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.
The Japanese have a long history of being especially particular about their steel so I hope a company from the land of the rising sun enter the fray. In metallurgy, an especially useful result was recently obtained by Hitachi.
First demonstration of promising selective electron beam melting method for utilizing high-entropy alloys as engineering materials
I suspect that part of the reason that the Arcam board is comfortable with the offer is corporate culture, they've been working with GE for some time.
It's gotten to be something of a community here. When it all dies down I'll certainly miss it. Kinda wish there was a way to meet some of the folks here. I didn't know John, '123, but will have to say it's sad to hear of his passing.
I'm going spend some time looking at companies involved in technology development at research institutions and go from there for the next ideas.
Why buy machines from another company when you can buy the company?
It's my hypothesis that GE's lack of orders in the 1st and 2nd quarters, when we knew they were gearing up for production, suppressed the stock price and made for a better deal. Ah, but, this is what it's like dealing with a behemoth.
The Arcam board's evaluation of the offer suggests that GE's deep pockets will facilitate the industrialization of powder EBM-
In terms of the Company’s long-term prospects, the Board believes that the demand for the Company’s technology for Additive Manufacturing of aerospace and orthopedic implant products and components will increase dramatically, meaning that the market has favorable long-term growth opportunities. As the market develops, more advanced technology is required, which benefits Arcam. Accordingly, the Board believes that the Company is very well positioned for the future.
However, in assessing the merits of the Offer, the Board has also considered that the Company, on the whole, has limited resources and that the Company operates in a demanding and regulated environment with long lead times. Further, the market for Additive Manufacturing is still rather immature and may become subject to technological leaps that may require substantial investments for Arcam in delivering on its business plan. GE has stated that Arcam’s strategy and offering align to GE’s vision of building its own expertise and capabilities in Additive Manufacturing to serve customers in the global industrial community. Further, GE has adequate resources in implementing and taking advantage of Arcam’s growth and business opportunities and will provide know-how and expertise to further leverage Arcam’s technology and to forcefully go to market with Arcam’s products and services.
Arcam has a "natural monopoly" on powder EBM with patents that help Arcam recoup their research costs so there's no reason to act on Arcam. There's also the competing technology on wire fed EBM, GE is not buying that, so I think there may be an argument in GE's favor EBM wise. It's that GE could own important laser and electron beam additive manufacturing firms that may attract the attention of some government agency.
GE is interested in innovation but I believe they're buying because they have their eye on the bottom line. Here's an interesting little article from 2014 about GE and 3d printing.
What 3-D Printing Companies Don't Want You to Know About General Electric Company
GE bought huge multinational company Alstom last November for about 10 billion. Although the disruptive potential of Arcam's technologies is large, Arcam is a micro in comparison. I agree that in the long run this is a great deal for GE but the development costs for industrialization over the next several years won't be so small.
So my opinion is this buyout is about right though I'm somewhat curious to see our stock prices trading below the Nordic exchange, and the offer, by about a dollar a share.
Monopoly to RR and AA but a natural monopoly in the eyes of the regulators, I'm guessing. If the regulatory folk get excited about this I'll be somewhat surprised.
The implications this technology has for productivity and design freedom are broad and deep. Although Arcam recommends accepting the offer, again, I'll be somewhat surprised if a competing offer doesn't emerge.
Charlie T Colton, thank you.
Low pressure turbine blades are in the final stages, not intermediate stages.
Alcoa or the likes is where I'd go. Some company that has a clear plan and is disciplined about achieving its goals.
DDD buying Arcam would be the beginning of the end. DDD's management always looking at quarterly results and acquiring companies like my hoarding aunt bought trinkets from antique shops while Arcam takes the long view with deep research and a laser-like focus. Personally, if I worked at Arcam and Arcam was bought by DDD I'd quit like there's no tomorrow.
Excellent overview of powder EBM's advantages but I'll have to review completely on another day. One clear advantage (this has been mentioned before but the paper describes it so well) is that magnetic lenses can nearly instantaneously change the EB location on the powder bed, keep several melt/fuse sites working at the same time with one beam, and carefully adjust heating and cooling to determine metal grain growth. That cannot occur with laser melting at this level, at least when working with one laser. Laser beams are directed by mechanical means using mirrors instead of electrical means using magnets so moving the laser beam to another location is inherently slower, maybe on the order of milliseconds, but milliseconds matter.
Thank you Charlie.
Looks like they have some work to do on that turbocharger, on the other hand, it says something that they're choosing EBM as it's likely the quickest route to success.
