Undertaking a bathroom renovation is a substantial commitment, both in terms of time and resources. Selecting the ideal material for your new shower wall is a critical decision that requires a balanced consideration of both functional attributes and aesthetic appeal. This comprehensive guide will provide you with an in-depth analysis of five distinct types of shower wall panels, outlining their advantages and disadvantages, to assist you in making an informed choice tailored to your specific requirements.

What Features Do Shower Wall Panels Need to Have?

Before getting all starry-eyed about the colors and textures, you have to consider some practical aspects. Here are some of the key features that any decent shower wall material needs to offer.
​
https://preview.redd.it/qmrvtf8zap0d1.png?width=612&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6b822b2798962f3d91793b64d72b0789c33e438

Water Resistance

Ensuring water resistance in shower walls is crucial, not merely to prevent water splashes but to guarantee the material’s longevity and better durability. For perspective, well-sealed ceramic and porcelain tiles exhibit a water absorption rate of less than 0.5%, marking them as highly water-resistant. Conversely, materials like drywall can absorb water up to 10% of their weight, rendering them unsuitable for shower settings. Such high absorption can result in structural issues and mold proliferation, jeopardizing the wall’s structural integrity.

Mold and Mildew Resistance

Beyond aesthetics, mold issues and mildew present significant health risks. Research indicates that mold exposure can exacerbate respiratory conditions, particularly in asthma sufferers. Materials such as solid surface panels and acrylic inherently resist mold. Specifically, the non-porous nature of solid surface panels virtually eliminates mold growth opportunities, reducing mold presence by up to 99% relative to conventional materials.

Ease of Cleaning

Efficiency is paramount. On average, individuals allocate roughly 15 minutes weekly to shower cleaning. Materials like solid surface and acrylic can potentially halve this duration, courtesy of their smooth, non-porous attributes. In comparison, natural stone, due to its inherent porosity, demands more cleaning time, especially if not consistently sealed with a sealant. However, with diligent care and sealing, natural stone can offer enduring elegance and durability, lasting for a long time.

Durability

Optimizing the high durability of chosen materials is essential to ensure value for money. To illustrate, when adequately cared for, solid surface and porcelain tiles can endure for over 30 years. This lifespan surpasses many conventional materials by 50%, which may necessitate replacement or extensive upkeep within two decades.

What Types of Shower Wall Panels are Available on the Market?

Over the years, shower wall panels have evolved, presenting a diverse range of choices to meet individual preferences, requirements, and budgets. Traditionally, ceramic shower walls have been the go-to choice for many due to their timeless allure and low maintenance. Granite stands out for its inherent beauty and resilience, always maintaining its position as a preferred selection for those valuing both aesthetics and durability.
For those inclined towards high-end materials, natural stone walls—encompassing granite, marble, onyx, and travertine—offer an opulent, sophisticated touch to any bathroom. Recognized for their lasting lifespan, these exquisite materials are available in a variety of styles.
In recent times, the market has embraced novel materials. Acrylic panels, for instance, are steadily gaining popularity. Not only are they mold and mildew resistant, but they also simplify installation processes. Their diverse color and design spectrum offer a wide range of decorative possibilities. Solid surface panels, a newer addition, boast a sleek, uninterrupted appearance, which many homeowners find attractive. Notably durable and non-porous, they can adeptly replicate the look of natural substances.

Solid Surface Shower Wall Panels

In the realm of contemporary bathroom designs, solid surface shower wall panels stand as a beacon of luxury and practicality, invariably catching the attention of judicious homeowners. What exactly contributes to their remarkable qualities? Let’s explore.
Solid surface shower wall panels are the culmination of state-of-the-art technology intertwined with finesse and craftsmanship. These panels are meticulously fashioned using an exclusive blend of aluminum powder, sourced exclusively from a prestigious state-owned brand. This guarantees a composition boasting a pure 100% aluminum hydroxide foundation, completely devoid of any calcium powder inclusions. The distinct formulation of 15+25+75 fine powder facilitates the creation of high-density panels that exhibit a pore-free surface.
The resultant product is not merely a feast for the eyes but also provides a tactile experience that’s genuinely gratifying. A testament to its excellent engineering, the panels offer minimal water absorption, safeguarding against common bathroom problems such as stains and discoloration. The distinctive factor in these panels lies in the incorporation of high-grade resin, which plays a crucial role in determining the product’s longevity and aesthetics. Employing a lesser quality resin can precipitate yellowing over time; however, the utilization of Isophthalic resin in this context is noteworthy for its superior anti-yellowing prowess. This resin harbors a stable molecular structure, thereby promising a product that boasts a refined texture, augmented hardness, and unmatched resistance to yellowing and contamination, ensuring that the beauty of your shower space remains untarnished over time.

Waterproof

Water is a natural companion to showers, but without proper management, it can be detrimental to shower walls. Solid surface panels excel in this aspect. Their impermeable nature guarantees water resistance, safeguarding against potential damages and ensuring a long-lasting lifespan.

Easy to Maintain

Optimizing time is a priority in today’s fast-paced world, and solid surface panels offer a highly convenient solution for bathroom maintenance. Their sleek surface facilitates effortless cleaning, enabling you to maintain a pristine bathroom with minimal exertion over the years.

Stains and Discoloration Resistance

Bathrooms are susceptible to various staining agents, from hair dyes to diverse bathing products. Solid surface panels, composed of high-quality resin, are highly resistant to most stains. Their non-porous nature further minimizes the risk of discoloration, ensuring long-lasting aesthetic appeal.

Easily Customized

Solid surface panels offer a flexible foundation for homeowners to articulate their distinct design preferences. Whether your emphasis lies on a variety of colors, unique textures, or a particular design theme, these panels can be tailored to harmonize with your aesthetic vision, enhancing the visual appeal of your bathroom. Additionally, solid surface panels can mimic the appearance of natural materials, such as the patterns and colors of marble. This means you can achieve the luxurious look of marble easily.

Highly Durable

Given the infrequent yet substantial nature of bathroom renovations, durability is of utmost importance. Solid surface panels are constructed using premium materials, specifically designed to withstand high levels of moisture, mechanical impacts, and routine wear and tear. Solid surface panels, being highly durable, don’t warp or swell, ensuring that mold and mildew don’t find a conducive environment to grow. A highly durable surface will resist staining, scratching, and other routine damages that lesser materials might succumb to.

Anti-Mold

Mold is not only aesthetically unappealing but also poses potential health risks. The non-porous nature of solid surface panels serves as an effective barrier against mold proliferation, thereby promoting a healthier and cleaner bathroom environment for you and your family.

