re: GE and Arcam
I think lack of EBM promotion by GE has to do with GE not fully owning Arcam. So, returns on research and investment for GE aren't so clear.
EBM has far more potential as far as speed of production is concerned. Laser beams are mechanically controlled while EB is magnetically controlled. The later is faster by far. EB does not require post build heat treatment to relieve stress. Both laser and EBM require HIP treatment for the most demanding applications.
EBM has qualities that are uniquely suited to aerospace, for instance, the low pressure turbine blades and the mechanical properties they've obtained using EBM. That should hold true for structural members as well but they're promoting laser produced structural members more, or so it seems. There's something not adding up unless it is that GE does not fully own Arcam.
That GE was pulling some of its fluid mechanics specialists into laser additive suggests to me that they are trying to get laser to approach EBM results with regard to mechanical properties, however, they'll still not be able to approach EBM build speed, and they'll still need to post process to relieve stress, and they still are no where close to EBM with regard to site specific control of mechanical properties.
Arcam is developing closed loop build management for it's machines. That's a very important part of industrializing. By closed loop I mean they're able to detect what's going on in the build and closely monitor and control the electron beam to adjust for what is occurring in the build. The closed loop management is not possible for laser, to my knowledge, at least yet.
Maybe this is the question to ask, given the new CEO. Which process, laser or electron beam, offers the best profit margins? Which process has the nearest, in time, revenue-cost break-even point? Which offers the greatest growth in profit? It could be that a mix of both technologies is best. That's my thinking, because the printing abilities of laser and EB are complementary. One prints to finer detail, the other is faster, etc. Again, decisions don't seem to reflect what capabilities laser and EB offer, but that was under Immelt.
I think it's safe to assume that Flannery is not especially interested in excessive quality or pushing the frontiers of research. I'm still worried that Flannery will focus on quarterly profits in what looks like profit tactics, not the strategic way the Immelt guided GE. That suggests to me the Flannery will guide GE to use the manufacturing manufacturing process that makes parts that are at least acceptable with regard to failure rate and lifespan, and offers greatest profit. If part quality is the best and comes with profit, all the better.
Does this mean that under Flannery GE might actually choose EBM over laser for more manufacturing projects? I just don't know.