Thank you Charlie. I don't know how I missed any of those; they're all great links and worth the time to read so one can understand more about this technology.
EBM advantages and perspective from ORNL.
ORNL's EBM Discovery 'Potentially the Most Important Development in Metal Additive Manufacturing' to Date
This is from October 16, 2014 but it's still relevant. Dr. Beuth might have been referring to this in a webcast that I've posted before.
Arconic powder competition doesn't seem to be of much concern to Magnus Rene. From the transcript of the earnings conference-
Viktor Bellak, SEB Equities - Analyst [12]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, thanks. And then, finally, looking at AP&C, there was a sequential drop of some 11% after growing quite nicely Q-on-Q before that. Have you seen any different trends in the market? Are we all seeing what I'll call -- it's entering the market, stuff like that, SLM, how they are attacking this? Do you see any different trends in the -- I was a bit surprised seeing a sequential drop.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnus Rene, Arcam AB - CEO [13]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We don't see any -- well, first of all, SLM are not on the titanium metal market. They are on the aluminum metal market where we are not, and Alcoa, it's correct that they have announced setting up a titanium manufacturing plant, but if anything I think that confirms that there is a growing market for this powder and it will take them a long time before they get up to capacity where we are, if ever.
See Arcam earnings conference
Alcoa hasn't released powder capacity numbers for the Arconic plant but here's a little on spending-
Alcoa opened a new plant at its research center near Pittsburgh where it will manufacture metal powders in proprietary grades of titanium, nickel, and aluminum, to be used for its 3D-printing operations in California, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The project was part of a $60-million program announced last fall to expand and develop capabilities for 3D-printing aerospace parts.
See Arconic plant
Compare the costs for AP&C's powder expansion-
The investment in a new facility was announced in May 2016. The investment is totally up to 31 MCAD and IQ will supply interest free loans up to 10 MCAD and grants up to 1.5 MCAD. The expansion of AP&C follows on significant growth in 2015 and 2016 and a surge in demand for AP&C’s high quality titanium powders for additive manufacturing. (31 million CAD is about 23.4 million USD) See AP&C New Powder Plant
From Arcam earnings conference we have mention of the capacity that about 23.4 million USD is buying-
And the new plant we are building has an initial capacity of 250 tons and a long-term maximum capacity of 750 tons, which brings our total capacity up to 1,250 tons in those two factories combined.
From page 6 of an Alcoa presentation they are estimating about 50% CAGR in powder. I'm assuming you can replace R with D = demand.
Alcoa Investor Day - Innovation
On page 8 of Arconic mission we see that Arconic's operations involve much more than powder so I'm doubting the powder plant investment will be the most of $60 million.
So, I'm concluding that Rene's statement, "... and Alcoa, it's correct that they have announced setting up a titanium manufacturing plant, but if anything I think that confirms that there is a growing market for this powder and it will take them a long time before they get up to capacity where we are, if ever" is correct. That Alcoa believes there will be 50% CAGR suggests that both AP&C and Arconic's powder division will be supported as growth companies, this although I realize there isn't enough information for any rigorous financial calculations here.
Yep, Autocad has been around for decades. I find it difficult to believe that there's any engineering student that doesn't know about it.
Find an answer to the question, will future demand be enough to support several Ti powder suppliers to the point of being growth companies. If so, I believe AP&C will do well.
That's a good way to frame the situation. Thank you for the link as well.
Arcam is a small company with a technology that's not even at the "early adopters stage" so you can expect earnings reports from quarter to quarter to vary a lot. When I say they're doing fine I mean that the depth of their research and what they've developed is excellent. Sales are disappointing right now but it takes time to incorporate a new technology like this. I'm actually impressed that it's being adopted this fast. I see the P/E ratio was quite high, around 160 or 170 before the drop, but I'm not upset, yet. I'm not investing on a horizon of a month or a quarter because I see short term reactions from the market as a crazy thing that drives prices up or down wildly on perceived future value and emotion, especially at this stage! Again, I'm looking at the value of an excellent technology that is not even at the "early adopters stage" of the technology adoption life cycle.
If Alcoa's powder producing plant, Arconic, starts eating into AP&C's powder revenue, however, I'll be a bit apprehensive and will be wanting machine sales to increase a lot in the next year. That's where the greatest near term, 1 or 2 year, threat lies in my opinion. I've mentioned this before and I don't know why more on this list aren't more concerned about it. Arconic will be in Pittsburgh right next to Carnegie-Mellon. Arconic is a growth company spawned by a cigar-butt company that wants to be seen as a growth company so I expect them to be especially aggressive. I have no doubt that Jack Beuth and his group at CM are having input into Arconic and that technology from ORNL will make it's way into powder production. The question I hope someone can answer is whether powder demand is strong enough to support both Arconic and AP&C.
