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.
Stay at the trough or seek new pasture? My Tesla experience, buying in the $20's and selling all at $60, nervous about Elon dividing time between the heavens and earth, well, I say, he's not a Philistine but his trough is a dream, click, I coulda had a teener.
The product of such a visionary, Arcam isn't. Cash just a click away, but where to graze? Elon never met a deadline he's met. Arcam has met every deadline it hasn't met, just months to build, for how many companies? Months to train, for how many? Buy and train, experiment, buy and build. I'm certain I don't know when to sell. I hold.
Buys and sells.
I continually remind myself that supply and demand are among the factors that determine price, so increased demand drives stock price up and share dilution drives stock price down. Seems we have another factor to think about here, the motivation to buy or sell determining how elastic the offer price is to the bid and vice versa. When sells are defined by the trade price being closest to the bid that says that the offer price is most elastic. What we don't know is why the offer price is more elastic. At the point of sale elasticity is out of the investor's hands and in the hands of the trader. I ask whether "trader elasticity" is due to immediate or future concerns.
On the other hand there's trading by using a discount brokerage for thinly traded and, I'm guessing in AMAVF's case, an OTC stock. That means one is likely dealing with a large spread so patience and knowledge of the supernatural help.
That's an interesting set of data that reveals supply and demand during trading. Here's where I have little knowledge, I didn't know that banks had such a large part to play in the trading, and it looks like only banks were involved.
Awfully curious how your sells were listed as buys. So, how does one tell the difference between institutional and individual interests?
Ah Motley Fool, the whispering gallery. While I take advice from them, when it gets down to getting some critical things correct they can fail miserably. With all that are doing research for them I have the sense that they don't dig deeper when they should. So, they shouldn't suggest that extra demand for metal powder is coming from DDD without supplying firm evidence. On the other hand I trust that Motley knows with confidence that DDD's metal printing division is doing well, and that is really another positive statement for Arcam.
Thank you for the Arcam posts with the latest info on the fast build machines and AMCG analysis. I'm sure many appreciate the information.
Exactly, when a relatively high volume trade like that occurs it's good to have knowledge of all possible reasons why it did occur. Thank you.
10,200 shares exchanged between 9:58 and 10:03 a.m. at $22.50 per share. Average volume for the previous 20 days was 4,287.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that NCSU bought one of the first commercial Arcams. At that time they were doing research at the very frontier in several technical fields. I haven't checked on what they're doing recently though.
I doubt that's a coincidence. Bass's thesis is part of the validation for building the part and Ampliforge is what's used to bring the parts to final quality standards. Alcoa is heavily involved in Carnegie-Mellon's AM program and Carnegie-Mellon is using Arcam's machine.
But has Alcoa ordered many Arcams? I'd love to see news on that.
I suspect that the x-rays built into the quality inspection loop actually helps improve speed and quality. They're getting real-time feedback about voids and geometry, then they can tweak build speed and EB power to optimize quality. So while Jack Beuth's assertions about the trade-off between speed and resolution may still be true, the newer Arcam machines might be pushing the envelope; they're getting better quality at higher build speeds and the trade-off between speed and quality still exists but at even higher build speeds and quality. Previously they were, in comparison, running blind. X-rays have been used since WWII to evaluate metal quality so I'm sure that technology has advanced to a high degree.
We'll have to find patents or research to find the answer with any certainty.
"So am I right in thinking that laser has caught up to EBM?"
Maybe in the build rate but from what I've read EBM still has the advantage in desirable microstructure and what follows, mechanical properties, especially with regard to turbine blades.
I'll be keeping my eye on Dmytro Kovalchuk.
New generation of electron beam additive manufacturing
The article on CMC generates a few questions. Are CMC turbine blades lighter than Ti-Al? They are just comparing CMC to nickel super alloy blades and say nothing of Ti-Al. What are raw material costs? What are build costs? Will they have to certify each blade? Are there limits on geometric complexity?
Training, experience, certification.
