re: stock research

Agree, renewable energy in the form of solar has energy storage problem. Will need to spend some time researching related companies.

I was thinking more along the lines of investing method or philosophy that we can apply if this board shuts down due to a buyout (which looks increasingly unlikely to me). As in

Philip Fisher: Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits and Other Writings

I learned from that and will continue to learn. Thank you!

Statements from Arcam board on GE offer.

Hmmm, see the bold. What does this mean, really?

Completion of the Offer is conditional upon, amongst other things, GE becoming
the owner of more than 90 percent of the total number of Shares in Arcam and the
receipt of all necessary regulatory, governmental or similar clearances,
approvals and decisions, including from competition authorities, in each case on
terms which, in GE’s opinion, are acceptable. GE has reserved the right to waive
these and other conditions for completion of the Offer.

Statement by the Board of Directors of Arcam in relation to the public offer by GE

re: Circular file? Who knows?

Let's say that if I were the examiner I would toss it. I'll never predict what they'll do as I doubt any examiner there knows material science in the depth needed to read the application critically in the time they're likely given. Some of the ambiguities in the description that I've already pointed out, which were in my opinion attempts at generalizing process and application, will imo lead to some legal headaches. The spirit of patent law is that you reveal your process, demonstrate that a working sample exists for the process you specify, and in exchange for this you get legal protection. It's in that sense "I deny their patent application." Compare the Ampliforge application for an example of a well written application when one wants specificity in process and broad application at the same time.

Quickly reading through Gopal Das's and Dilip Shah's past applications shows they're capable of being quite specific. Why not now?

Now, back to my book, "The Ambiguities."

re: The proverbial devil in the details

I've now read every word. I can now say that if I were one of the patent office clerks I'd toss that application into the cylindrical file. Not that they don't have something there, that they can use seed crystals to determine microstructure in a build, but there are too many ambiguities. It's like they're hiding something or they've rushed the application or they want to be able to defend something that they didn't think of and someone else developed.

re: The proverbial devil in the details

There's a devil there alright and dealing with a devil always comes with problems. I have lots of questions. That could be a grain boundary between seed induced microstructure and pre-existing grain structure in the part, so the microstructure is intended to be global, not local, with respect to the part. Then the finished part will eventually have the microstructure on the left side. Notice that the microstructure on the left seems to have what is for some applications a very desirable Widmanstätten pattern. It may be, given that the Y direction in FIG. 1 is parallel to a crystallographic orientation, that we're talking about homogeneous vertical layers, but when looking at a horizontal slice, we see bands or other patterns.



There's a maddening kind of vagueness in that first boldface sentence following [0057], the last paragraph below. Do they mean you can specify a microstructure for the entire part or that the microstructure can vary within the part? I'm not sure.

Then I look to the 2nd boldface sentence in which they use the phrase "without limitation." That could mean there's no limit on how local, or how global, in the way I read it.

Regardless, if we interpret this to say that the range of microstructures possible with the EBM is from single crystal to fine grained as a global quality in the same part, (i.e. the entire part is a single grain or the entire part is fine grained and not both) and that that can be determined from different processes for a given alloy, that's more than I know is possible with SLM. If this is indeed location specific microstructure, EBM has 4th dimension capabilities in 3d printing that SLM can only dream about, for now.

[0057] The process of the invention may be used to produce superalloy metal materials and articles having a crystal microstructure which varies from highly textured to single crystal textured. The crystal microstructure can be controlled by the inclusion of one or more seed crystals having a single crystal orientation. Crystal orientations are referred to, in general, by their Miller Index. The crystal orientation of the seed crystal may be such that Y direction shown in FIG. 1 is parallel with any of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, <100>, <010>, <001>, <110>, <011>, <101>, <-110>, <0-11>, <-101>, <111>, <-111>, <1-11>, <11-1>, <102>, <-102>, or <200>. Thus, the resulting superalloy metal will have a microstructure orientation such that the part growth direction is parallel with one of the following crystallographic orientations, without limitation, of <100>, <010>, <001>, <110>, <011>, <101>, <-110>, <0-11>, <-101>, <111>, <-111>, <1-11>, <11-1>, <102>, <-102>, or <200>. In certain embodiments, the seed crystal may be provided in the form of a single crystal superalloy plate upon which the metal is formed during the processing step.

CRYSTALLOGRAPHIC TEXTURE CONTROLLED MICROSTRUCTURE BY EBM. Nice to see the patent show up along with a connection to a new company, United Technologies. Still, has anyone patented a site specific control of crystalline structure for EBM? What about SLM? Site specific control means you can have hardness, and have toughness, where you need those not always compatible qualities, in one part.