I don't know how to interpret and am puzzled by DiSanto's results. I would think that would be the way to provide product to those without the resources to buy a machine, and that should be a lot of companies that provide demand. Maybe this is due to ignorance of this technology on the part of the medical community and insurance companies. A doctor friend of mine that seems able to keep up with everything had no idea that metal 3d printing was so advanced. Nobody I know has had 3d printed titanium parts when they've had joints replaced. That might be because insurance companies are reluctant to fund procedures or prosthetic joints when data sets are small. A personal example about insurance companies: I just had a friend diagnosed with breast cancer whose parents both died in their 50's from cancer. Her insurance company denied her, at the last minute after she arrived for her appointment, a genetic test to determine the best course of treatment. Their response? Not enough data to support funding the test. (I hope they burn in hell for this.)
The general public isn't aware of how advanced metal 3d printing is. Very educated people that have procured NSA grants and think of themselves as being up to date on all technology don't know how advanced this is. Anecdotally: I showed a small 3d printed metal part to a group of scientist friends that do their research based on NSA and state grants. They had no idea but they had many things to say about how disruptive this technology can be. That I could order the part from iMaterialize for $30 and in their estimation it would take at least $100 to make the same part using subtractive means says a lot.
So Mr. Trader, when you have a company with a technology that's not even at the early adopter's stage, and that company has the technology and patent moat that it does, there's plenty of long term potential that should dwarf immediate concerns, that is, unless you're over invested and can't sleep at night. I recommend sleep.
DDD is all over the place and doesn't have focus like Arcam and focus is needed here. Of course, I can't say for sure that they will not be successful in developing a competitive position to Arcam but I strongly doubt it. Here's the reason why. Arcam has had the company and research culture behind it for nearly 2 decades, DDD, not so, not in that way, not even close.
To see what it took in research and development to get Arcam to where it is today, read and understand the volumes of research in which they've been involved. As for DDD, they're great when it comes to making "play purties" for toddlers.
Arcam's doing fine. Here's the full story for all to see on Arcam's trends.
Interim report January – June 2016
Where are the patent wars? Links?
Arcam is the only one that can legally do powder EBM, DDD is using a powder EBM, so the most likely scenario here is that DDD is quietly using at least one Arcam machine. They may not mention Arcam in the patent but that in no way implies DDD has made their own powder EBM.
DDD owns Medical Modeling and MM needs Arcam machines.
Arcam and no other owns the powder EBM technology. Workable prototypes are important in obtaining patents and the only way to make one is by using an Arcam machine. So DDD is buying and using Arcam machines. No?
I haven't kept up with the patents here but I'm a bit amazed that this fully dense fused to a porous layer design was just awarded a patent.
Thank you! That's a relief as now I don't have to lobby for Godfrey's exit.
It's not relative like that. Measurable results from testing show what processing is necessary for an economically viable part. Turbine blades require a smooth finish after the Arcam build for the reasons I cited previously.
In post #4208, is flying-trader referring to a piece, a bracket, or a turbine blade? What's a piece?
"When Donald Godfrey from Honeywell made his presentation at the last investor's day conference he brought with him a piece they had made via EBM and one they intended to put on planes...
He showed what the piece looked like right out of the Arcam machine, dull and somewhat rough finish, much like the LPT blade shown in that article... he compared that to the one he brought which was bright and polished and said their studies indicated that the part right out of the Arcam machine performed just as well as the bright polished one but that the marketing guys wanted it polished so they sent it out to India to have the post production polishing done..."
If Godfrey said this about a turbine blade, that "their studies indicated that the part right out of the Arcam machine performed just as well as the bright polished one but that the marketing guys wanted it polished so they sent it out to India to have the post production polishing done...," I hope to see his career come to an abrupt and sure end because nothing in metallurgy nor fluid mechanics supports that statement. Brackets on the other hand, well, that's okay so long as it's shown that surface roughness doesn't lead to stress cracks more easily than a polished bracket. As for a piece, maybe those should be made as rough as possible so they don't work. We don't need pieces on planes.
