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.
No doubt it would be tricky mixing powders the powder bin and as you mention the left over powder would be a mix. So I doubt if mixing would be used often especially since the physical characteristics of the resulting metal can be altered by altering the electron beam itself. AM lends itself well to making lots of parts ion different sizes and shapes in one machine at the same time so hopefully waste powder is kept at a minimum.
Still it is a possibility for the future. One not possible with subtractive manufacturing unless you bolt or weld parts together.
Personally I don't think the potential of EBM will be apparent until newer faster bigger machines using some of the research of Fast EBM and other research becomes available. Using the general rules of 1) most lab research won't work real world 2) It takes 8 years lab to mass production .
I may be quite a while,several years. Even though management has said t was "easy" to make machines at least 5times better.
I do think there is a good chance of a significantly improved EBM machine within a year. So I am not worried about whether present tech of EBM is used in this or that airplane part next week.
Since the material is generated as the component is being built, aerospace manufacturers will begin tailoring the material’s properties across different areas of the part, Sharman said.This ‘functional loading’ can be used to adapt the microstructure and texture of the component at different points, to meet the varying load across the part. The final step would then be to change the composition of the alloy throughout the part, to meet different loads or requirements,
Read more: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/aerospace/in-depth/aerospace-takes-to-additive-manufacturing/1021249.article#ixzz3soZwoA7e
I had not even thought the now obvious idea that the powder bed can layered like a cake with powder of different qualities , or even different alloys . The EBM process allows on the fly changes in beam intensity and pattern
I wonder if part of the decision whether to use ceramic or TIAl blades may have to do with the ability of companies making the manufacturing machines to ramp up production rapidly, rather than technical factors. And the cost factor is always present.
It seems to me , knowing next to nothing about ceramic composite, that using them is a big jump and thus a bit riskier than EBM. Especially for such a vital part .
the Avio Aero factory removes one of the potential road blocks i see re powder supply- it has it's own a power atomizer. Thus it is independent of the titanium powder oligopoly and of Arcam as a raw material supplier.
arcam has host of patents. Read them (i have read most() ,they are very broad and don't expire soon. also they have powder making and no doubt plenty of trade secrets.I f a process uses an"energy beam" a powder base and eletromagnetic steering, Arcam owns it. I think the patents are as good a Xerox or Polaroid were/. Tearing down a machine will do no good.
http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/ceramic-matrix-composites-heat-up
more on CMC
and this statement
“Ceramics customers currently working with NAFEN are hoping for improvements in fracture resistance, impact toughness, abrasion resistance and structural reinforcement,
titanium seems to have no problem with fracture resistance or impact toughness.
So the places where they compete might be limited, even if jet engines are one of the exceptions. But the blades of a jet engine to survive bird body ingestions at hundreds of miles per hour...
Regarding powdered titanium is is my wild guess ( not based on any real evidence) that since 95% or so of powdered titanium is used in things like paint and white tiles, that powdered titanium makers have been in no rush to improve the consistency or quality of their product. How good does it have to be for paint? It is a commodity business , thus one where cost is almost everything and R&D and money for capital expenditures are scarce.
Thus Arcam realized that they will have to do it themselves. Which is better than leaving EBM at the mercy of poor quality raw material. But it brings up another problem- users of the EBM machine might then have to depend on Arcam for both machines and raw material. Something most probably won't be happy with.
As soon as I saw what is being used in hip replacements today I knew Arcam electron beam could make a much better prosthesis. Unfortunately the suppliers of these in the EU and US are an oligopoly uninterested in rocking the boat so the main thrust is coming from China.
The suppliers of titanium powder also appear to be an oligarchy, interested on milking profits . I think the entry of Arcam m into making a superior grade of powder hopefully at lower cost may turn out to be one of the smartest moves the company has made. Results of EBM should be better with a better raw material. One not contaminated with oxides and water, and certainly having a more consistent grain shape and size. Which should help to with the partially fused (sintered) powder at the edges of the EBM giving the rough surface.
from the link
Even though it is biologically compatible, titanium has difficulties in molding, casting, and milling. The shaping of titanium onto a model is limited by the artistic aptitude of technician and can be unreliable. CNC milling is also limited by difficulties encountered when trying to replicate complex anatomy or internal features due to collision between the milling tool and the object. With the development of RP technique, the accurate production of prosthesis with complicated morphology and internal features has become possible [22].
