I think calling Carpenter's competence into question is ridiculous.
I think we can say with certainty that the technology itself is functional. Terry Lowe has a UFG implant in his head, and so do hundreds of eastern Europeans. I think that answers the question of whether or not Carpenter could create SPD using ECAP. It's a fairly simple process. Squish metal in an angular channel with a press.
The question of whether it is a technology worth pursuit is another matter. When I said that Carpenter couldn't make it work I could have been more explicit. There are a number of possible reasons it failed.
It could have been that through ECAP, the process itself couldn't reliably produce consistent results for Carpenter's intended purpose, no matter who was doing the squashing. The fact that Nanomet is squashing titanium for dental clients in Europe is of no import.
It could be that the process works but is not scalable, or maybe it only works on round billets, or maybe there's just no market, or maybe it's a solution in search of a problem, or maybe there are much better solutions to the problem, or maybe the accounting department nixed it, or maybe some other of a hundred possible reasons.
It's hard to say from the outside what went wrong, but the fact is Carpenter has been around for over a century and has global impact. They have a list of products longer than the list of Marvin's failures. Their client base is highly diverse and technical. Carpenter studied the issue for five years and paid MHTX to get good and gone.
It's a very long shot to say anyone else will have any luck.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