Yes. Turbine blades should have a smooth finish for at least two reasons: the boundary layer problem in fluid mechanics, and to reduce the chance that a crack starts at a surface crevice. If the surface is rough the boundary layers at and near the blade surface have no chance of developing laminar flow and every chance of creating more turbulence. Efficiency goes down as turbulence increases. Stresses at a surface crevice are concentrated at the crevice so cracks start much more easily at those locations.
Thank you for a fine informative video.
Every time Jack Beuth mentions the metal powder stock in all the videos I've seen so far there's a smile and/or a strong statement about it's being manufactured and supplied by the printer companies. I don't believe he approves of the monopoly on powder supply. How much of Arcam's profits are derived from powder sales? What effect will Alcoa's powder manufacturing have on Arcam's powder market share?
He mentions that the void problem will be solved so post build processing needed for eliminating voids will no longer be necessary (HIP). That's good but to take care of the problem they have to detect voids during the build and fill the void, and, there's a small percentage of hollow metal spheres in at least Arcam's powder that have to be eliminated. Those hollow spheres lead to one type of void. I'm very interested in whether or not Alcoa has solved the hollow sphere problem in powder production.
With recent Beuth-Alcoa activity I'm not so sure they haven't solved the hollow sphere problem.
The other video where Beuth mentions the powder interests in in post # 4187.
From 2013, Additive Manufacturing Forum - Innovation Panel.
Additive Manufacturing Forum - Innovation Panel
Alcoa's ties with Carnegie-Mellon might be behind their powder production plant plans. I remember Jack Beuth referring to Arcam's near stranglehold on Ti powder supply in the following video. "The current state of the art is that if you buy one of these machines, you're supposed to buy your powders from the machine manufacturer in order to get the quality of parts that they guarantee ... and we're trying to give users options on what kind of powders to use ..."
I believe this is a development worth watching closely. Alcoa has a long history with ORNL and operations nearby. If they solve the void problem caused by hollow spheres in powder they'll have a competitive advantage.
Jack Beuth: Process Mapping for Additive Manufacturing
Instant Analysis: Alcoa Opens 3D Printing Metal Powder Plant as It Aims to Become a Major Industry Player
Arcam closed at 192 SEK today. $0.11764 = 1 SEK. 192 SEK = $22.59. AMAVF closed at $22.65 in the US.
52 week high, 227.5 SEK. Average conversion rate over the last year was approximately $0.119 = 1 SEK. Using this 227.5 SEK = $27.07. 52 week high in the US, $27.
52 week low, 92.25 SEK. Using $0.119 = 1 SEK, 92.25 SEK = $10.98. 52 week low in the US, $11.24.
SEK $ history
Let's see if I made a mistake. First, assume we're trading on the North American side of the Atlantic.
Buy 10 shares of Arcam at $20 a share when the exchange rate is, say, 2 SEK = $1, meaning (and so far this has been approximately true), that in Sweden they would be selling for 40 SEK a share.
Assume the SEK drops to an exchange rate of 4 SEK = $1 and that Arcam is still selling for 40 SEK a share there. Moreover, assume Arcam is at status quo, in other words, there's no news that changes their perceived future value. On our market 40 SEK a share in Sweden means we should be seeing in the neighborhood of $10 a share here.
So, as the SEK drops in value relative to the dollar, the share price of Arcam drops. In this case 1 SEK was at first worth $0.50 and dropped to 1 SEK being worth $0.25. That's the direct relation of which I speak.
The relation is direct. As the SEK devalues so does AMAVF's stock price. Example, say an apple is worth 10 SEK and the exchange rate is 10 SEK = $8. It would cost one $8 to eat that apple. If instead the exchange rate is 10 SEK = $5 then it would only colt $5 to consume it.
However, these are tricky times with announcements due soon about the latest quarter. Also, judging by today's news, the Fed won't be eager to raise interest rates. That in turn means borrowing money will remain cheap and the SEK will be better able to compete with the dollar, so AMAVF's price may find some support in those areas.
Nobody seemed to have a cool head today but for good reason. Remember Grexit and the market's reaction? There's only 11 million people living in Greece and I can't tell that they're producing much more than olives, well, they're the 43rd largest by GDP. Markets have been terribly volatile over the possibility of Greek default or EU exit. Now consider Britain with more than 65 million people, the 5th largest economy in the world, and the 2nd largest in Europe after Germany. The EU will not reward Britain because that would not discourage others from leaving the EU. So I'll not be surprised to see a British and a European recession. If that happens those currencies will devalue in relation to the dollar unless other factors come into play.
I'm guessing companies will get the gitters, especially in Britain, and restrain their activities until it's clear what directions these economies will take.