Metal RP processes like EBM and selective laser sintering can directly manufacture patient-specific medical TAV implants and devices. In the current study, three kinds of prosthesis manufactured by EBM were implanted to repair the defects in unusual sites. Compared to traditional manufacturing process, EBM greatly simplifies the processing steps and considerably reduced fabricating time. It shows a promising tendency in manufacturing customized prosthesis.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the USA has recently approved the production of certain products fabricated using Arcam’s EBM process. Besides fabricating customized implants, several companies, including Adler Ortho (Italy), have used EBM to manufacture some special structures of standard prosthesis.
For example, the lattice structure of acetabular cup is crucial for osteointegration in hip replacement. But the traditional manufacturing methods are complicated and time-consuming. Now, EBM has been used to fabricate such structures. This direct metal fabrication technique can eliminate several process steps associated with traditional methods [27]. Also in artificial hip system, the stem is usually much stiffer than host bone and, over time, this can cause stress shielding, bone resorption, and implant loosening. Additive processes allow the structure of the stem to be optimized to match the stiffness, or flexibility, of the host bone, reducing stress shielding [28
At this point, the primary problem with the alloy is that it is made of 20 percent scandium, which is extremely expensive. The researchers are exploring whether or not scandium can be replaced or eliminated from the alloy
so unless they can replace the scandium with something lot cheaper this alloy is going to have little market potential. OTOH the whole idea of alloys being made upon equal parts of metals rather than predominantly one has significant potential.
mechanical methodology of making similar super alloys
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/12/20141211-ldhea.html
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21663831.2014.985855
Note the wide coverage of the patent language.
From one of this month's patents "powdery material ... layer by layer... solidified by irradiating it with a high energy beam"
somehow i don't much care for the acronym DEFORM ....
An earlier link referred to the ability to catch mistakes layer by layer and fix them by remelting. This could go a long way toward quality assurance since this type of control may only be possible with 3DP. 3DP(EBM) is also the only methodology where the metal grain structure hardness etc can be made different for different parts of the part. Like a good Samurai sword , soft and non brittle in the center, hard at the edge.
It looks like all this cool sophistication is taking s long time to show up in Arcam machines.
look for powder specific to EBM
https://agmetalminer.com/2015/04/21/titanium-powder-3d-printing-set-to-take-off/
http://www.murraymcintosh.com/news/uk-3d-printing-technology-to-see-1-5-million-investment
the photographs I have seen of titanium powder shows particle size and shape to vary quite a bit.
Uniform and consistent it isn't.
No doubt EBM represents only a mall market forbid suppliers. Owning their own supply means Arcam can eventually deploy the tech to develop powders designed just for EBM . As the above companies are doing. And it means customers know they can get a supply of high quality powder.
better quality materials means better end products. Maybe the best shape for EBM isn't spherical but coin shaped??
I think the lack of new machines is a piece of evidence that Arcam is likely not to follow the auto idea of a new model every year, with cars that actually have only very minor changes.
Either significant improvements are not possible or they are possible. If the latter is the case it i best to wait and conserve capital until they can do something dramatic, because I doubt if a 10% improvement will sell more machines.
Of course this is all just a guess.
Business is booming. The jet engines using their parts are just starting to go into production. If going around the world starting in Knoxville TN was the future path, I think the company has maybe reached Little Rock. But it may sputter along the way
.
About 18 months ago the CEO said getting machines 10 times faster was "relatively easy" (the EU and US Oak Ridge have paid for the basic research) So far they are still using the same machines. It is my WAG that they won't introduce a 20% faster machine but go for one 2 or 3 times faster. Their present cash flow gives them the opportunity to put all that lab research into a real world product. Doing this, lab to mass production ,is usually a 5 to 8 year affair.
The stock price has seemed to be disconnected from reality for a long time. But it is perceptions that move stock prices, not reality. The biggest perception seems to be that Arcam is just a Scandinavian
DDD.When in fact other than a few things like using a powder bed they have little in common.
I have looked at hip replacement metal pieces and most offer little to no good surface for bony regrowth. They are too smooth.
EBM implants are much better in this regard but it will be very hard to prove since only dislocation or tearing it out will give hard evidence.
Too bad. Because hip implants are mostly held in by weight, muscles, maybe a small screw or two ( cement is seldom used today) Bone regrowth, according to my hip surgeon, is "very slow" It is amazing to me that the implants hold at all.
http://www.spineuniverse.com/exams-tests/bone-grafts-new-developments
A EBM made hip could be coated with some slow release bone growth stimulators.
But considering usual FDA obstructionism this seems unlikely. Also the big companies tend to buy up any smaller competitors that might disturb the status quo.