What are start up times for laser based systems? The metallurgy is no simpler. Each added layer is thinner so there are more added layers for laser verses electron beam for a given part. Laser 3d also requires heat treating afterwards. I'm quite sure there's training involved for all of that and getting the part right requires experience.
So again, does anyone know what the training-experience timeline for lasers is?
Also, I'm sure there's a process for a specific part and maybe a learning curve for that specific part but I doubt there's much that changes when a new part is made. It's the certification process that requires a rigid description for the process. If you're casting, heat the metal to "x degrees," cool at a specified rate, machine and heat treat if necessary. Compare that to 3d manufacturing and we're looking at point by point melt pools, and heated to what temperature? Melt pools are cooled at precisely what rate? Those problems are shared by electron beam and laser. Why there's no talk about laser having these problems is beyond me. That's why I believe laser and electron beam produced parts should have the same certification problems.
Anyone with knowledge of this?
So, the list of companies that are committed Arcam aviation customers include: Honeywell, GE - Avio Areo, Rolls Royce, GKN, and Pratt and Whitney? Can we include: Boeing, United Technologies, Airbus, and Lockheed Martin? Any others?
Error appears in your atw-digital.com link.
Certifying each part is required because the process is "different" enough for each part in AM but I don't believe this is an EB specific problem as equally rigorous certification should apply to all AM processes including laser. Add 6 months to train a technician and 6 months experience for that technician to began producing reliable parts using EB. I don't know if that applies to other processes but in my opinion it should. So many of us on the outside should see why there's a slower spin-up to production than we have anticipated.
So, I'm guessing there's a valid reason for Magnus Rene's tight lips; one shouldn't cause undue hope or alarm in investors about the adoption curve. I believe things are working out like they should but I'm hoping somebody can either: (i) submit a process description that will facilitate certification without loosening standards for mechanical properties or (ii) standardize the build process enough that certification is quicker.
I misunderstood.
There's the answer, thank you Charlie.
"The annual general meeting decided in accordance with the Board of Directors ' proposal to authorize the Board of Directors that, during the period until the next annual general meeting, on one or more occasions, to decide on a new issue of shares, private placement of convertible bonds or warrants."
I suspect they're not especially eager to merge with anyone but would prefer cooperative projects. Mergers often wreak havoc on company culture so why put at risk what's been so successful? I'm brought this up because nobody seemed to be considering this possibility.
What happens with no Arcam merger and the need for expansion dictates new funding? Anyone want to go through the various [subjective] probabilities and outcomes?
Moats. Arcam's patent moat is extensive enough for their powder bed, electron beam technology that I doubt there's a threat on any front. In addition, they have or have pending FAA and FDA or FDA type approval for parts made from their machines. FAA approval requires very specific descriptions of process, so much so that what variability exists in Arcam's processes is a bit of a problem. It's not like casting a part, they're looking at what's going on during the entire build. We're there, the process has been accepted by GE and more. That's the other moat.
I don't know what their original patent was, I'm guessing it's the obvious thing, along the lines of electron beams that melt metal particles to build 3d structures. Say that idea can be freely used. Look at all of the research and work that's needed to even tweak the processes for a new patent that produces competitive metallurgy. We're looking at small changes that can bring a better process to the kind of control they have already. That is not easy and requires lots of expensive experiments and another extensive round of metallurgical research. I'm comfortable with the idea that nothing can challenge what they have to offer in aerospace or orthopedics for at least 5 years.
Don't see why one can't have more than one electron gun but for the added cost I doubt it's justified unless you're building much larger parts or there's an additional level of control that an extra gun provides. Cathode ray tubes for television had 1 or 3 guns depending on the technology and the precision was good enough for the image you got at the time whether using 1 or 3. I have confidence that their engineers are on top of this.
Maintenance for laser verses electron beam should be compared. Obtaining good laser printed metallurgical results should be no less daunting than when using electron beam so training should be as much of an issue there. We need a comparison there as well. Also, lasers have mechanical mirrors to aim the beam which means there must be a maintenance cost. Mechanical things wear out. I'm betting the laser units have comparable costs.