I'm skeptical that SLM can do this in a site specific way (at least to the degree that can be done in EBM) due to the process: melt pools are smaller, cooling rates are higher, so metal grains are smaller and often not optimal for end use in mind, so heat treatment on the entire part is often required for SLM parts. For EBM the story is different-

Site specific control of crystallographic grain orientation through electron beam additive manufacturing

No patents appeared but that's a nice bit of research. Then I did a search on "Site specific control of crystallographic grain orientation through selective laser melting manufacturing" and got only one article, the one in the link above.

Now, if that represents all that's known about these technologies at this point, it's clear that EBM has at least one very solid advantage over SLM, but SLM has its advantages over EBM,

Comparison of the microstructures and mechanical properties of Ti–6Al–4V fabricated by selective laser melting and electron beam melting

however, that does not include site specific microstructure. A search on "Site specific control crystallographic grain orientation selective laser melting additive manufacturing" leads to a long list of interesting articles.

Google scholar search "site specific control ..."

That's for another day, for me. Anyone?

So, good to see some are buying into Arcam but I'm still a bit puzzled as to why a great deal more interest in EBM isn't showing up, but then, superior technology doesn't always win the day. An example from another field, that the Linux distro, Debian, isn't on more computers than Windows 10 speaks to that.

What does Elliott’s Paul Singer have in mind?

Stock research. I believe a lot of us have learned something from Charlie about doing research on a company. So, in the case that GE does buy 90% and we close operations here, how might one describe a plan for finding and researching another, similar, company? My guess-

i) Find a company that's doing credible research with several universities and labs. Google scholar
ii) It should have or is developing a patent moat. Discard the one trick ponies; one or a few patents might mean there are few demands on the technology. In Arcam's case several places were increasing staff to do research on EBM for good reasons.
iii) Ask, will that patent moat constitute a "natural monopoly." If so there's some protection from the commoditization of the produced goods. This is why I believe solar is a terribly risky investment. All solar panels produce electricity and electrons are the same everywhere. Only Arcam has been producing Ti and it's alloys that: are at least as dense as cast parts (fewer voids than cast parts unless there's been a breakthrough on the part of lbm), have a superior microstructure to cast and other 3d printing methods, and is capable of producing microstructures that are specific to a location within a part.
iv) Will that technology offer something that will be in increasing demand from demographic, manufacturing, or multi-use pressures.
v) Find information on all board members.

Search techniques? Charlie?

Thoughts anyone?

Apologies for going off topic everyone. pdb2, you asked. Some of your writing to think about is below, all in italics, not all are responses to Charlie.

An example of a derisive statement.
Hope you don't get attacked for being non arcam specific. LOL.

An offensively condescending one-
So you are dead wrong.

The letter "a" is on the opposite side of the keyboard than "o" and bald doesn't mean the same thing, whatsoever, as bold. So, you do mean bold don't you? It's not rare that you make that mistake.
Charlie, easy to make a bald statement which I never do.

That was a direct response to Charlie. I find Charlie provides more evidence than hypotheses and I wouldn't call his statements "bald" or bold, so, some of your bold statements follow to make a point. We've covered the first one thoroughly and it's clear what Swedish law dictates so I don't know why you're going on about this. Again, a direct response to Charlie when Charlie was correct.

Bottom line, no one knows, despite your claims, how many shares GE has in its camp as of now or how many will be tendered finally as of expiation date. I suspect it will be over 50% GE will accept some level between 50% and 90%, the higher percentage the better. We shall see what level GE accepts but it won't be just 14% and many shares will be bought by GE contra to your expectations. Guess that addresses the points you made.


Finally, a "bald" statement but not in response to Charlie.
And maybe you should stop seeing mergers at every turn as well You've been posting about arcam merging for over a year which I have negated. Fist why would arcam merge with any company as it has a growing EBM field to itself. Second, after all the money the EU has given to arcam, why would they allow merging. Third, why would any company want to merge with arcam for the price it would demand when it can get the benefits by just buying a printer. You really think GE, which is primarily laser and already bought one 3d company wants to buy arcam?. Same with Alcoa which is playing both ebm and laser and why take on the risks and demands of the arcam play when it can simply buy and experiment with individual printers.

Agreed, the meanings of "you essentially said that GE would accept the status quo" is not the same, nor has any where near the meaning of "GE might be satisfied with their 14.8% position for now." Moreover, attempts to use character assassination or ad hominem attacks to promote a misinterpretation as the more valid interpretation just amplifies the noise.

I don't see the need to allow anyone to express their contempt, and obscure and reduce the clarity of the information Charlie has provided when he's provided valuable and accurate information about our investment interest, Arcam, at what is clearly of considerable cost to him time-wise.

Yes, have done so already.

"If I interpreted the legal language Charlie posted (just skimmed all that noise, LOL) ..."

Just state your case about things related to Arcam so everyone can judge what you're saying on it's merits.

