Replies to post #3359 on Arcam AB fka AMAVF

[pdb2]

Your post does not make sense in the context of the issues raised.

1. I did not understand much of your post, even the part that made sense, who cares whether the technology is complimentary or not.

2 The issue was the powder expansion and number of EBM printers that might be supported. I disagreed with Investor re the number he postulated and he agreed with me in a supportive post.

3. The 40% that you question is not my number, it was Rene's as stated in a CC and investor agreed with my memory that Rene did state it.

4. So the issue and my point was that given the material expansion, it might not equal the number of EBM printers that Investor postulated as some of that material, 40% per Rene, was being sold to competitors and not EBM so the number of EBM printers would not necessarily be that high. Investor agreed.

So while like others you provide a nice graphic, in the context of the issue raised, your point and the relevancy of the post escapes me. We are selling a lot of powder to competitors and non EBM machines which means that there need not be the number of EBM machines INvestor postuated to use up that powder

Your point in the context of the discussion raised?????