Replies to post #48244 on Sigma Labs Inc (SASI)

[El_Jefe42]

Perhaps because there is no evidence of it other than what is derived from reading between the lines. What gives anyone confidence to say that GE will not use both products in their production of AM parts? What is the argument for the two not being mutually exclusive?

I'm confident from what I have been able to decipher that PR3D is still on deck to be implemented by GE. I think that the meeting in El Paso next month will be a coming out party. I cannot believe that SGLB has been working with GE, America Makes, HON, DARPA, etc, etc for this long only to have the rug pulled out at the eleventh hour. Are we to assume that since the timeline has been longer than anticipated that the plans have shifted? No. I think not.

Hey Jeff,


Thanks for the explanation. It does help clarify somewhat, but I suppose what remains a concern -- and I don't know whether it ought to be or not -- is that Greg Morris, in the quote that is published on the other company's site....(copied below)... makes the Materialise software sound somewhat comprehensive and all-encompassing -- Or at least that interpretation seems possible and not altogether unreasonable from the quote. I don't claim to know the answer here myself. Not at all. Just trying to figure this out and without any engineering background, it's certainly a challenge.

How do we know that Materialise's software, in addition to ensuring in regard to the items you attributed to it, is not also providing the functions that you indicate for PrintRite3D? "... mechanical and metallurgical properties, etc of the material..." (w/i quotes, excerpted from your email)


(From Materialise's site)
"As we ramp up to production on the LEAP fuel nozzle, Materialise Streamics will be our production control software for Additive Manufacturing. It will be an invaluable tool to help us save time and eliminate manual processes."

Greg Morris, Additive Technology Leader, GE Aviation