Antimicrobial

Beyond mold resistance, solid surface panels are engineered with the capability to resist a wide range of microbial agents. This intrinsic antimicrobial property further enhances the hygiene and safety of your shower area, reducing the likelihood of bacterial growth and subsequent

Acrylic Shower Wall Panels

Acrylic panels have garnered significant attention in the home improvement sector due to their combination of cost-effectiveness, longevity, and visual appeal. They are frequently utilized in bathroom upgrades. But what are their inherent characteristics and advantages?
Acrylic shower wall panels are fabricated from a heat-treated thermoplastic compound, resulting in a consistent sheet. These panels are recognized for their polished finish that not only elevates their visual appeal but also offers a mold and mildew-resistant surface. A notable feature of acrylic panels is their ability to mimic various materials. With a wide selection of different colors and patterns, they are a preferred choice for home interiors. For those seeking the aesthetics of natural stone or ceramic at a reduced cost, acrylic stands as an excellent alternative. Moreover, when using individual acrylic sections, a secure and watertight seam between panels can be achieved.

Lightweight and Easy to Install

Acrylic panels are notably light, making them ideal for DIY projects. Their installation is uncomplicated, eliminating the need for a professional team. This results in time and labor cost savings.

Easy to Clean

The sleek finish on acrylic panels is both aesthetic and functional. It prevents the adherence of water droplets and soap residues. Cleaning is effortless, only requiring a damp cloth without the need for strong chemicals or intensive scrubbing.

Affordable

Opting for acrylic panels provides a balance of style and utility without straining your budget. They represent excellent value, given their durability and low maintenance needs.

Waterproof

Acrylic panels inherently resist water due to their non-porous composition. They’re an optimal choice for moisture-prone areas like showers. Their design, having fewer seams than conventional tiles, minimizes the chances of leakage.

PVC Shower Wall Panels

Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) may initially seem complex by name, but within the realm of bathroom refurbishments, it represents economical and functional choices. Let’s delve into the details of PVC shower wall panels.
PVC shower wall panels, fabricated from a plastic-derived material, are both lightweight and cost-effective, catering to a broad spectrum of homeowners. Their diverse design and finish options facilitate various aesthetic goals, from contemporary to classic, without incurring the expenses of higher-end materials.

Lightweight

One of the standout features of PVC panels is their weight. Being incredibly lightweight, they’re easy to transport and handle, which is a boon for DIY projects. This lightness doesn’t compromise their strength, though. They’re sturdy enough to stand up to daily shower use.

Water Resistance

Ensuring water resistance is crucial for shower areas. PVC panels, with their non-porous properties, guarantee this protection. They prevent water penetration, safeguarding against potential damage. Their design suits wet environments, promoting durability and minimizing maintenance needs.

Low Maintenance

PVC panels cater to individuals preferring minimal upkeep. Their sleek design facilitates effortless cleaning of dirt and residues. Additionally, their resistance to mold and mildew ensures a hygienic bathroom ambiance.

Cost-Effective

Are you working within a budget? PVC panels present an optimal solution. As one of the most cost-effective materials available, they combine resilience and aesthetic appeal without straining your finances. They stand out as a top choice for those seeking quality and affordability.

Fiberglass Shower Wall Panels

Fiberglass, a material with a rich history, has become a favored selection for numerous homeowners, especially in the fabrication of shower wall panels. But what attributes contribute to its distinction?
Fiberglass shower wall panels are meticulously manufactured through a process of intertwining delicate glass fibers to form a textile-like base, subsequently reinforced with a resin compound. This technique yields a product that combines lightness with robust strength. Furthermore, these panels frequently feature a gel-coat surface layer, optimizing the texture and augmenting its resistance to water penetration.

Lightweight But Strong

The beauty of fiberglass lies in its paradoxical nature. It’s incredibly lightweight, making it easy to handle and install. Yet, its strength is commendable. This balance ensures that homeowners don’t have to compromise on durability when opting for easier installation.

Stains Resistance

Nobody likes a stained shower wall. Fiberglass panels, with their gel-coat surface, resist most common bathroom stains. Whether it’s soap scum or hard water marks, a simple wipe is often enough to keep the panels looking pristine.

Easy to Install

For those who love a good DIY project, fiberglass panels are a dream. Their lightweight nature combined with their flexibility ensures that installation is straightforward. No need for specialized tools or professional help, making them a cost-effective choice.

Tile Shower Wall Panels

Tiles have long been a foundational element in bathrooms. Their adaptability and visual appeal have endeared them to homeowners for generations. However, when discussing tile shower wall panels, we are highlighting a contemporary adaptation of this timeless choice.
Tile shower wall panels are large, unified panels designed to emulate the appearance of individual tiles. These panels capture the beauty of traditional tiles without the complexities of individual tile placement, grouting, and associated drawbacks. Constructed from materials like porcelain and ceramic, these panels deliver a cohesive appearance while preserving the allure of conventional tiles. Furthermore, they serve as an excellent substitute for glass tiles on shower floors, especially in homes with children or seniors, due to their enhanced grip and minimized slip risk.

Highly Customizable

One of the standout features of tile panels is their customizability. They come in a plethora of designs, colors, and textures. Whether you’re aiming for a contemporary look or a vintage vibe, there’s a tile panel out there that fits the bill. This flexibility ensures that homeowners can achieve their desired bathroom aesthetic with ease.

Higher Cost

Quality often comes at a price. Tile shower wall panels, given their aesthetic appeal and durability, tend to be pricier than some other options like PVC or acrylic. However, many homeowners find the cost justified, given the longevity and upscale look they offer.

Require Regular Cleaning

While tile shower wall panels eliminate the hassle of grout lines, they still require regular cleaning to maintain their shine. Water spots, soap scum, and other bathroom residues can dull their appearance over time. Regular cleaning ensures they remain the centerpiece of your bathroom.

Comparison of 5 Types of Shower Wall Panels

Choosing the right shower wall panel can be a daunting task given the plethora of options available. To make your decision easier, here’s a comparison of the five types we’ve discussed:
​

