I fail to understand the relevant difference between the building of merely the "nozzle tip" (as you claim) versus building the entire "nozzle" via AM, and ONLY AM techniques vis a vis SGLB's contribution to building a component of the LEAP engine, whether it is a complete nozzle or merely an essential part of that nozzle. Clearly, the vast majority of the components of the LEAP engine are going to be manufactured via traditional techniques. As I understand it, the "nozzle" or "nozzle tip" are essential to the new design and can only be manufactured using AM techniques. Without the nozzle tip that can only be built via AM the nozzle (in its entirety) will not function as designed and the LEAP engine will fail. There are multiple statements from GE and SCM indicating the LEAP engine has successfully been tested to date and that complete success in terms of FAA approval is expected in the reasonably near future. This entire thread appears to be a discussion about a distinction that does not amount to a difference insofar as the acceptance and use of PR3D technology, and thus... REVENUES!
Each investor and trader has to look at the information available and use their own judgement as to the importance of each piece of information, the relationship of each piece of information to the others and the overall image being revealed by the information received. My personal opinion is that the pieces of information we are receiving now, whether they are from SGLB, GE, SCM, Honeywell, NIST, DARPA, America Makes...etc etc.. is that there is a growing energy toward PR3D adoption, sales, licensing, use and revenues. Thus, I conclude that in 2 to 6 quarters there will be a pps that will refelct an amazing % gain.
To each their own conclusions...
patience and GLTA
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
