Tom, thank you, another insightful, informative and interesting article on arcam and its positives, based on fact and not unsupported conclusions. I've read a lot of stuff that you have mentioned and its one reason that I support arcam and its story. But based on what I've read, I'll add other positives of arcam and EBM. Not on does it make a stronger product, but cheaper as it can make a single whole part rather than a part containing 10ish or more assemblies. Its quicker than many alternatives, cheaper, can be more individually designed, denser, less material waste and is easier to work with than some of the traditional methods. I;m sure there are others.
But I make some refinements on your post.
(1) The GKN article does mention multiple parts, but haven't read that any of them have been incorporated yet despite the reference to producing production parts for production aircraft.
(2) Which some of these additional parts were mentioned with time fames and certification status.
(3) The article you mentioned was dated in 2013. The point I was trying to make is if the part is successfully built 3d wise why no updated word on certification. THe blades were first mentioned in 8/14 and if you believe the arcam order was for blades why no word on production of this one part.
(4) Of course lives are at stake. But at some point the certification process must begin and end and a decision made to incorporate the part on planes and in engines. We don't know if the blades are finally certified, but probably if not well on their way. But the ebm concept was first announced in 8/14. Some of these parts including the ones in the article you cited were being developed in 2013. Where are they.
In sum, I agree with most of your points although to me the key moat is the advantages of ebm and the patents issued thereon. I'm not technically savy enough to understand your technological points.
But what I am asking, an want specific info on, is not the generic advances and development being done on EBM. I know that's being done and have read a lot of articles thereon. What I need for my simple technological blade is the commercial progress being made. How many parts being considered for EBM. THe specific parts, where they are on the certification ladder, how many parts will be used per engine/plane and how many printers might be involved and when. I read a series of articles late in 2015 that indicated that only one or two AM parts, laser and ebm, had been certified. This suggests that not many other parts, however many are in development or experimentation, have been certified. BUt curious about how many may be in the certification process.
We need to end the generic information about how AM might impact the aviation industry and get information on how many parts we are talking about. Whether they are laser or ebm produced, which parts, how many, where are they in the certification process, how many will be use in each plane/engine, how many printers will they require, etc. I expect this news will be positive and once we have some clear indication of the answers, that's when arcam will take off assuming my expectations are correct. Generic, maybe info, will good reads are not close enough to sales and revenue to impress the market.
Any thoughts, opinions on this need for more specific info. Between us and the other knowledgeable level headed readers here we should get info. So far, nothing from the great conflab posted here or moving the pps. Hope that will change.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