Features/Aspects	Solid Surface	Acrylic	PVC	Fiberglass	Tile Panels
Material Composition	Composite material often made from a blend of natural minerals and high-quality resins	Thermoplastic material	Polyvinyl chloride	Woven fine strands of glass solidified with resin	Often made from ceramic or porcelain
Water Resistance	Exceptionally high due to non-porous nature	High, non-porous	High, non-porous	High, especially with a gel-coat finish	High, but grout lines can be vulnerable if not sealed properly
Mold/Mildew Resistance	High resistance due to non-porous nature	High resistance, especially if treated	High resistance	High, especially with a gel-coat finish	Moderate; grout lines can harbor mold/mildew if not cleaned regularly
Maintenance Level	Low; easy to clean and doesn’t require frequent upkeep	Low; simple wipe-down usually suffices	Low; easy to clean with regular household cleaners	Low; gel-coat finish helps repel stains	Moderate; tiles are easy to clean, but grout lines require attention
Durability	Very high; resistant to scratches, stains, and impacts	Moderate; can scratch but is generally durable	Moderate; can dent under strong impact	Moderate; strong but can crack under heavy impact	High; tiles are hard and durable, but grout can deteriorate
Customizability	High; available in various colors, patterns, and can be tailored	Moderate; limited to available colors and patterns	Low to moderate; limited designs	Low; typically available in standard designs and colors	Very high; vast array of tile designs, sizes, and colors
Cost	Premium; higher cost due to quality and benefits	Moderate; more affordable than solid surface but pricier than PVC	Low; one of the most cost-effective options	Moderate; typically more affordable than solid surface but pricier than PVC	High; especially if opting for high-end tiles and professional installation
Installation Difficulty	Moderate; might require professional installation	Easy; DIY-friendly due to lightweight nature	Easy; DIY-friendly due to lightweight nature	Easy to moderate; lightweight but might benefit from professional touch	Moderate to hard; requires precise placement and grouting
Weight	Moderate to heavy depending on size and thickness	Light	Light	Light	Heavy due to the weight of tiles and adhesive
Aesthetic Appeal	High; mimics natural materials and offers a seamless look	Moderate; glossy finish and smooth surface	Moderate; can look more plastic-like	Moderate; smooth surface with a glossy finish	Very high; offers a classic and timeless look

​

Why Solid Surface Panels Stand Out?

Among the variety of shower wall panel options, solid surface panels are often identified as the best option for a wide array of homeowners. These panels come in multiple finishes, including both glossy and matte, to accommodate a range of aesthetic tastes. Importantly, the matte finish not only provides a sophisticated look but also offers scratch resistance, thereby enhancing the long-term durability and appearance of the wall.
Solid surface panels offer a superior combination of durability, visual appeal, and ease of maintenance, making them an exceptional selection. Crafted from high-grade resin, these panels are designed for long-lasting performance. Their customizable features enable homeowners to create a distinctive aesthetic that complements the existing plumbing fixtures, thus enhancing the overall visual coherence of the bathroom.
Moreover, these panels facilitate a seamless integration with plumbing fixtures, simplifying the installation process without sacrificing the bathroom’s stylish ambiance. Their inherent resistance to mold, mildew, and stains further solidifies their standing as a leading option in the market.
Considering their water-resistant, mold-resistant and antimicrobial properties, solid surface panels are often deemed the benchmark for shower wall materials. The added benefit of scratch resistance, especially in the matte finish options, provides homeowners with assurance that their investment will withstand daily wear and tear, maintaining a contemporary and clean appearance for years to come.

KKR: Elevate Your Business with Solid Surface Shower Wall Panels

In the realm of bathroom renovations, a product that synergizes aesthetics, resilience, and innovation is imperative. Enter KKR’s superior solid surface shower wall panels. These panels, formulated with a distinct composition of 100% aluminum hydroxide and high-performance Isophthalic resin, stand unparalleled in their category.
Now, to delve into specifics: Traditional materials such as ceramic or acrylic present porosity levels between 1% to 5%. This makes them vulnerable to moisture retention and, in turn, mold proliferation. In contrast, KKR’s solid surface panels maintain an almost negligible porosity, adeptly addressing such issues.
Low-maintenance shower wall is crucial, and in this domain, efficiency equates to savings. The impervious character of these panels slashes cleaning durations by up to 70% in comparison to counterparts like natural stone or tiles, which demand consistent sealing and grout upkeep. This efficiency not only denotes long-term fiscal benefits for your clientele but also amplifies customer contentment and allegiance.
Furthermore, the adaptability offered by KKR’s panels is transformative. Unlike many materials that present a confined spectrum of designs, KKR’s innovative approach facilitates a vast array of stylistic choices. This versatility ensures that you can serve diverse customer preferences, from the understated to the opulent.
In essence, KKR’s solid surface shower wall panels represent an exceptional amalgamation of excellence, endurance, and adaptability. They’re not merely a product but a strategic asset for your enterprise’s esteem and prosperity.

Conclusion

Selecting the best shower wall material is essential for both visual appeal. functionality and performance. Whether your focus is on durability, budget, or aesthetic, there is a suitable option available. While many prefer solid surface panels due to their numerous advantages, it’s vital to weigh personal requirements and tastes. Ultimately, your bathroom should embody your unique style and necessities.

MAY 15th, 2024~Advancing Scandium Use in Metal Alloys for U.S. Weapon System Production and Sustainment

Advancing Scandium Use in Metal Alloys for U.S. Weapon System Production and Sustainment SBIR.gov
https://preview.redd.it/dwx6p7z78o0d1.png?width=1606&format=png&auto=webp&s=ee8453a29e485ce514a3aa73c4cdaa6d2980ad45
https://preview.redd.it/ueltbqtn7o0d1.png?width=1195&format=png&auto=webp&s=c5fdb8802a908188a0ee575addbfee5d5070b9be

OUSD (R&E) CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY AREA(S): Advanced Materials

The technology within this topic is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR Parts 120-130, which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services, including export of sensitive technical data, or the Export Administration Regulation (EAR), 15 CFR Parts 730-774, which controls dual use items. Offerors must disclose any proposed use of foreign nationals (FNs), their country(ies) of origin, the type of visa or work permit possessed, and the statement of work (SOW) tasks intended for accomplishment by the FN(s) in accordance with the Announcement. Offerors are advised foreign nationals proposed to perform on this topic may be restricted due to the technical data under US Export Control Laws.

OBJECTIVE: The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) seeks to promote responsive, best value supplies of related materials, components, and systems to Department of Defense (DoD) customers and other DoD stakeholders. DLA investigates advancements in technologies and business processes for new and improved materials, more efficient means of their production, and competitive domestic supply chains which will lead to greater innovation in current and future defense systems combined with benefits to other commercial and government applications.
DLA is interested in exploring future defense industrial base uses for scandium (Sc) because of its unique properties as a pure metal and, as an alloying agent, to significantly increase the performance of traditional aluminum (Al) alloys, and therefore expand the use of Al alloys. Further benefits include, substituting aluminum-scandium (Al-Sc) alloys for incumbent expensive materials (e.g., titanium) and/or replacing material forms that are both costly and difficult to source (e.g., forging, complex machined parts, and extrusions), as Al-Sc alloys are highly compatible with additive manufacturing techniques.
Scandium can impart high strength properties to Al alloys which allows for reduced weight designs (compared to traditional Al alloy) and components for a wide range of defense platforms and other military items. Al-Sc alloys exhibit increased resistance to high temperature and corrosion when compared to common Al alloys. Of further interest, is the high weldability of Al-Sc alloy. Alloys with high weldability can reduce manufacturing labor and other costs associated with joining components and structures. Al-Sc alloy can be especially useful when used as a powder or wire in additive manufacturing. Potential DoD applications for Al-Sc alloy include the production and sustainment of missiles, aircraft, space launch vehicles, satellites, solider systems, military ground vehicles, marine applications, and other weapon systems (e.g., small arms and artillery).
While Sc metal has many attractive material characteristics, its cost is frequently considered prohibitive for Al alloying purposes compared to other alloying elements. In addition, the supply of Sc metal and compounds is limited and highly concentrated in a small number of foreign countries including China and Russia. As such, there is reluctance to develop wide scale uses for Al-Sc alloys for many applications including DoD weapon systems and large-scale non-defense applications (e.g., commercial aviation and automotive manufacturing).

