RE:Not true Tcheck wrote: Bernard stated
we are the only company to bring to market a new process to make Silicon that is perfectly suited to the new demands and realities of the Silicon market,
tekna is producing silicon metal and powders as well
and with the help of plama technology .
So i don t get this .
Bernard should know
tekna is a neighbour after all.
Dont sweep the competition under the carpet :)
also why order 1 powersupply for the pilot plant
when the damned thing takes such a long time to arrive ?
We want to produce on an industrial scale or not ?
i would think it takes some preparation and anticipation to gear up .
i hope the QRR pilot plant won t hit any technical snags .
This is the achievement we are all (so desperately )waiting for .
If that hurdle is cleared we can finally produce and supply the much desired silicon .what scale are we talking ? At World ,global scale or at a much modest scale .if it is global scale we won t be able to achieve that the way we are set up .
It will be a 10 bagger of silicon stock real quick if we have all ducks finally in a row .
For the moment it is a miserable underperformer .
hope you have other stocks to compensate for this one .
This has been discussed numerous times already...so once again reposting:
Bernard did say many will make claims but the ones that might possible have the ability - can't do it cheap enough. Tekna is no where near..not even close. Here is good read where Tekna is mentioned in this very good read https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/na/d0na00589d $hpq on why the barriers to large scale silicon nano powders is very significant and hard to scale. Hence why HPQ and PYR are well position w PUREVAP QRR / PUREVAP NSIR as they publicly stated numerous times they are confident they will be scale this more economical than anyone and are 5-6 years ahead of everyone trying.
Here is post by @MidtownGuy I had posted this prior on SH about Tekna:
There are indeed other companies around the world that use plasma to make metal powders. The demand is expected to be so great that a multitude of suppliers will be needed. For various reasons, these suppliers differ in the extent of their competitiveness.
The key difference is in technology and feedstock, but also includes volume potential and price potential.
TECHNOLOGY
Tekna, for instance, uses a plasma technology called "inductively coupled plasma" (ICP), which requires electro-magnets to help create the arc.
PYR uses a reverse polarity plasma torch based on a technology called "DC non-transferred plasma".
While there are pros and cons to each technology, the DC non-transferred technology is generally considered more readily available at higher powers, offers more stable operation, less "flicker", and better control.
FEEDSTOCK
Tekna's nano-powder process seems to require that they start with existing higher purity metal powders (or create the base powder first), which is more expensive right out of the gate, before then conducting another process to make the spherical or nano-powders.
PYR's process allows them to use a cheaper and lower-purity product, raw metal wire -- then bypassing the entire step of first having to convert it to base powder. PYR goes right from raw wire to high-purity spherical or nano-powder.
PRICE AND VOLUME
Theoretically, the expectation of the PYR Purevap process is that it should significantly reduce the cost of making powders simply because it uses cheaper raw material. If all goes as expected, Tekna can't appear to compete on the raw material cost.
As for volume, again because of the use of lower cost raw wire, the avoidance of the additional step, and PYR's stated ability to replicate the process by creating additional reactor towers as needed, it appears they can eventually surpass the volume of most if not all nano-powder creators.
Here is post re: another response by PYR CEO regarding 6k where Tekna is mentioned:
Hey guys here is previous answer from Pyrogenesis CEO response regarding 6K 3D powder competition :
https://agoracom.com/ir/PyroGenesisCanada/forums/discussion/topics/735375-6k-additives-vs-pyr/messages/2254648#message
Dear Topseeker,
Thank-you for your question.
Please do not interpret the delay in getting back to you as anything untoward with this name.
6K? We know them well. They approached us awhile back as their former self looking for help with their reactor.
They were known as Amastan until a few months ago (https://www.3dprintingmedia.network/amastan-rebrands-6k-launches-sustainably-sourced-metal-am-powders/).
It is an interesting technology but, in my opinion, with some significant challenges to development and ultimately commercialization. I do not see them as competition.
The technology is a spheroidization technology based on microwave plasma. It seems similar to the Tekna spheroidization technology, and they definitely seem to be targeting Tekna as their main competitor: “Low OpEx: 99% microwave-to-plasma coupling efficiency, over double that of ICP plasma systems.”
Interestingly enough, their technology still seems to be at a relatively early stage of development which surprises me: (https://www.6kinc.com/about/news/news/press-release/6k-demonstrates-custom-engineered-metal-alloy-powders-for-additive-manufacturing-at-formnext/
Ultimately, I believe, it will have the same challenges as the Tekna technology: potential loss of aluminum in the alloy, difficulty of obtaining uniform spheroidization of all particles at high yield (particles will see different areas of the plasma zone and have different residence time).
A significant challenge to commercialization/profitability is that 6K, unlike PyroGenesis, relies on angular Ti64 powder feedstock to spheroidize which is a huge problem. One challenge is in finding -45/+15µm Ti64 grade 23 material (i.e. < 1300ppm of Oxygen), which is virtually impossible to secure, let alone on a consistent basis. PyroGenesis does not use hard to find powder as a feedstock, but wire. At PyroGenesis, we use plasma atomization to convert high purity wire into high purity powder. This method has demonstrated time and again to be the most economical and efficient way to produce spherical Ti64 grade 23 powder that is ideally suited for Additive Manufacturing (AM).
As a side note, allow me to point out that the largest demand from the AM market is from the SLM size cut (namely, -45µm/+15µmt). As I said, securing -45µm/+15µm angular feedback with sufficiently low oxygen is virtually impossible to obtain consistently.
Hope that helps,
Peter