I looked at a Zimmer hip replacement ( titanium) a few days ago. Except for the ball (which presumably could be polished to be smoother the roughed area for bone to grow into) was really inadequate. To me it looked mostly cosmetic more stippling than porosity .EBM would be vastly better, more porous. They told me it takes a long time for bone to grow, not surprising considering the way the Zimmer is made.
Also the surgeons have to have a variety of sizes on hand because none may fit just right. If it doesn't some chiseling and bone sculpting is necessary. That is very tedious, possibly a reason why surgery takes 3 hours. (or so I am told) Having EBM parts printed out to exact X ray size would give them more choice because now they have to make do with standard parts,.
Orthopedic guys are slow to change brands, studies are expensive in an already crowded market for ortho equipment. The FDA is also an impediment to anything new.
Thanks for the non aerospace links.
This time I think the market is wrong, a feeling that can be hazardous to your wealth.
But I will stick for at least 5 years . I have more confidence in Arcam as a company than any other , Tesla is the only one that comes close. But stock prices often diverge widely from company prospects. Arcam is considered just another 3DP. So AMAVF will not go up until that idea changes.
It is not necessarily true that other orders were single machines. Arcam may have considered this order "important" because of the source of the order , or knowledge of what the machines y were going to be used for, or the fact that both were for the expensive Q20 machines The quarter is only 1/3 done, and I believe there is a seasonal pattern, orders tending to come in the second the year , with end of year and trade show timing.
The news is great, the stock price keeps falling. At least this is better than vice versa. My belief in the underlying science and the future of EBM remains high. But I wish I had waited longer to buy the stock. There is no technical chart support, no sign of a bottom for AMAVF. And this is in a general bull market, what will it be in the inevitable next bear market.?
But I keep coming back to all those EU and other scientists and the free research money pouring into EBM. Either they know more about the future EBM, or the stock market does. I will pick the former. This is a minimum 5 year hold for me, I won't know until then whether I have been right or wrong.
Arcam is still very much pre chasm.
I doubt if external magnetic fields are a problem except perhaps in case of deliberate sabotage. Any stray magnetic field nearby is likely to be weak. And they decrease as the inverse square of the distance. It is also relatively easy to shield against them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_shielding
Laser sintering had a head start on EBM. So it may have already leaped the chasm, and is on the rapid uptake curve of the technology adoption life cycle curve. EBM is further behind , pre-chasm. If/when it jumps the chasm it's uptake will accelerate.
IOW I don't think that share of a growing market like additive means much at this stage,. So far the applications of lasers and electron beams don't overlap much, though as EBM matures that may change.
Nor do I think analysts are going to be much use predicting usage of a rapidly changing technology very far out into the future. Particularly from the small base of Arcam, just production of 2 or 3 parts could make a big difference. And all that free EU research will be incorporated into Arcam products at some unknown time. EBM will improve faster than the more mature laser processes.
Not to say that I wouldn't like to find a good laser based company to buy but the best ones are privately owned
The GE talk said that the single biggest problem GE was having with EBM is getting trapped powder out of passages, so that sounds like a good step. The passages in fuel nozzles are critical to the core of the design , but in other parts may be secondary.
Engineers are like the rest of us, both a beneficiary of our experience from the past but also trapped by it when something really new comes along. It is going to take time, senior designers may never adopt, we may need a new generation.
Much like the da Vinci robot was for prostatectomy. Older urologists mostly downplayed it , it took took younger men on the way up , men with not so much invested in conventional thinking and doing , to lever it to a point where it is now the standard.
It is impressive that GE is doing so much 3DP without any parts in actual production yet. And that they see so many opportunities that even a giant like GE will need to collaborate with others. This plus all the free research Arcam EBM process is getting confirms to me that engineers and scientists who know a lot more than I do see a great future for EBM, particularly in aerospace
One of the problems with any metal 3DP process is that unmelted powder can onlty be removed if there is an exit area afer the melting is done. Any holes like those in closed cell foam or Swiss cheese remain filled with unmelted powder. While this might not matter for some parts it makes them heavier and more expensive, not good for aerospace. This probably can be minimized by clever design of the part, leaving adequate channels for powder removal.
from that link
These are two research programs, TiPOW and Horizon
.Free to Arcam.
The TiPOW programme forms one element in a major AM research and development initiative across GKN, and will run alongside another GKN Aerospace-led, ATI supported, programme called Horizon (AM )’. This programme aims to take a number of promising AM techniques through to viable production processes. Five dedicated AM development centres have been established in North America and Europe each clearly focused on progressing specific additive processes and technologies.