In the United States mining operations for Sc ore are being planned and developed to feed a domestic supply chain and, recently, new sources of Sc now exist in Canada (an important member country of DoD’s National Technology Industrial Base). There are also established defense industrial base companies and other businesses in both countries that can significantly contribute to development and commercialization of Al-Sc supply chains for both military and commercial applications.

Given the important properties of Sc, and in anticipation of increased affordable domestic supply, DLA is interested in engaging small businesses with the capability to develop and expand expertise and industrial base production capacity of Sc-containing materials, especially in areas relevant to the supply of Al-Sc alloy components for DoD end-uses.

Specific materials, processing and manufacturing areas of interest include:

• Raw material refining
• High purity Sc metals, compounds, and alloys
• Additive manufacturing feedstock
• Additively manufactured DoD systems prototype parts

Research and Development (R&D) efforts selected under this topic shall demonstrate and involve a degree of risk where the technical feasibility of the proposed work has not been fully established. Further, proposed efforts must be judged to be at a Technology and/or Manufacturing Readiness Level (TRL/MRL) 6 or less, but greater than TRL/MRL 3 to receive funding consideration.

TRL 3. (Analytical and Experimental Critical Function and/or Characteristic Proof of Concept)
TRL 6. (System/Subsystem Model or Prototype Demonstration in a Relevant Environment)

DESCRIPTION: DLA seeks SBIR project opportunities in new and innovative materials, processing, and manufacturing of Sc compounds, Sc metal, Al-Sc alloy and master alloys, and related areas of additive manufacturing. While Al and Sc are the primary metals of interest for this solicitation, it is anticipated that additional alloying elements may be included to tailor the final alloy properties. Specific areas of interest include:

• Processing mining ores (and/or scrap waste streams) into high purity Sc compounds (ex., Sc-oxide) feedstock for production of pure Sc metal, Al-Sc alloy, master alloys, etc.
• Commercial production of high purity Sc metal (domestic feedstock preferred)
• Commercial production of Al-Sc alloy powder and wire for additive manufacturing
• Demonstrating additively manufactured Al-Sc alloy parts for DoD weapon systems.

DLA seeks opportunities that include strong industry supply chain collaboration with established materials companies relevant to the above areas of interest in Sc materials processing, as well as strong collaboration with traditional or non-traditional DoD weapon systems suppliers. DLA similarly desires SBIR opportunities that include collaboration with interested DoD weapon system program offices and/or relevant DoD RDT&E organizations.

PROJECT DURATION and COST: Proposals exceeding these limits will not be evaluated.
PHASE I: Not to exceed a duration of 12 months and cost of $100,000.
PHASE II: Not to exceed a duration of 24 months and cost of $1,000,000.

PHASE I: Phase I will demonstrate proof of concept in one or more of the above areas of interest in scandium materials and processing. A technology development and commercialization roadmap will be produced along with a preliminary business case analysis for transition and industrial scale up. Strong industry supply chain collaboration with established materials companies relevant to the above areas of interest in scandium materials and processing is expected, along with involvement of one or more traditional or non-traditional DoD weapon systems suppliers. Strong support from one or more interested DoD weapon system program offices and/or relevant DoD RDT&E organization required.

PHASE II: Depending on Phase I results, Phase II will consist of establishing pilot scale or low-rate production of technologies that are successfully demonstrated in Phase I. Additional activities may include further materials and processing testing, characterization, and data base development of related materials and processes that can be used by future producers of scandium materials of interest (e.g., compounds, metals, alloys, and master alloys as well as related additive manufacturing powders and wire, and fabricators of aluminum scandium end-items). Development of a detailed business case analysis and commercialization plan will be required.

Strong industry supply chain collaboration with established materials companies relevant to the above areas of interest in scandium materials and processing, along with involvement from traditional and/or non-traditional DoD weapon systems suppliers, is required, along with strong support from interested DoD weapon system program offices and/or relevant DoD RDT&E organizations.

Innovative materials and processes, and commercially viable sources of their supply, shall be developed with the goal to readily transition to production in support of DoD and its supply chains.
PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Phase III is any proposal that derives from, extends or completes a transition from a Phase I or II project. Phase III proposals will be accepted after the completion of Phase I and or Phase II projects.
There is no specific funding associated with Phase III, except Phase III is not allowed to use SBISTTR coded funding. Any other type of funding is allowed.
Phase III proposal Submission. Phase III proposals are emailed directly to DLA SBIR2@dla.mil. The PMO team will set up evaluations and coordinate the funding and contracting actions depending on the outcome of the evaluations. A Phase III proposal should follow the same format as Phase II for the content and format. There are, however, no limitations to the amount of funding requested, or the period of performance. All other guidelines apply.

Transition Plan

1. Period of Performance: TBD
2. Budget: $ TBD

This Phase of the project should include:

1. Delivery of a production level product to J68 ready for integration into the overall DLA Enterprise system.
   
2. Develop a sustainment plan to support the delivered system for the lifetime of the program.
   

REFERENCES:

1. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey

Jones, R.; Peng, D.; Ang, A.; Aston, R.W.; Schoenborn, N.D.; Phan, N.D. A Comparison of the Damage Tolerance of AA7075-T6, AA2024-T3, and Boeing Space, Intelligence, and Weapons Systems AM-Built LPBF Scalmalloy. Aerospace 2023, 10, 733.

https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace10080733

https://preview.redd.it/u4yvve7k9o0d1.png?width=865&format=png&auto=webp&s=ec0acfe68525e4b808590cca875b678aa36205f7

