Sunday, August 31, 2014 2:18:31 PM
Very well said, the risk here is greatly minimized when you have the material science background and the relationships that Sigma has developed over the years. There's a reason why all the competitors in this space are essentially just slapping a camera on their 3D printers for QA. It's the easy thing to do. Too many here (not you, certainly) seem to discount the science and technical know how behind what Sigma is doing. Sigma's IPQA monitors thermal, optical and acoustic parameters to insure these metal powders which are being welded together in 3D space, meet stringent requirements for critical parts. Imagine the fallout from the production of a complex part, where a portion of the metal powder only partially welds during the build, which can happen for a myriad of reasons (i.e. fluctuations in power, operator error, improper printer maintenance, etc.). You need the best available technology (BAT) to insure critical parts in jet engines don't fail.
Here's a simple equation:
Material Science Background + National Lab Backing + Top Aerospace Firms + BAT + Breakout Industry = Profits
Let the naysayers, with their obvious agendas, continue to provide their vague concerns.
FEATURED Element79 Gold Corp. Reports Significant Progress in Community Relations and Development Efforts in Chachas, Peru • Oct 9, 2024 10:30 AM
Unitronix Corp Launches Share Buyback Initiative • UTRX • Oct 9, 2024 9:10 AM
BASANITE INDUSTRIES, LLC RECEIVES U.S. PATENT FOR ITS BASAFLEX™ BASALT FIBER COMPOSITE REBAR AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING • BASA • Oct 9, 2024 7:30 AM
BNCM COMPLETES MERGER WITH DELEX HEALTHCARE • BNCM • Oct 8, 2024 9:54 AM
CBD Life Sciences, Inc. (CBDL) Reaches Unprecedented Heights With Explosive Growth and Strategic Expansion in 2024 • CBDL • Oct 8, 2024 8:00 AM
Unitronix Corp. to Invest $3 Million in USA Unity Coin Project • UTRX • Oct 7, 2024 7:08 AM