It's not just the size but also the shape of the powder particles. Spherical particles lead to fewer voids but most voids are caused by [the low percentage of] hollow particles in the Arcam powder. Spherical voids do distribute stress better than voids with sharp corners but it's still best to remove any voids with HIP or complex die-forge methods.
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104458031500039X
There's a paper out there somewhere showing fewer defects with the small spherical particles that Arcam produces. Couldn't find it just now.
Ampliforge is a tweak of die-forging or combinations of rolling, extrusion, and die-forging that's optimized for: turbine blades, engine containment rings (I suppose jet engine) that's naturally generalized to ballistic shielding, and engine parts. Of the later I don't know if they mean internal combustion or not. Every part I've seen mentioned is not terribly complex in the way that there are no voids in the geometry that could be affected by the processes above. I cannot imagine, for example, how they would use Ampliforge processes to manufacture hollow super-alloy turbine blades without some welding or additional printing afterwards, this makes my head swim and eyes spin, but, by God, where there's a will there might be a way here that gets FAA approval for civilian plane parts.
That patent application is filled with detail upon detail and specified temperatures in a process. It's Alcoa and patent attorneys doing their work with contributions from engineers and all the unmentioned machinists and lab assistants. It's lots of incremental developments not an innovation of a new kind. It's a cigar butt company doing conservative work that differentiates themselves from everyone else doing Arcam or EOS plus HIP work. Not bad work though.
I don't believe I'm incorrect in saying that HIP is a proven process though I'm sure it would be unwieldy or impossible for a large part such as an engine containment ring. So, I'm not going to sweat this for now as Arcam produced parts and HIP work well together.
I can't say for sure but those Widmanstätten like patterns in the pictures sure look like Widmanstätten microstructure. Widmanstätten microstructure is desirable. I don't remember seeing that result in laser printed Ti-Al builds but I could be proven wrong.
Charlie, thanks for pointing my eyes in that direction.
... and only Arcam and EOS are mentioned in the link you supplied.
It's monumental whenever a university has an increase in faculty from 1 to 20 in four years for any subject area, in this case Carnegie Mellon and metal 3d printing. Carnegie Mellon, for those that don't know, has some stature in the world of engineering. That their faculty are confident that they'll unlock a process to generate "point by point" microstructure in a build is stunning. I don't know how much of this will get to Arcam and increase their technology moat but they're using their equipment to explore this.
Thanks "... 123."
If they are suggesting that they're using traditional forge methods by applying pressure with a "hammer and anvil" type apparatus, I do not see how they can apply this easily to complex geometries, especially hollow ones like the fuel nozzles. HIP applies pressure equally in all directions so near net shape isn't affected, or if it is, NNS is affected very little.
Categories. Ampliforge and HIP are types of post treatment technologies involving application of pressure in some way for previously manufactured parts. Arcam machines have no pressure treatment technology. That clearly means that Ampliforge is a technology that does not overlap or threaten anything an Arcam machine can do. It does, however, possibly threaten those that are limited to HIP treatment of Arcam produced parts.
I don't have the time today, but my bet is that if someone does enough searching on Carnegie Mellon metallurgy and Alcoa, there's a peer reviewed paper out there somewhere that will provide us with some information on Ampliforge. I'm not sure it's even patented yet so most information has to be in published work. I mean, when you see that someone is ALCOA Professor of Physical Metallurgy at Carnegie Mellon, you know that somewhere in their research, which must be peer reviewed unless things have really gone south, there's gotta be a hint. If they can show no research on the outcomes of Ampliforge treatment, there's trouble ahead. They have to show improvement in mechanical properties and that the parts aren't contaminated by the pressure medium in such a way that future part performance is compromised.
Yes! Really!
I'm not talking about mechanical properties! I'm talking about process! There's no pressing in the electron beam additive manufacturing! HIP is a separate process that's related to forging due to the pressure involved.