1. Conclusions Noting that AA7075-T6 is widely used by both fixed- and rotary-wing military aircraft, as well as in space structures, the initial objective of this study was to directly compare crack growth in identical AA7075-T6 and Scalmalloy specimens tested in the same servohydraulic facility under the same stresses and by the same operators. The experimental data reveal that Boeing Space, Intelligence, and Weapons Systems AM-built Scalmalloy appears to be more damage tolerant than the conventionally built aluminium alloy AA7075-T6. As a result, Boeing Space, Intelligence, and Weapons Systems printed Scalmalloy would appear to be particularly attractive for use on a range of military aircraft, as well as for space applications. It also highlights the potential for Boeing Space, Intelligence, and Weapons Systems Scalmalloy to be used to extend the operational lives of military aircraft through the on-demand printing of limited life Scalmalloy replacement parts. The results of this initial test program have led to the hypothesis that the da/dN versus ∆K curves associated with Scalmalloy and conventionally built AA2024-T3 should be similar. This hypothesis was, subsequently, validated by comparison to AA2024-T3 da/dN versus ∆K curves taken from the Nasgro database. This observation subsequently led to the conjecture that the small crack da/dN versus ∆K curves associated with Scalmalloy and AA2024-T3, which are needed for a durability analysis, should be similar. If this hypothesis can be confirmed, then given that: (i) Scalmalloy has a yield stress significantly greater than that of AA2024-T3; (ii) AA2024-T3 is widely used in both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft; (iii) MIL-STD-1530D mandates that there must be no yield at 100% DLL and the US Joint Services Structural Guidelines JSSG2006 states that there should be no yield at 115% DLL, the use of Scalmalloy for both fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft, and drones would appear to be very attractive. As such, the next stage in the study will involve the determination of valid upper bound da/dN versus ∆K curves for the growth of short cracks in AA2024-T3.

GIVEN ONCE FINANCED:

ON Sept. 28, 2023~ NioCorp ANNOUNCES Plans to Produce Made-in-USA Scandium Master Alloy to Supply Lightweight Parts to Vehicles

NioCorp Plans to Produce Made-in-USA Scandium Master Alloy to Supply Lightweight Parts to Vehicles NioCorp Developments Ltd.
https://preview.redd.it/supxvobu9o0d1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=8d7cf091e037bffdc171c1e4f2985e9471f23ea3
NioCorp Now Working With Automakers To Develop Aluminum-Scandium Vehicle Parts That Are Stronger, Lighter, Higher-Performing, and Fully Recyclable
Prototype Aluminum-Scandium Alloy Parts Have Dual Uses in Commercial and Military Applications
EV/Hybrid Sales Forecasts Predict Tens of Millions of Units Globally By 2030^\1]), Underscoring the Importance of Bringing New Sources of Non-Chinese and Non-Russian Scandium Supply Online, NioCorp Says
CENTENNIAL, Colo. (August 14, 2023) – A phased program to establish U.S. commercial production of aluminum-scandium (“AlSc”) master alloy took another step forward recently as NioCorp Developments Ltd. (“NioCorp” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ:NB) (TSX:NB) and its development partner Nanoscale Powders LLC (“Nanoscale”) successfully produced scandium metal at pilot-scale at a facility owned and operated by Creative Engineers in Pennsylvania.
The next step in the pilot-scale program is to produce kilogram-sized ingots of AlSc master alloy for independent testing and commercial product samples. The first of these AlSc master alloy ingots is expected to be produced in the coming weeks.

Three-Phase Commercialization Program

NioCorp and Nanoscale are pursuing a three-phased development plan for commercial production of AlSc master alloy. The goal of this program is to achieve full-scale AlSc master alloy production at approximately the same time as the Elk Creek Critical Minerals Project (the “Elk Creek Project”) achieves commercial operation and planned production of approximately 100 tonnes per year of scandium oxide.

1. Pilot scale batch production of 10 kilogram master alloy ingots**. Master alloy produced will be fully analyzed (metals and gases) at independent test facilities. Ingot samples will be available for third-party examination and prospective customer testing / sampling.**
2. Commercial demonstration production of 100 kg ingots**. NioCorp expects to perform this work at a third-party ingot casting facility, which is expected to significantly reduce development timelines and cost as well as leverage existing facility permits and operator experience. The objective of this stage will be to optimize the production process and operating conditions.**
3. Full scale commercial production of master alloy**. Assuming successful results at the pilot scale and commercial demonstration stages, and once project financing is obtained, NioCorp intends to secure an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction contractor to construct, start up, and commission a full-scale production facility with the capacity to consume up to the Elk Creek Project’s projected scandium production of approximately 100 tonnes (Sc metal contained in master alloy) per year. NioCorp intends to co-locate the full-scale production facility with the Elk Creek Project in Nebraska in order to take advantage of the infrastructure (i.e., low-cost power, water, and natural gas) that will be in place for mining operations.**

NioCorp and Nanoscale also plan to develop recycling approaches for scrap alloy, including work-in-process material and post-production scrap.
Qualified Persons:
Scott Honan, M.Sc., SME-RM, COO of NioCorp Developments Ltd., a Qualified Person as defined by National Instrument 43-101, has reviewed and approved the technical information and verified the data contained in this news release.

***SEE RESPONSES FROM NIOCORP/JIM SIMS FROM AUGUST 14, 2023 ~Good morning - Jim!

While waiting for Niocorp’s 2023 F.S. Release… The announcement for Scandium Alloy Production & Scandium alloy funding are most welcome!

Leading me to add to my line of questions regarding Scandium & (Niocorp).

A) Would Niocorp qualify for a portion of this recent funding once approved by Congress? Moving forward.
RESPONSE:

"This funding was placed in the FY24 DoD Appropriations bill at the request of Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, for the purpose of helping to fund NioCorp's effort to establish domestic commercial production of AlSc master alloy. There is always a process within the DoD to select appropriate projects with funding provided to it by Congress. In this case, however, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees provided additional guidance to DoD on this topic in their respective National Defense Authorization bills, including prioritizing domestic production of such materials. "

Next Question ~ For context:

(Imperial mining, CleanTech, & Scandium International all have patents on Scandium & Sc aluminum alloy products. Rio Tinto has established a North American domestic supply(@15 tons/year with expansion capabilities) & has established a working relationship with Boeing.
Niocorp has produced Scandium aluminum with both IBC (under Chris Huskamp now with Jabil) & with Ames Lab, but has yet to patent any process or materials.
Niocorp has established a working relationship with Nanoscale to produce patentable Scandium Aluminum products in the years ahead…)
Jim-
B) How Does/will Niocorp’s expected Scandium production & future patentable Scandium materials be utilized by management moving forward? Once realized…. ; and How do/would they compare to those materials & alloys already developed or patented?
RESPONSE:

"Latent markets for scandium oxide and aluminum-scandium master alloy – both commercial and military -- are quite large, and we are working with a number of potential scandium consumers and related technology companies interested in scandium. We will make announcements in this area as developments require. In general, we don’t comment on detailed commercial business strategies except in the course of necessary announcements and/or public filings. "

C) In addition to Niocorp’s collaboration with NanoScale. Is Niocorp currently working/engaged with other entities such as (Ames Lab, DoD, DoE, Chris Huskamp/Jabil & others) on Scandium Materials/patents?
Or on Niobium, Titanium, or Rare Earth future products (Oxides, Magnets…)
Please comment where possible.
RESPONSE:

"There are multiple such engagements ongoing now for each product in our planned product offering. In general, we don’t comment on commercial business strategies except in the course of necessary announcements and/or public filings. "

D) Are other Entities besides EXIM Bank and Stellantis still interested as possible Debt/Equity finance or Anchor Investos partners moving foward?
Leading to a Final Elk Creek Finance package?
RESPONSE:

"YES!"

