To answer your direct question, yes you are the only one. just like with your EBAM competition posts, to have fears and concerns as you are premature, drawing such fears and conclusions on weak premises. Of couse arcam should investigate and be aware of this technology, as they should be re any new and even existing competitive technology, but to post fears and conclusions is not warranted.
To me there are a variety of questions with this new ink technology. First and foremost, How long to commercialization??? Many new concepts sound great in the lab but take years till commercialization, if at all. Two, will the process and end product compete with ebm or laser or be an adjunct. For example in the aerospace field, might the new process replace some ebm parts or primarily laser or just be a wash. And three given all the factors, will the net net result be an improvement on EBM/Laser, a wash or be less viable
As near as I could tell, and I may be wrong, it sounds like this new technology is in the concept phase and not proven as yet. Like so many materials like graphene and other processes, the jury is still out. And if we are talking years till effective commercialization, like so many other concepts and issues, its moot for the near term.
Bottom line, Trader, like with the EBAM you posted about and composites leapfrogging EBM, fear and conclusions are premature as it will take a while before the jury decides if this new process and the resultant products are competition to arcam or that they will even prove successful. Remember, that per one poster, before the parts produced can even be considered for aviation they must undergo the same lengthy process that the arcam printers and blades are still undergoing. So concerns, feas, and conclusions are premature for all but you to answer your direct question.