EBM is in no way forge like. HIP = Hot Isostatic Pressing (you knew this I suspect) is closer to forging as both heat and pressure are involved in treating the part. I haven't found research pointing to Ampliforge processes yet, but I'll be amazed if Ampliforge isn't a tweak of HIP which does not change the geometry of the part as it applies pressure evenly on any part, regardless of complexity, by using an inert gas. I cannot imagine using a hammer forge process because any process I can imagine would change geometry. Maybe they've gone to using, say, a liquid metal to apply pressure. Who knows?
Good news in the direction of Alcoa/Carnegie Mellon/3d. Arcam is involved in America Makes. From
CARNEGIE MELLON RESEARCHERS DEVELOP NOVEL TOOLS
"His team is investigating the EOS Laser Sintering process and the Arcam Electron Beam Melting process. Both are powder-based additive manufacturing processes that directly build metal components from metal powders. At present, these two additive manufacturing processes are the most successful at automatically fabricating any 3-D shape of metals."
So far I've found research on eliminating porosity during the build.
"Rollett’s team, in collaboration with Professor of Mechanical Engineering Jack Beuth, recently published a paper in the Journal of Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society, which showed that a majority of the porosity in 3-D printed titanium could be eliminated by making adjustments to the process parameters of the machine. Less porosity means stronger, more reliable end-parts."
- See more at:
Taking a close look at metal 3-D printing
Preventive maintenance papers aren't so easy to find. Here's one from 1988 that give you some insight into the thinking, evaluation of parts for overhaul. This is not for Ti-Al alloys.
AIRCRAFT GAS TURBINE BLADE AND VANE REPAIR
Looks to me like they have a patent lawyer on hand. That's not a bad thing for creating a deep patent moat around Arcam's method.
The moat so far: (i) Arcam owns EB powder additive technology patents, (ii) they are vertically organized as they also produce Ti-Al powders, (iii) they produce the highest quality Ti-Al powders, (iv) Tesera gained FDA approval for an EBM produced orthopedic, and (v) GE's, Avio Areo's, Parker's, and Honeywell's use of Arcam equipment in Aerospace.
The seachange that's occurring is the increasingly deep moat and recognition that EB printed aerospace parts will be adopted by companies that formerly dismissed the idea. Formerly, we were hearing folk say it's a great prototyping technology. Now we're hearing people say it's an economically viable way of producing superior parts for aerospace and prosthetics. Rolls Royce and I believe Pratt and Whitney not long ago asserted that 3d additive manufacturing of aerospace parts wasn't a current and viable means of production but was a technology worthy of consideration by 2025 or 2030 (or so). Now both are adopting the technology, to what extent, I don't know. I'll worry about the links later, got to go soon.
Arcam reminds me of a company I invested some money in back in the naughts, a producer of LED traffic lights. They were focused on a product nobody else produced at the time and were traded on the relatively low volume Chicago exchange. Price swings aside, they were eventually bought out at double my investment. I forgot the symbol.
I doubt Arcam's fate will be precisely the same because unlike LED's, which became a commodity produced by competing companies, EBM has a healthier patent, certification, and technology moat. Instead we have a path for production of precisely engineered parts that are uniquely qualified for use due to Arcam's method, EBM.
LED traffic light producers saw a very narrow field of application but Arcam's field is not so narrow nor so well defined. Well, it's well defined for orthopedics and aerospace, but it's not well defined for other metals that are being explored. So at a minimum, with some years, I expect the same result as for that for the LED company, at a maximum, much more. Risks to at least a doubling in the years ahead include: stock dilution to pay for expansion (equal chances), that the FAA does not certify TiAl parts for turbine blades (very unlikely), or that any technology competes with Arcam on orthopedic or turbine blade front (unlikely up to 2020).
Don who?
"... it is my understanding from Don that GE has returned this business to the Parker JV after running into problems making them via Lasers AM... "
Link to Arcam Sweden volume?
Falling or rising price with low volume doesn't tell us much and is not unusual on a stock as thinly traded as Arcam's. The volume in the US during yesterday's, March 29, drop amounted to someone buying their kid a nice graduation gift of a moderately priced new car.