FOLLOWING THE TRAIL....

https://preview.redd.it/nukp5nmtao0d1.png?width=435&format=png&auto=webp&s=e99df5822deae4226e54f1e6297a0752beaacb4d

NIOBIUM, TITANIUM, SCANDIUM & RARE EARTH MINERALS: ~H.R. 2670 - NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024~ The urgent need to diversify the United States Defense Industrial base to advance domestic capability, production, modernization, and resilience!

CRPT-118hrpt125.pdf (govinfo.gov)

Page #251~Secure Supply of Niobium Oxide

Page # 232 & 233 ~Extraction and Processing Methods of Rare Earth Elements and Critical Minerals

Page # 223 -224 Aquisition of Titanium

Page # 225-26 ~Aluminum-Scandium Master Alloy Production

The committee recognizes that China is a major producer of high-purity scandium oxide, which has many powerful applications in defense technologies, including strengthening and light-weighting defense and commercial aviation systems. As scandium oxide pro-duction is established in the United States, a missing supply chain component is the conversion of scandium from its oxide form to aluminum-scandium (AlSc) master alloy. This process step is required for utilization of U.S.-mined scandium by many defense applications. At present, production capacity of AlSc master alloy is limited to one facility in the United States. The committee recognizes that the United States may soon become a major producer of highpurity scandium oxide by virtue of a proposed mine and mineral processing project in Nebraska. The committee recognizes the defense-wide importance of a vertical domestic supply chain for both Scandium Oxide and AlSc master alloy and the critical importance of both materials for the production of air-, land-, and sea-based combat systems.
NIOBIUM, TITANIUM, SCANDIUM & RARE EARTH MINERALS: ~H.R. 2670 - NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024~ The urgent need to diversify the United States Defense Industrial base to advance domestic capability, production, modernization, and resilience!
https://preview.redd.it/wu25kirwao0d1.png?width=571&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2716909a898a4a3baabd67ebdee674684daec6b

AUGUST 9, 2023 ~Nebraska’s U.S. Senator Deb Fischer and Congressman Don Bacon Secure $10 Million in Federal Funding for U.S. Aluminum-Scandium Master Alloy Production~

Nebraska’s U.S. Senator Deb Fischer and Congressman Don Bacon Secure $10 Million in Federal Funding for U.S. Aluminum-Scandium Master Alloy Production NioCorp Developments Ltd.
https://preview.redd.it/498g6od4bo0d1.png?width=758&format=png&auto=webp&s=f15d9b1cde01cecbe21a3f14b7943968a1e09924

FORM YOUR OWN OPINIONS & CONCLUSIONS ABOVE:

IMHO- "I think the DoD is still interested! plus...."

All the above BODES WELL FOR NIOCORP & for all the Goodies they will produce -(The Critical Minerals Niobium, Scandium, Titanium, Terbium, Dysprosium, Praseodymium, Neodymium, {lus BYPRODUCTS ~CaCO3, MgCO3 & some IRON STUFF~) should Financing be achieved.... !

https://preview.redd.it/3s7xyi0dbo0d1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=83b21549520965e47f98c4dbaa7a877f600ff7e8

FULL STEAM AHEAD NIOCORP! Waiting with many....

https://preview.redd.it/hwqeyrwkbo0d1.png?width=1600&format=png&auto=webp&s=14964a3a057d0038a8a6902c7f50c2e243906a22

Chico

https://preview.redd.it/vfqpjxdvqn0d1.png?width=3005&format=png&auto=webp&s=5714871c0eb21939d134ffe5f90025eb3f2fc8e3
I'm not sure why I'm still so hung up on this. For context, I kinda fell out of theorycrafting a while ago — at this point, I've seen every shred of evidence supporting or opposing every possible theory, and yet I feel no closer to any concrete conclusions on the game's lore. There are just too many questions, too many possibilities.
Then the secret Valentine dropped. This letter raised a lot of questions I was eager to discuss! Instead, I was disappointed to find the discussion dominated by something I didn't even think to question: the writer's identity. This frustrated me a bit, as I felt that, for once, the conclusion was actually pretty clear-cut; it didn't strike me as something Toby Fox even intended for us to debate.
At the time, this drove me to write a post discussing it (don't bother reading it, this post is better). I thought that would be the end of it for me, but somehow the debate has yet to leave my mind. Even now, from what I've seen, people are too busy arguing about who wrote the letter to discuss what's in it. All the while, I've not only grown more confident in the conclusion I've reached, but I feel more prepared to articulate why. I've also heard more counterarguments since then, which I will address in this post.
I'll start with what we can agree on, before addressing more significant counterarguments and delving into progressively deeper levels of conjecture. Should be fun!

Context and implications

Even before looking at the letter itself, we can see that this is a rare, cryptic secret, already giving us an idea of who might be involved. I'd go so far as to say that Gaster is "rare, cryptic secrets" personified. To me, this is the main thing setting him apart from other characters.
Obviously that's not to say that other characters can't be responsible for secrets like these, but giving the letter a cursory glance, the format doesn't fail us. All caps — this doesn't tell us much on its own, but when used alongside a very, very specific manner of double line spacing between and within sentences, compounded by the aforementioned association with secrets... Toby Fox is clearly trying to tell us something here, so I'm not a fan of any theory that completely discards that.
You'll probably agree with this point — even Gaster Valentine deniers admit that there is an intentional association being drawn. If you disagree... sorry, I don't know what to tell you. When it comes to Gaster, having a mysterious secret with all-caps weirdly-spaced text is basically equivalent to Susie walking onscreen and saying "Hi, I'm Susie". Sure, maybe a plot twist down the line will reveal that this isn't actually Susie... But you'd only suspect that if she says something that would imply it, and for now, we're only looking at the presentation.
There's another association I haven't seen as many people bring up: the fact that the letter is anonymous. Ironically, "not being confirmed to be Gaster" is one of Gaster's identifying characteristics. In every case, we're left to assume his involvement from cues such as those we see here: secrets, crypticism, capitalization, spacing, all that. Anonymity is his signature. By including these quirks and leaving it uncredited, he may as well be signing "GASTER" in flashing letters. And that's not even getting into the implication of Wingdings and the letter disappearing after being read, which are both Gastery as all get out.
A couple minor notes regarding the writer's anonymity:

• The lack of a telltale 666 motif or gratuitous "VERY, VERY" could be seen as a point of contention, but I think this naturally follows the pattern we've seen thus far: as we grow more familiar with Gaster, there's less need for these kinds of identifying motifs. In Undertale, the name Gaster is directly associated with 666 and Wingdings, but as we already know these connections going into Deltarune, the game's intro more-or-less drops the name and font associations.
• Notably, this is the only Valentine without a confirmed sender — if it was meant to tease a new character (à la Lanino and Elnina), why not include a visual or first initial to indicate that? Because it's supposed to seem like Gaster, only to end up a red herring...? Seems like a pretty cheap twist to me. Characters have deceived us in the games themselves, but we've generally been able to take supplemental content more-or-less at face value.