Correction. Arcam showed us the way to Industrial Revolution 4, GE is trying to buy it.

That's amazing, that so many didn't see the potential in EBM.

Was hoping my translation of chaff would motivate a gentle push towards the subject of interest, Arcam's new machine. Or was that chaff?

The grant was given to a group studying how to increase the efficiency of 3d image processing at least in the translation I was reading. Interested are "numerous companies from the Bavarian IT industry, land surveying, the film and television industry, camera, sporting goods and seed producers." I don't want to speculate on how image processing is used in each company but there is an enormous amount of data, possibly a virtually uncountable number of points of data with nothing that says that one point is connected to another when both data points belong to the same object. So how does a computer distinguish between two objects? Distance, color, and form don't do the job. Tesla claims its first fatal autopilot accident was due to its computer confusing a truck with the sky; if true, to me, that's no surprise. Computers don't have situational awareness. It's a huge problem.

Ilse Aigner presented with a titanium bust of Ilse Aigner

Ilse_Aigner wiki

Onto what really interests us. Large vacuum chambers exist, outer space is the biggest one in the universe, so I've been curious for some time about factors that have limited the size of Arcam build chambers. There might be only one limiting factor, cost.

Brian Cox drops a feather and a bowling ball in the world's largest vacuum chamber

Any ideas on the limiting factors?

Bavarian Economics Minister Ilse Aigner looking very happy after Arcam's new machine, Ardroid, created a titanium bust of her. Posing for the android artist, which many say is initiating a new Pointillest trend in sculpture, took merely seconds instead of the hours a model normally sits before a human artist. She has now awarded a grant to Prof. Dr. Marc Stamminger, Department of Computer Graphics of FAU and a representative for Prof. Albert Heuberger, Institute Director of Fraunhofer IIS. The group is focused on the problem of more efficiently processing 3d sensor data within a computer.

Ownership percentages and acquisition.

These stages stand out for now-

* 10 % or more of the total number of shares - holder can block compulsory acquisition (which requires holding of more than 90 % of the shares in the company) and can exercise certain minority rights e.g demand extraordinary shareholders’ meetings, require appointment of a minority auditor and require certain distribution of dividends;

* 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;

Anyone ever been to an auction? This is more complex because the auction item, Arcam in this case, has many owners with the power of vote on bid acceptance. GE would be foolish to: (i) bid too high, (ii) buy less than 10%, and (iii) buy shares at too fast a rate. Too high a bid means you're preventing yourself from securing other resources. Buying less than 10% means you cannot block compulsory acquisition. Finally, (iii), buying shares at a fast rate would increase share price too much, also, I'm not sure that the supply-demand curve isn't inelastic in the case of Arcam shares. Arcam has a "natural monopoly" on their technology, everyone realizes that, and there are a finite number of shares.

Auction rules prohibit owners of the sale item to bid and prohibit owners to pay others to bid on the sale item. With 3 board members that I'm certain are reporting back to GE, I ask, doesn't something smell fishy here?

Gadus morhua

My answer to post #4565, shameless.

Remember the short sales and today's date, September 19, 2016. The story ain't over yet.

short sales

While a competing bid would be nice, I can hang with GE's bid.

Definitely shameless.

Alain Dupont

Mr. Alain Dupont has been President of AP&C within Arcam AB (publ) since January 12, 2016. He has degrees in law and business administration and a long career at various positions within GE Financial services, having served at GE entities in Canada, France and Japan.

Shameless.

Underscore the phrase "risk management." Add some game theory, stochastic modeling, maybe some optimal control theory, maybe bifurcation/catastrophe theory along with all the financial background, develop your career at GE, then great big smile.

I found only 3 board members with GE connections but all members have been working with GE for some time and may like the corporate culture of GE. Just a guess there.

Arcam board

I don't understand why GE couldn't just buy a lot on the cheap, then make the announcement, then continue buying so the average works out to, say, $33. Not that I wanted that, but they sure had the means to do so.

I agree with you about future stock prices for Arcam if all were left alone and GE bought machines like they were supposed to.

That's a convincing looking technical chart but are the price targets in the chart supported by profit projections?

"Der er et pokerspil i gang."

I'm chuckling. I'm going to learn that line of Danish.

Whew! That brought to mind "that small company heavily dependent on research that's swallowed up then sharing is shut down in the name of corporate secrets" scenario.

Re: "Hmmmmmm What's wrong with this picture?"

In your post, #4545, I tried opening the link labeled "Advantages of Additive Manufacturing for FDA Clearance in Orthopedics" and for an outcome got "HTTPS Security Error." Looks like they're not ready to share. I hope this doesn't mean GE is forcing Arcam to lock down the kind of sharing needed for research.

Motley Fool? It's clear you're beyond them. After my many futile searches you've provided information that's well beyond what I thought possible. Thank you.

