I appreciate your efforts to shed some light on what it is that SGLB is attempting to do. As this is a complicated and little understood aspect of AM, I believe that it is important that investors will develop a clear understanding of the IPQA process and the difficulty involved in developing said process. Without this level of understanding I believe it is impossible for investors to grasp the barriers to entry that gives SGLB an apparent advantage at this point in time. IMO if one is to invest in a company like SGLB based upon expectations of the role that PR3D will play in the field of metal AM, then it is important to really understand what SGLB is trying to develop and commercialize.
While many times board posters have commented upon non-disclosure agreements with GE and others that prevent SGLB from disclosing information about the status of PR3D, I believe that this cuts both ways. There may be other companies involved in developing some form of IPQA who are also bound by NDAs thus we do not hear about them. Does not hearing about alternatives mean that we are not hearing about them because they do not exist or does it mean that we do not hear about the alternatives because the alternatives are subject to NDAs and are being developed by privately held companies who do not have a need or a current interest or requirement for disclosure?
For a more complete exposure to the technology and functionality of PR3D I think that many would do well to take a look at jj's blog. http://sigmalabs3dam.blogspot.com.br which has gathered in one place a tremendous amount of info. It has been a couple of months since he updated it and even more time since he has been seen on this board, but it still remains a valuable resource for all who are interested in SGLB and the general area of quality control and inspection for metal AM.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
