -- at this point it's up to the end user, who's purchasing the printer/s from the OEM to request in-situ monitoring as an add-on.
But what I didn't hear Rice go into is an explanation of why this might be so. I'm speculating that the reason, the why so?, may be that to introduce the notion that your printers may require or even benefit from quality assurance monitoring... Hmmm... I don't know...If you're OEM A and OEM B,C,D, etc are not currently pitching monitoring from a 3rd party as an add on, and you're trying to impress with the capabilities of your printers in order to make the most sales at the best price you can, would you really want to introduce the idea of another product, a monitoring product being necessary or even helpful, and then the customer figures they have to spend that much more money, and if OEMs B and C, etc aren't pitching the same monitoring assurance add-on well then, from the standpoint of the end user customer maybe these other OEM's have more confidence in their printers w/o monitoring software.
At least from the add'l acquisition cost boost standpoint it would seem like OEM's would have reservations... Not reservations about selling PrintRite as an add on if requested, but to pitch it while they are trying to pitch their own machines in the first instance.
Perhaps this is the reason that endusers need to be the primary focus as customers at this point.
Let me add that I'm not considering this a negative factor exactly, certainly not in the longer term...I do think that it may be an explanation though as a contributing factor to the lack of sales with PrintRite thus far. Ultimately, if PrintRite continues to prove itself, it won't matter whether the OEMs are pitching it themselves. Furthermore, once Printrite is being utilized for series production and purchased through any OEM, assuming this happens, they may all come to be be pitching it.
It does make sense to me, what Rice is saying though, in view of these points, that the primary targets at this point in time ought to be the co's I believe they are now focusing upon --- the endusers who are already beginning to use AM printers for series manufacturing purposes.
Jackle,
Can you put this paper in some sort of context? Is this a demonstration of something new for Sigma? Is this a paper that you would imagine Sigma is submitting around for possible journal publication? Would you think this paper was produced for marketing purposes?
Yes, having Ansys selling products developed by 3DSIM, with the option of Printrite, could be a big positive and I think these developments are also great signs and endorsements of PrintRite, both directly and indirectly. You have a very well respected company in 3DSIM believing in the value of PrintRite, and hence the partnership, (making the PrintRite module an option with FLEX, and you have Ansys, a multi-billion dollar software behemoth, clearly demonstrating their certainty of 3DSIM's value, as evidenced by the buyout.
This reminds me of the point, a parallel, that I was trying to make a few months back when the management and BOD additions were coming onboard. It's not only the promise of exciting developments themselves, but also the significance of the associated implicit endorsements. In other words, I don't think someone of John Rice's caliber and reputation would bother with Sigma if he wasn't pretty well assured of the value of the technology and by extension the odds of financial and reputational success, just like I wouldn't think that 3DSIM would bother with incorporation of PrintRite as an option along with their product if they didn't think it offered real added value to their customers and I don't think Ansys would bother buying out 3DSIM, (whatever the undisclosed price), if they didn't believe devoutly in 3DSIM's technology.
And you don't care to identify the specifics that led you to share the following impression... (?)
"...and there you have it .... GE leapfrogging Sigma’s technology as predicted..."
We weren't discussing your predictions. We were discussing your indication that you identified something in the translated, linked piece that you perceived as evidence that GE had leapfrogged Sigma -- or so you seemed to indicate --- "...and there you have it .... GE leapfrogging Sigma’s technology as predicted...."
Really! This looks like last month's news and appears to be a statement of goals, not a claim of having solved the problem. Maybe GE will surpass Sigma, or maybe not...But I'm not seeing evidence of a leapfrog in this piece. If you do, any specifics would be appreciated.
I haven't had a chance to compare the pieces closely but 1. the linked piece is in Chinese... (I'm referring to the link in this post mrbagray post# 54972. Was Google translator used here? 2. It seemed unlikely to me that a significant news item regarding GE would first be covered in a Chinese publication ... so I searched and I think this piece from last month regards the same points... (Haven't had a chance to compare the two articles -- translation and domestic piece from last month, closely yet). 3. Also, wasn't this piece -- the domestic article linked below, already posted and discussed here? (If my memory serves it may have been).
https://www.ge.com/reports/laser-focus-computer-vision-machine-learning-speeding-3d-printing/
Can you identify the specifics that you perceive, of the leapfrog move?
Kauaixx - What is the area of your work? Are you in a particular area of engineering, or interest/handicapping of Sigma is from a lay standpoint? (Not a technologist here myself. You mentioned that you worked at LA?).
Thank you
I met him after the Investors Meeting. Most of the engineers were there. I also spoke with the Software Engineer who also was enthusiastic. I've been involved with Sigma for years. Although I worked at LANL, that is not how I became aware of the company.
Kauaixx - Thanks for your post. In what context did you meet him?