Not a materials engineer but looking at pictures of the structure of the powder the are using(uneven, not completely spherical granules) it is not too hard to think that improved consistency or even a flat disc like shape might improve results. Not to mention the exact composition of the titanium alloy itself.
I have never owned shares in a company getting so much free research. All that free research means real engineers and scientists see a lot more potential in EBM (meaning Arcam) that do most investors at this time. In the real world the former group is more likely to bw right long term than hedge fund managers and day traders.
vertical integration
http://www.economist.com/node/13173671
It probably would not have been possible to build a Tesla in the days when all there big car companies were vertically integrated.A ready source of components shared by BEV and ICE vehicles meant that only a smallish percentage of the car had to be designed from scratch. Shared components could be purchased from suppliers and ICE companies.
It is known that Tesla is headed back to the vertical integration model. This is most visible in the gigafactory. Apparently using the ideas of modern manufacturing , more robots, fewer but better quality, better paid workers . Who won't want or need a union because they are well treated , and have no " us vs them "attitude. IOW a shift from "labor intensive" as it's commonly perceived in the car business to more "capital intensive". And a shift from hardware to more emphasis on software.
This implies thatTesla believe2 that they can get better quality products than suppliers who fight for every dime , earning only enough to barely survive. Suppliers who have neither the inclination ,skills, or t money to innovate.
I believe the little video labeled electron beam is actually a laser beam.
Too slow for an EB.
"pow to the moon" Probably something only older investors recognize
. The funniest TV show ever.What a great cast. And they had to be great- it was live and Gleason was often tipsy and did not stick to the script so they had to ad lib.
Actually what the market cares about is Perceptions of future profitability (earnings.
Some think the market should be focused more on cash flow.
http://www.sciaky.com/electron_beam_systems.html
link to the Sciaky process mentioned which seems to be EB welding rather than true AM. I suppose this means attaching already made parts together by welding, using an electron beam as the power source for the heat.
I wonder how long it will be before the 2WD model S is gone. It would simplify production if all X and all S are AWD. I believe they are made on the same line, and the extra mass production of the AWD will lower costs even more.I doubt if the cost is all that much more for Tesla, and AWD makes lots of sense to many buyers. Few would turn it down if the costs were similar to the 2WD model. I have heard that AWD Teslas are the bulk of demand now ,and no doubt that will increase with the 70 kWh model availability. Who knows how much of that is backlog demand and how much sustainable demand.
Furthermore it would be a mark of separation for Gen 3 to be 2WD and the more expensive Tesla cars to be AWD. I know Subaru has gained market share over the last few years, probably based on it's AWD abilities.
No more 2WD model S?
go to teslamotors.com and try to order a model S, no 2WD model is shown.
Perhaps they have found the demand for AWD is a lot higher, and producing only AWD on an assembly line shared by X (AWD only) and AWD model S simplifies manufacturing. It is also possible than since EV AWD requires no expensive linkages, that 2 smaller motors cost little more than one big motor.
The 2WD Tesla S can't really handle much more power, I can feel traction control coming on and off briefly even in 40 mph in passing maneuvers.
Power in an EV is limited not by engine size (expense) weight or gas milage, but by tire traction. So why not make all of them as fast as a Formula 1? I also note the top speed of the AWD is higher than that of the 2WD. While that is of no interest to me it might matter in Germany. The dual motor concept allows different gearing in each, the cheaper lighter equivalent of an automatic transmission. The motors used in Tesla do have full torque at near zero rpm but start running out of power above 7000 rpm or so.
check the facts
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/09/04/record-price-new-car-august/2761341/ $31,252 and that was in August 2013, probably higher now.
"necked powder"
for a description see
http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1726
I think a low Youngs modulus would mean it can be stretched and return to original shape- a rubber band would have a low Youngs modulus number. But not much toughness ?
The "necking" or something similar, where particles are fused together but not completely melted may be more common in laser sintering where powder granules are often incompletely fused i,\.
Sintering- A process in which the particles of a powder are welded together by pressure and heating to a temperature below its melting point Dictionary definition.
With EBM the powder can be heated to above the melting point, something hard to do with the limited energy available to lasers .At least with high melting temperature metals.It's easy to melt plastics.
Any physicists out there feel free to correct me if needed.
most of it translates OK into French
the phrase
"research (on) technician (not) able to handle a new way of designing the pieces, adapted to this new manufacturing technology " is I believe mis translates since the "on" and "not" actually refer to gender. IOW they are advertising for a male or female technician.Many European languages have few gender non specific words, even inanimate objects have a gender.