Of course, that anonymity is a double-edged sword. It implies Gaster's involvement just as much as it leaves room for doubt. If Toriel does something un-Toriel-like, we simply have to reconcile what we previously knew of her character with what we do now, whereas if Gaster does something un-Gaster-like, it calls his entire identity into question. I still don't think the Gaster associations can simply be handwaved away — again, even Gaster Valentine deniers agree that there's some significance to the similarities — but, by his very nature, it's nothing more than an implication.
If the voice from the vessel creation sequence says something to the effect of:
https://preview.redd.it/lsfu4bxrqn0d1.png?width=514&format=png&auto=webp&s=14867b9e9ea46dfc4f7c7fc91de69c574cab530d
I'll be the first to admit that it probably isn't Gaster. But I don't think that's the case here, and to discuss why, we'll have to move on from the context to the content.

Personality and mannerisms

The obvious problem with analyzing Gaster is that he has yet to be properly introduced, much less developed. We've only ever interacted with him outside Deltarune's story and world, and furthermore only briefly, within a very narrow range of contexts. Additionally, these interactions are written to provide us with as little characterization as possible — he is succinct and direct, never shifting the subject beyond what is relevant to us. This itself could be considered characterization, but without the "why", there's not much to glean from it.
Regardless of whether this trait is dependent on context (there's little room for conversation in a survey program, after all) or is simply an ever-present aspect of his personality, I'd argue it carries over to the letter. He tries to begin with polite small talk, but each topic he broaches is swiftly dismissed; once again, he can hardly bring himself to deviate from "the purpose of the message". Speaking of which, that fact — that this is the only Valentine with an explicit "purpose" — itself provides characterization. Almost as though this character would only contact us for an important reason (perhaps a character with a history of doing so, often outside the game). Almost as though we've met this character before (otherwise, I suspect Toby would've focused exclusively on characterization rather than motives, as with Lanino and Elnina).
I realize I'm getting into full speculation territory now, but hopefully I've made it clear why it's necessary to do so. Gaster's personality and motives are largely up to personal interpretation — I think we can agree that, were that not the case, the debate would be a lot more one-sided. Your interpretation of the character can't be used as conclusive evidence for your theory. Of course, I'm not exempt from this either! My interpretation could be completely off-base as well. That said, I'd like to at least explain why it all lines up in my head. (Feel free to compare my interpretation with his dialogue, which I've compiled here: https://pastebin.com/yR5Y8qhw)
Let's get the specific shared mannerisms out of the way before moving onto the more general similarities. Specifically:

• Gaster employs a specific kind of repetition, mostly limited to single words, but occasionally multiple ("OF COURSE", "SHALL WE", "THE SECOND"). We see this reflected in the letter ("BELIEVE IT SO", "WANT[ED] TO HELP", "SEEM TO HAVE FORGOTTEN").
• He alternates between present and past tense when describing what is currently happening (seen throughout the vessel creation and save menu text). The letter writer does this multiple times.
• Perhaps a generic word choice, but the writer says "HOW ABSURD", much like how Gaster has said "HOW WONDERFUL", "HOW INTERESTING", and "HOW LONG IT HAS BEEN".

There are a couple other things that struck me as extremely Gastery, but I couldn't find many examples for them. I might just be thinking of the stilted way Toby Fox writes in status updates and newsletters, which reminds me more of Gaster than any other character... but that's a tenuous connection at best, so take these for whatever they're worth:

• The letter writer puts "VALENTINE'S DAY" in quotes. I thought there were more examples of Gaster putting random terms in quotes (it suits his general robotic-yet-whimsical demeanor), but the only ones seem to be the names you enter in the vessel creation.
• I find the phrasing "THE PURPOSE OF THE MESSAGE" (as opposed to, say, "the reason I wrote this to you") very Gastery — something about the detached feeling and repeated use of "THE" — but the only instance I could find of this particular sentence construction was "CHOOSE THE TARGET FOR THE REFLECTION", so maybe it doesn't mean much.