The Lead Engineer is very impressive and well-spoken. He told me that he joined Sigma because of their excellent technology. Since he has a family to support, it's unlikely that he would only join a company that he felt would be successful.
That's a point, but on the other hand are specific elements of these other companies' technologies referenced?
If Sigma were choosing to be quiet about their involvements with Siemens et al then Siemens making no attribution in a tour/discussion for a journalism piece which includes mention of algorithms and in-process inspection, etc would be easily explained. But Sigma is broadcasting its involvements smartly, I think, for needed marketing and investment community purposes.
Quite hard to see how a simple attribution of the company behind the algorithms and in-process inspection technology would risk any jeopardy to trade secrets.
Hawks, I see the connections that you are reasonably drawing here and I'm not disagreeing that you may well be right that these are not coincidental circumstances. But...simple question...the journalist's piece was detailed and had a thoroughness about it. Why do you think Sigma was not mentioned? Are we to assume that Siemens is choosing not to make reference to Sigma in meetings such as this one with the journalist? And if so, what would you think the reason might be?
Jackie, At the risk of coming across as dense with this question, if the below refers to Sigma's technology at work at Siemen's plant, why does the journalist not make reference to Sigma? Are we to think that Siemens is not indicating/ referencing Sigma in connection with the monitoring software and algorithms?
Thank you
..."The digital qualification for this comes from specially developed algorithms that monitor every single layer of material and identify any deviation..."
Jeff, thanks for this response. Here's another question -- in terms of ownership of the patents, am I correct in assuming that the individuals listed do not own the patents, by virtue of their names being listed, and rather that the patents would be exclusively owned by the corporation? I know you're not a lawyer, but just wondering as an engineer -- is this your general understanding?
Jeff, For the benefit of those of us who are less familiar with patent filings.....can you identify the "recent activity" ie what that consists of? (In other words -- what is it that you see that reflects more recent activity in the specific application file which number you reference?) Also, what is the significance of the dates at the top of the pages vs the filing date? Are the more recent dates that appear higher up, publication dates? You've already clarified some time ago that publication dates do not equate with granting of patents, which was/is appreciated.
Lastly, as it stands today, are all of these patents "published," but none of them yet "granted?"
Thank you
Who can explain the basic details on the share offering? I saw a little bit of discussion the other day on the board about this and the connection to a previous warrants issuance, was it??? Details appreciated.
Jeff, as the engineer among us, wondering if you have any thoughts re this?
https://mediaspace.msu.edu/media/slm.mp4/1_2eziyw5m
Jeff,
Your input would be appreciated, if you have the time. The Q/A following the presentation, which runs approximately 20 - 30 minutes, is most on-point, in part, perhaps, because of focused question/s by "Vis."
Thank you, Visionary. Was there any indication given of when to expect the replay to be made available? Also, was there an indication that the replay will definitely be posted?
Visionary, thanks...For now, could you please post a link to the webinar -- even though the replay is not yet available -- for context, as to how this webinar program was described. (Just the link that you followed before the broadcast occurred).
Visionary, for now, until there is something more available, (replay?), please post the link to the webinar.
A balanced view on Sigma is to say they have a shot and that no one can say for certain, or with even close to certainty, whether they will be successful or not. In my opinion they have a decent and perhaps improving shot at success. A few years of work and waiting on POTENTIAL market acceptance and demand, as opposed to testing contracts, which we already have, isn't extraordinary at all for a small tech company.
I invest in VC as well, which of course is a speculative area of investment, as is investing in any small, emerging company. It's misleading to say that your odds are better at a roulette wheel. Unless you mean to say that you think odds in a single spin of the roulette wheel could be better than an investment in Sigma or in any investment that is clearly speculative in nature.
I can't say that I feel strongly that Sigma's odds of success are better than 50/50. But I can say that I think Sigma has a real shot and that there are billions of dollars invested in companies on an on-going basis where the investors are doing the best DD they can and are not necessarily of the definitive opinion that odds of success are better than 50%.
However, if part of the calculation is that, in the event of success the return may well be several times the investment, then for some investors who have proper diversification, it can be a successful approach. This is the essence of the risk/reward approach to VC -- spreading out of risk across multiple investments with understanding that the likelihood is that some companies will succeed and others will fail, and that the successes will potentially outweigh the failures -- either in number and/ or by degree.
The same thing can't be said with any credibility about a trip to the casino.
Alan, I think Hayes is right here. Which is not to say that Sigma will necessarily be successful. They may, or may not be. But I do think we're hearing from a whole lot of directions confirmation of what we have heard from Sigma, for longer than we might like, that the industry is in its infancy and that this is a matter of timing and the industry being on the cusp. I also think that we are getting closer to an answer regarding the market value of Sigma's technology -- one way or the other - but it's not clear to me whether that answer comes and is clarified tomorrow, next month, next year...