Any French speakers please correct me if I am wrong. My French is limited to light reading and conversation on a level of a 2 year old.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/02/09/national/jaea-uses-ceramic-film-to-easily-strain-collect-lithium-from-seawater/#.VRRE_lw-BuU
lots of lithium is potentially available, most of it come from brines today.
large amounts of lithium are not needed in batteries. Lithium is abundant in nature, just not highly concentrated.
the main expense of Tesla's batteries is raw materials and the most expensive part of those is the metals used in the electrodes. If BEV ever get even close to the 80 million per year cars made today, cheaper and more readily available materials are going to be needed to replace the nickel and cobalt presently used by Tesla.
http://www.carscoops.com/2014/07/suvs-and-crossovers-surpass-sedans-in.html
SU and crossovers are now ahead in sales compared to sedans in the US. And there are lots of economy and low priced sedans, few if any low priced SUV. .thus sedan penetration of upper cost cars is even lower.
The S is a sports sedan, a small niche market inside the sedan market.
Not so with the X, the potential market is much bigger.
Note that Arcam does not sell many machines in Swedish currency. Almost all are sold in euros or dollars. A weak currency actually helps Arcam as a manufacturer in the long run, their expenses are in a weak currency their sales are into a stronger one.
The exact opposite of the US companies like SSYS and DDD which are dragging Arcam price down with them.
I would probably buy EOS if it was profitable, public ,and available at modest (bubble deflated) P/E.
I am leery of SLM Solutions. No traceable decent volume ADR last time i checked a few months ago.
http://www.stage.slm-solutions.com/index.php?investment-highlights_en
no mention of the fact that the volume is not making them profitable.
I don't understand the plastics market. Even the tiny aerospace niche of metals is hard to keep up with.
Most US brokers make it hard and/or expensive for small investors to buy overseas. In the long run AMAF will keep up with ARCM because of arbitrage. I ignore currency movements , I can't predict them, but know eventually most industrialized countries will equalize. Look what the euro has done since inception.
Sector Contagion
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2015/02/03/stratasys-tanking-more-than-30-on-slashed-guidance/?utm_source=yahoo.com&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix
Stratasys released preliminary fiscal 2014 earnings results and 2015 guidance after Monday’s closing bell that were significantly below the Wall Street consensus, and the numbers shook investors so much that Stratasys stock opened for Tuesday trading down 29% — and the free-fall only
http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/15/02/5206705/why-this-expert-thinks-theres-more-pain-ahead-for-3d-pri from there.
Gary Anderson, founder of 3DPrintingStocks.com, warned Benzinga that 3D printing stocks could remain under pressure throughout 2015.
"The industry is growing fast," said Anderson. "As far as I know, it's still growing between 20 and 30 percent compound annual growth rate. These companies are all expanding their revenue. They're all growing revenue."
Unfortunately, they're also trying to do a number of acquisitions.
"[M&As] dilute shares and it's costing them money in the short run and they're paying the price for it now,"
Of course none of this has anything to do with Arcam.
I suspect that lot of individual and institutions didn't know much about 3DP, didn't separate plastics from metals, lasers from eBM , so bought a basket of these stocks. Now they are selling the basket.
An irrational market at work.But markets can be irrational for a long time. Though I hate to see AMAVF the stock pummeled, Arcam the company is doing great. The crash is doing wonders for bringing the P/E down,the price is falling as the earnings are rising . I do think this sector linkage makes price gains unlikely anytime soon. I have no idea how low AMAVF will fall, but at some point it gets cheap enough to attract even value buyers.
I am reminded of AAPL around the time of the stock split, the stock price collapsed even though there was no change in the company outlook or business. It's all in perceptions. In the case of mutual funds they sense the perception, and don't want any 3DP stocks in their quarterly report due the end of this month. It makes the management look bad. This is a self perpetuating phenomena.
misadventures of 3DP titanium
with a laser based system. and a different titanium alloy than TiAl
http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/03/12/3d-printing-titanium-the-bin-of-broken-dreams-part-3/?utm_source=3D+Printing+Industry+Update&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=d9d7e1a74f-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_695d5c73dc-d9d7e1a74f-41117813
one conclusion, maybe try EBM instead
The electron beam melting process preheats the entire build platform to just under the melting point of titanium, and so generates much lower thermal gradients?—?and, as a result, less internal stress?—?than DMLS. EBM also generally requires fewer support structures, which is helpful for part cleanup. However, the surface quality and minimum feature size of EBM is significantly worse than DMLS, so EBM would probably require a longer overall process chain, with more material removal than DMLS would.
both DMPLS and EBM have their place. But laser technology is older and better developed so I think EBM has more potential. Especially with all the free research into the physics involved.