I'm don't know what the volume in Europe was and I saw no news of note on Nasdaq's Nordic exchange nor anywhere else.
That's extensive coverage on EBM alright but it looks like the conference is from April 27 - 29, not March 27 - 29.
Your link provides a nice list of topics, names, universities and companies involved in EBM that are worth investigating.
Everyone should read the paper at
Optimization of Electron Beam Melting for Production of Small Components in Biocompatible Titanium Grades
Although the emphasis is on biocompatible EB produced parts, there are also well written descriptions of the electron beam, uses of EB parts, the metals that have been used, and microstructure.
Thank you Charlie. I'll take a look at the link you suggest later in the week.
Thank you mouser96. I come back from a break and find I'm getting raked over the coals over my correct usage of art. Jeez. Pdb2, Mouser is correct. My use of the word art to describe a set of skills that are not easily codified into a set or rules is not in any way suggesting I disapprove of anything that Arcam or the metallurgists are doing. For example, there's plenty of art in making a katana and there's plenty of very rule based knife and sword making that comes no where close to creating the edge you'll see on a traditional katana, nor will it come close to a lot of Japanese, blacksmith produced knives. Sharpening a blade is also an art. Here pdb2, sat a spell, contemplate what follows-
sharpen knife
Now I give you, pbd2, a task. I know Schick and Gilette are making millions of razor sharp straight edges and I'm confident that's done with robots, but imagine programming a robot to sharpen a curved knife edge. Try programming a computer to do things we don't even consider to be an art, such as: program a robot to tell the difference between a cat and a dog, to recognize and open a door, tell the difference between a bench with no back and a table, or negotiate what to cook for dinner with your mate (well, that last might be an art).
I don't know if building an Arcam machine is completely codified yet, but I know it's not possible to obtain every metallurgical goal with a (computer) program, a set of rules for a robot. Why does Arcam have a feedback loop built into their latest machines? I seriously doubt that's because anybody can operate it. I'm much more confident in saying that one has to have judgement, and one has to have knowledge of the intended result and how to interpret the present state of the build given by the Arcam machine.
NOR am I saying Arcam is at the level of Samurai sword builders! I am saying that Arcam offers, in my opinion, the best technology for "micro quality control of Ti alloy material," or you might say, offers the best technology for "Ti alloy micro metallurgy" as long as we have humans with enough judgement around to operate the machines. I also believe they offer a technology that has the most promise for complete, robot based manufacturing of Ti alloy products in the future, but please, why don't ya, give it a few more years before they eliminate all art and me a few more years before I it.
Quality control of EB produced products appears to be a mix of science and art so the job ads are very likely showing use of Arcam machines. That's what I get after finally reading what appears to be very close to, if not, Arcam's "white paper." It takes a while to read even if you know a thing or two. They refer to first rate researchers and research facilities. These are names I was running into when I did my thesis some years ago, among them, individuals that had to be communicating with each other for anyone to come up with the first mathematical model of twinning. Do a search on "twinning metal" and find the source that best describes it to you if you want, but it's not important in understanding the "white paper" but it's discussed a little.
I get from it that you obtain Arcam's advertised mechanical properties for TiAl alloys if and only if one follows a tightly controlled set of procedures when using the EB machine and the conditioning that follows, HIP treatment for example. That's certainly better than not being able to produce products with the desired mechanical properties and the refinements in quality control go well beyond what is possible using other methods such as casting, however, these machines are not plug and play, put in a CAD file and go to sleep type things. One has to understand the process and apply quality control procedures, hence the job postings for those educated in those matters.
Arcam EBM-built Materials
There are clear limits for Ti-Al applications! Ti-Al cannot be used in all applications where nickel based superalloys are currently being used! So speculation about turbine stage use is just that unless experiment backs up its use. And then high levels of confidence that the EBM part is what's best mechanically and financially are not justified until there's been plenty of testing. The quoted sections below are from "?-Titanium Aluminide Manufactured by Electron Beam Melting, An Investigation of Microstructural Behavior and Related Mechanical Properties for Aerospace Applications", Sanna Fager Franzén and Joakim Karlsson 2010. The link for the "white paper" is below after the quoted material.