Give thanks to Boris for that, and beyond Boris, emerging nationalist sentiments waiting for the Dons and Bori of the world to inflame, the trade agreements that for decades have sacrificed employment opportunities of the likes of bluecollar workers and put pressure on agricultural policies that stress small farms.
I'm giving non-zero probabilities to more EU decay, emergent nationalist sentiment leading to conflict, another French German drama, heck WWIV. Can't wait to see the weapons. Invest in armor.
armor
Another lab to watch. Boeing and GM are working with them-
HRL Labs
Predictions are terribly difficult to make. From your link but with focus on a different article,Could composite metal foams give ceramic materials a run for their money?
North Carolina State University (Raleigh, N.C.) professor of
mechanical and aerospace engineering Afsaneh Rabiei has spent
several years studying composite metal foams to better understand
their properties and potential applications.
Composite metal foams consist of hollow spheres encased
within a metallic matrix. So, the materials contain lots of little
air pockets. Rabiei’s work shows that this structure makes the
metal foams “very effective at shielding X-rays, gamma-rays,
and neutron radiation” and able to “handle fire and heat twice
as well as the plain metals they are made of,” according to a
NC State news story.
But the most visual demonstration of the awe of composite
metal foams may come from a video available at youtu.be/
lWmFu-_54fI.
The rewards of ceramic turbine blade development are worth the research as they say lighter weight and heat resistance are superior. The light weight advantage is considerable as density of CMC's being considered for turbine blades is 2.0 to 2.5 g/cm3 and for titanium, the lightest metal in the TiAl alloys, is 4.506 g/cm3. Maybe Arcam can exploit the "hollow sphere problem" in their Ti powder production. Anyway, here's a description of the barriers CMC's have to overcome from
Ceramic matrix composite
Basic mechanism of mechanical properties
The high fracture toughness or crack resistance mentioned above is a result of the following mechanism: under load the ceramic matrix cracks, like any ceramic material, at an elongation of about 0.05%. In CMCs the embedded fibres bridge these cracks (see picture). This mechanism works only when the matrix can slide along the fibres, which means that there must be a weak bond between the fibres and matrix. A strong bond would require a very high elongation capability of the fibre bridging the crack, and would result in a brittle fracture, as with conventional ceramics. The production of CMC material with high crack resistance requires a step to weaken this bond between the fibres and matrix. This is achieved by depositing a thin layer of pyrolytic carbon or boron nitride on the fibres, which weakens the bond at the fibre/matrix interface (sometimes "interface"), leading to the fibre pull-out at crack surfaces, as shown in the SEM picture at the top of this article. In oxide-CMCs, the high porosity of the matrix is sufficient to establish the weak bond.
That description, although I've personally seen a child hammer a disk of CMC into a concrete sidewalk (to the horror of his father) without the disk showing a scratch, doesn't give me a lot of confidence. The test results help, but the image the above description invokes does not. The image in my mind doesn't amount to a hill of pinto beans, but ...
Nobody knows with certainty what will happen in the years to come with these technologies. The research, technology adoption, economic landscape is just too complex. I haven't read the following paper yet but will soon. It seems to describe the development of CMC's well. From 2014-
Development of CMC Turbine Parts for Aero Engines
Timing is important. I think of Clean Energy, the fall of oil prices, and the strides that have been made in electric vehicles that may doom CLNE. But ask me to predict, with certainty, the success or failure of CLNE and I won't.
"The world 3D printing healthcare market was evaluated at $579.0 million in 2014 and is estimated to garner $2,363.8 million by 2020, registering a CAGR of 26.2% during the forecast period 20152020. This market is expected to witness significant growth during the forecast period on account of the numerous technological innovations in this sector."
World 3D Printing Healthcare Market Opportunities and Forecasts to 2014 - 2020
I'm asking you to be responsible for your conclusions and back them up with adequate documentation.
I don't give opinions at the drop of a hat for that reason. I'll back up what I say to the best of my ability.
Conclusion is not the wrong word. You state clearly that "It may be a long time before we see any appreciable numbers of EBM blades on the LEAPs unfortunately... Its a pity EBM blades were not flight ready for the LEAPs that would have been a terrific shot in the arm for Arcam"
Those an outcomes bub. Those are conclusions. Your conclusions based on little information. One conclusion has "may" before it but "may" is a word used before all probabilistic statements, that is, anything anyone says about anything in the market.
I have little patience for noise, or the myriad pump and dump schemes I see. The latter is no less than proof of treachery, a sin worthy of the 9th circle.
That's a lot of conclusion from a little.