Replies to post #32689 on Sigma Labs Inc (SASI)

[chef911]

forgot to add an important point. Like several others, I have also heard directly from the source (paraphrased) that IPQA provides feedback to human (engineer or operator) to abort process before continued waste of time and material and correct the machine instruction parameters for the next run.

IMO, That's why it is interesting to everyone, investors and industry, but not yet proven, is that the data that "drives" the machine controller is the same data as will determine the part quality. If the machine is observed or heard depositing at x=1, y=2 and the part doesn't require a deposit/weld at that coordinate = part fail. If the machine is observed as not depositing/welding where it should be, part fail. If the welding laser or EMB is observed weaker or stronger, than result to part = reinforce or back off next layer/correct/compensate.
IMO, they bought the EOS to prove that point. That they are willing to void warranty to prove a point, and/or at minimum produce perfect parts much more inexpensively than available anywhere else, because Sigma has no huge post process inspection costs.

[MDuffy]

I believe it does cover it because when they re-applied with specific language that included AM, it was rejected on the grounds that the USPTO said it was materially similar to their existing patent for weld-pool control, i.e. already covered. That is my understanding.

[chef911]

This is the paper that the first, acoustic-based patent refers to, I think. Test 20 is the definitive. One question is, has Sigma Labs figured out how to get reliable, repeatable data via thermal sensing, rather than the characteristic second ring of the acoustic signature?

http://www.boulder.nist.gov/div853/Events%20-%20Welding%20Conference/Weld_Papers/1-1%20Hartman-paper.pdf