Liquidmetal Technologies Inc (LQMT)

[Watts Watt]

http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/202786/file-328527608-pdf/docs/case_study__flight_control_surfaces_revised_final.pdf?t=1429811543389

Hey SG, Thanks for the link!

I am so very happy that you re-introduced the cost comparison in aerospace which was introduced in 2013. As you very well know, at that time, the actual costing of the canard was based upon production of prototypes made by Visser Precision Cast. As you also know, the production costing of these prototypes was not based upon the latest iteration of the Engel-100 (110 short ton) which arrived at the Center of Excellence in RSM just after Paul Hauck signed on (I believe in March-April of 2014 and the machine arrived June or so)

So, I hardly believe that showing this example of a cost comparison is even valid on several accounts.

1) it does not reflect the costing of the RSM machine, latest iteration
2) it includes the costing including the Visser mark-up (why would we want to make a comparison today including that?)
3) as far as anyone is able to determine, VPC still has custody of the mold, as they paid for it,
4) most likely, the canard was made utilizing one of their Husky machines.

You can dispel 2, 3, and 4, which I would think you are want to do, but you cannot dispel item number 1.

So, with great thanks, (and even though I have read the case study 5 times, at least), I commend you on your DD in referencing this case study, which further validates my claim to have a CURRENT COST COMPARISON, based upon the latest iteration of the ENGEL machine in RSM, with the CURRENT COST STRUCTURE, not including VISSER OVERHEAD. Please recall that Tom Steipp said many improvements had been made to the Engel machine as is reflected by what is in RSM and more than a handful of us were able to see last November. I believe that cycle time and yield wee increased, though I am not sure of the specifics. Perhaps you can fill me in. At any rate, any comparaison should be based upon THIS MACHINE, not predecessors, as those comparisons are now MOOT.

For you to suggest that LQMT is using the same cost comparison of 2013 with current customer presentations is a bit too sloppy, don't you agree? We should go in with our best foot forward.

Thank you for your excellent DD! It certainly stands up against the comment of LQMTAPPLE and attempted to bring some good light to the subject thread.

Have a good day.

I truly regret that this might be considered a negative post, but I believe it is deserving of a fair rejoinder based upon its content.

Thanks for your understanding.