OTOH, pulpy as they are, I use the Fools to get a general idea of what's out there.

GE's manufacturing credibility, expertise, and resources are likely to narrow the gap between 3D printing primarily being used a prototyping technology today and becoming a more viable manufacturing solution in the future.

Strike the words "likely" and "narrow" and replace them with "certain" and "close" and we have a more accurate big picture. This author, Steve Heller, ignited my disdain for TMF articles about technology when during an video interview he said, approximately, that EBM would loose to laser because one had to chisel away the TiAl powder from the newly made part and that wasn't a problem with laser builds. One really should understand the technology better before writing about it. The video no longer exists on TMF website. Sorry.

Should 3D Systems and Stratasys Worry About General Electric's 3D Printing Ambitions?

Arcam board member sells 31,000 shares.

Arcam board member Henrick Hedland sells 31,000 shares

I don't know the total number of shares he held before he sold.

Henrick Hedland

You witnessed the use of reductio ad absurdum to get at the truth of what Charlie T Colton meant in a previous post.

Ah, I like having an exit choice so I like the Swedish joint venture. GE AM and the statement they've made by making this decision should transcend any outcome from actions taken by the Supreme Leader of the [Un] Democratic People's Republic of Korea or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to terrorize the world, or shareholder hysteria over interest rates, but that doesn't keep me from worrying a little.

So far I'm holding most of the preoffer shares I had and of what I've sold I've managed to sell for more than the offer price. Like many others I do believe that the offer price is low.

I agree, it's a yuge monumental moment in the history of industry. Clearly, 3dAM has advanced beyond Mattel and the desktop production of play-purties.

Which scenario works for you? Eight companies each buying 12.5% I'm guessing.

Which scenario leaves Arcam with a mission statement and management most similar to times before GE's offer? With GE owning all I suspect Arcam satisfies GE's aerospace needs first so development and sales of EBM for other companies and purposes won't be at the highest priority. Surely 8 company ownership would lead to leadership that's responsive to more needs. Why not 9 company ownership each owning 11.1111 ... % ?

Pyrogenesis has about 102 million shares outstanding. After a million in revenue, how much goes out to salary, maintenance, research, and taxes? Here are some numbers for perspective. Interestingly, 20,000 CAD went to research last quarter. 50% more was spent on amortization and depreciation costs, 30,000 CAD last quarter. Administrative costs last quarter were 970,000 CAD, nearly a million. Administrative costs have been around a million per quarter in the last year. Over the last year 140,000 CAD went to research. That's a very little, maybe enough to pay for a lone wolf scientist and some equipment. Losses per quarter in the last year have been over a million CAD.

Pierre Carabin has a masters degree in chemical engineering and is the director of engineering. Maybe he's the wolf. He's paid 155,324 CAD per year. Personally I would like to see a team of scientists.

So, I'll definitely not claim this is the next Arcam. They have what looks to be a proven technology but there seems to be a problem with management when they don't push research or market their product more aggressively.

Pyrogenesis financials

Pyrogenesis president, etc.

Pyrogenesis, you sure?

As at June 30, 2016, the Company had cash on hand of $58,512 and negative working capital of
$1,813,374 compared with a cash balance of $767,368 and positive working capital of $166,095
as at December 31, 2015.

I like the technology but I don't see how that's enough money to run an operation. Also, in this current environment of world wide, exceptionally low interest rates, banks have got to feel the pressure sometime. The last time banks folded a company I had money in folded in ways I never dreamed possible.

That said, I'm in, a little, sorta like I'll keep one share of Arcam through all this just to see the complete outcome and I'm in SPWR one share so I can keep watch easily.

I want to remind everyone that once upon a time everyone thought that computers would be a great time saver. Instead the work and time involved using them multiplied.

"Does anyone believe it's possible that Arcam's EBM technology could be more disruptive than Apple?"

Yes, because Apple had little to contribute technology-wise. Sure, they were a step up from Heathkit computer kits but that says something already, the technology was already on the shelf. Arcam's technology is the first to offer the ability to control metal microstructure on a continuous basis and the first to generate high entropy metals in meaningful amounts. These are differences of kind, not degree, and go beyond production speed which is still an advantage they hold. That's yuge.

Yes! Always look at board member's backgrounds! Thanks for sharing.

On another topic, 285 SEK is about $33.50 and Arcam was trading on the Nordic exchange, as I write at 1:30 eastern daylight savings, at 294 SEK or about $34.58. Someone's getting emotional on our exchange when at about the same time they sell at $33.30, or they are an extreme daytrader.

With regard to the 40% upside, it's hard to tell what shares he's talking about. They were also talking about the possibility of more mergers and other events in the market though they did mention some other companies that should step up and bid on Arcam.

ordinary shares

class A

class B

class C