"At elevated temperatures the deformation behavior becomes more dependent of the rate the material is deformed. This is an important feature that severely limits the creep resistance of TiAl and is a major design issue when it comes to replacing nickel-based superalloys with TiAl (2)." -p. 22,
On the other hand-
"?-TiAl alloys has some appropriate and suitable thermal properties for aerospace applications and especially jet engines. The properties are a combination of low thermal expansion and high thermal conductivity (25). The thermal expansion of TiAl is lower than for Ni-based superalloys and that gives TiAl some advantages compared to traditionally used superalloys for applications as turbine blades. The lower thermal expansion makes the control of the expansion of the blade easier and the clearance between the blade tip and the shroud is not as critical (25)." -p. 24
In what follows they make clear what some of the limitations are for Ti-Al alloys-
"Creep properties are not the most favorable for TiAl, however they are important as many of the applications involve excessive temperature stresses (25). In many ways the creep resistance is much inferior to the nickel-based superalloys (2). As for other properties, the microstructure is important, but also the morphology of each phase is important (23)." -p. 31
"The oxidation resistance of TiAl is considered sufficient up to a temperature of about 800°C (25)." -p. 32
EBM compares very well with other manufacturing methods when we restrict what we are looking at to Ti-Al.
"Different manufacturing methods are investigated and applied to TiAl in order to make it commercial. Due to the material’s low ductility and fracture toughness processing of the material is hard and conventional manufacturing methods are difficult to apply (6). Conventional manufacturing methods have been applied, like casting, forging or powder processing, but they are all accompanied with difficulties that must be overcome. The difficulties in producing the material are said to be one reason for the limited use of TiAl today. Especially the automotive industry is sensitive to the end cost of the material and for TiAl, being so hard to process; the main cost of the product is the manufacturing cost (10). -p. 35
"Different problems must be handled when casting TiAl, the firsts being the reactivity of the molten material. TiAl reacts with all ceramics and is therefore extremely hard to contain. The problem is solved by using a cold-wall furnace; however that creates problem when the mold is being filled. With cold-wall furnace the superheating of TiAl can only be 600°C, which makes it hard to fill the mold properly. Further problem is that Al is easily vaporized from the melt when molten in vacuum. To solve that problem the melting is done in argon, which can in turn be trapped in the melt due to the low superheating and thereby the fast mold filling. The high reactivity of TiAl also causes trouble finding a good and cost efficient material for the mold. Another problem involves the microstructure that can be rough, with large grains and coarse lamellar structure." -p. 35
I'm very confident that EBM is the method to use for: some Ti-Al parts in aerospace, some auto, and many orthopedic and dental uses. The following describes quality control advantages of EBM over casting. That's all for awhile.
"The coarse microstructure and segregation obtained in casting could be avoided by using powder metallurgy with rapid solidification. The solidification microstructure can be refined and homogenous and comparable to wrought material (8). Investigation made on ?-TiAl produced by Electron Beam Melting shows that an ordered microstructure with extremely fine grains is obtained. The fine grains are expected since the melt pool is small and the cooling rate is high. By appropriate subsequent HIP and heat treatment a fine-grained duplex microstructure can be obtained (11). The manufacturing technique is built on additive manufacturing, adding layer by layer of material; despite that complete interlayer fusion is achieved (12)." p. 36
?-Titanium Aluminide Manufactured by Electron Beam Melting
That depends on the mechanical properties you want. From the data, UTS is clearly superior. It also appears that the test data on the alloy shows plastic deformation before the shear occurs. What that really means, if I were the engineer supervising the application, is the part has to show superior performance in the application. In this case, turbine blades, creep over time leads to failure. Creep is plastic behavior over long time periods.
I'm simply being cautious by saying "at least."