Moving onto the general personality, the easiest similarity to argue is the metaknowledge. Gaster introduces you to the Deltarune program, and is the only character known to acknowledge it. The letter writer is clearly interested in your thoughts on Deltarune (albeit spelled "DELTA RUNE"; beyond Toby's general inconsistency with minor details like these, I'm not sure what to make of that). The writer also acknowledges the wait between chapters, much like Gaster does — contrasting this, everyone else simply acknowledges the time that's passed within the story, perceiving two real-world years as one night. It could also be argued that Gaster is the only character who has contacted us, the player, directly.
Gaster is also known to be polite and formal, always offering greetings ("WELCOME"), gratitude ("THANK YOU FOR WAITING SO LONG"), and compliments ("YOU HAVE CREATED A WONDERFUL FORM"). We see this reflected quite well in the letter — "AS YOU ARE WAITING PATIENTLY" and "DO YOU BELIEVE IT SO?" certainly don't feel like the words of someone speaking casually. Like Gaster, the writer also uses fewer exclamation marks and contractions than most. Granted, the fact that the writer uses contractions at all is cause for suspicion... but, since they're outnumbered by the uncontracted phrases, contraction usage remains closer to Gaster than anyone else (except Toriel, I guess). Although we haven't seen Gaster use contractions in his few prior instances of dialogue... evidently, he does use them, albeit infrequently.
The formality even goes beyond word choice — his repeated backtracking on the exact order of "PUT ON YOUR COAT AND WASH YOUR FACE" brings to mind his polite accommodation of our choices in the vessel creation or save menu. It doesn't seem like him to forcefully tell us what to do, or in what order to do it, and the letter's ending serves to exaggerate that quality. He may not use any highly technical language here, but that makes sense in this less scientific context (especially when you consider that he doesn't use scientific terminology all that often anyway).
Gaster's constant emphasis on the subject at hand, saying something odd or outright wrong whenever he alludes to anything else (listing the wrong options for whatever he means by "FAVORITE BLOOD TYPE", or listing such favorite flavors as "PAIN" and "COLD") — it's always given me the impression that Gaster's transcendent brilliance doesn't extend far beyond his own work. That's not to say he's stupid, far from it, but definitely a bit "out there" (I feel this much is apparent from the multiple typing quirks he uses). At the very least it feels inarguable to me that, while Gaster is smart, he doesn't know everything, and (like any Toby Fox character) he isn't always intended to be taken 100% seriously.
Casting our gaze over to the letter, this once again checks out. Confusing the new year with the old year, considering himself to be the person he's forgotten, mixing up the recipient's face and coat — these feel more-or-less like a natural development of Gaster's established eccentricity, like the kinds of weird things that would only make sense from his unique, potentially fractured, extradimensional perspective. Sure, "THE TIME IS GOING AROUND" may not make sense to us mortal beings, but neither does "DELTARUNE GLOWS BRIGHTLY FROM YOUR HOPE". Ending a message with the archaic "GOOD BY" feels roughly equivalent to randomly putting [24] in brackets.
The increased emphasis on these quirks makes sense in this more casual context, and adds tonal consistency with the other Valentines — being a spooky creepypasta character is hard work, and I think the guy's earned a day off. The friendliness also makes it out to seem like the writer has communicated with us in the past, which wouldn't make sense for anyone other than Gaster, and certainly wouldn't have made sense in something like the vessel creation sequence. I find that it also makes sense from an extradiagetic perspective — Toby Fox is just providing characterization here, not announcing a new chapter, so there's less reason to write Gaster with as much purpose and brevity as in previous appearances.
Basically, the idea that Gaster is completely serious and grounded while the letter writer is completely goofy... I don't get it. I really don't think either of those things are true. I'm not even sure what I would change about the letter to make it sound more like Gaster... Did you expect less exclamation marks? More line breaks (which would make it overly long and monotonous, might I add)? Less whimsical turns of phrase? At that point the letter wouldn't deepen our understanding of the character at all, and I fail to see what the point would be.
And the idea that the letter ruined Gaster's character makes even less sense to me — for one, what does this letter really establish about Gaster that wasn't already alluded to? I suppose the letter makes him out to be more whimsical than most of us thought, but how is that a downgrade from "static, one-dimensional robotic scientist"? Can "whimsical scatterbrain" and "robotic scientist" not coexist? Is the gradual reveal of depth and contrasts not at the heart of most Toby Fox characters?? The directness of his speech has made him feel more like a plot device up to this point, so this letter was the first time I truly felt invested in Gaster as a character outside of his unique presentation. I don't think "saying things in a casual context that could be construed as humorous" (again, especially when he already says things like "FAVORITE BLOOD TYPE") is enough to consider him "scrunkly goober #78" — and even if it was, Toby has a way of delivering the most emotionally impactful moments through the funniest characters, so I'm not particularly worried.
All that to say: it's my belief that, even looking past the context and format, the letter aligns more closely with Gaster than any other character. Who else has such a formal and cordial composure contrasted against an air of inscrutable strangeness?

Motives and memory

Gaster hasn't exactly been transparent about his goals, and the letter writer isn't giving us a whole lot to work with either, so we're going to have to get even more speculative here. That said, the conclusion I've arrived at makes a lot of sense to me, relates to established elements of Deltarune, and even explains away some people's reasons for this not being Gaster. Those being:

1. "Gaster asks us for help, even though we've already been helping him!" This is easily explained if we assume he's asking our help with something else this time. The more casual tone and secrecy of the letter supports the interpretation that this is a less generally important, more personal matter; it's the difference between "Hey, if you don't mind, would you lend me a hand with this thing that's been on my mind?" and "I'm subjecting you to an experiment I've spent years preparing, please follow these exact instructions." I suppose it's strange that he doesn't mention how we can help, but I imagine that's something that will become clear in the future.
2. "Gaster isn't forgetful!" While I'd say it's entirely possible that Gaster has memory problems that simply hadn't been alluded to yet, I find the more likely explanation to be that there's something supernatural at play, and once again I believe this is hinted at in the letter itself. Gaster says it's "IRONIC" that he forgot something — what could this imply, beyond the fact that he was forgotten himself? (To recap the theory, Goner Kid mentions a world where they don't exist, no one acknowledges Gaster outside Fun events, and while Asgore is said to have taken a long time replacing Gaster, it's unconfirmed whether he remembered who he was replacing.) I was 50/50 on this theory myself, but I take this letter to be more-or-less confirmation of it, further tying it to Gaster. The only other explanation I can think of for this "IRONIC" line is that perhaps Gaster makes people forget things...? For the purposes of this theory, it doesn't matter too much, as it establishes a precedence for supernatural memory loss either way. Furthermore, by suggesting the person he's forgotten may be himself, he draws a direct parallel between himself and the person he's helping, lending further credence to this interpretation.

This brings us to my theory. I posit that the forgotten character is someone in similar circumstances to Gaster himself; someone who cannot be found in the story, and is instead associated with secrets outside of it (much like this letter). As an added bonus, it would help strengthen the theory if it happened to be a character who is known to call out for help, and who we've previously been requested to find (particularly in secret material outside of the game, much like this letter). If only there was a character fitting all of those criteria...
But this post isn't about that. My point is, while there's not much to glean in the way of connections between the letter person's goals and Gaster's, I don't think there's anything contradicting such connections either.
https://preview.redd.it/gswysspqtn0d1.png?width=392&format=png&auto=webp&s=248273e7bacc131cf9e9422a0aebdaeeacc6c9b6
Oh. Right, I guess there's that. If this is the same Gaster we've worked with before, why doesn't he say "YOU HAVE PROVEN YOURSELF TO BE RELIABLE"? I feel like this minor word choice could be justified by any number of explanations. For one, the phrasing makes a bit more sense within the full context: basically "you're odd, but you seem reliable regardless". You could also argue that, since he's asking something different of us this time, we haven't proven ourselves to be reliable for this specific task. Or that since we've only been assisting in the "Deltarune" project for 2 of 7 chapters, that's not enough time for him to fully consider us reliable. Or, maybe the only reason we do seem reliable to him is because we've been assisting him — otherwise we wouldn't seem reliable at all. Heck, it could just be odd phrasing for a character who constantly uses odd phrasing, only misleading under a specific interpretation.

Translation

To recap, I think the context and format convey a very clear implication — one that could be a red herring, but that I believe is only supported by the writer's personality, and (at the very least) not contradicted by their goals. Here is where I believe we come to the first hole in my argument.
The Japanese translation doesn't sound particularly close to how Gaster speaks in Japanese. I don't speak Japanese, so there's not much I can do to back up or debunk this claim — perhaps people are overlooking some of the more minor similarities, as with the English version...? Or maybe there's more nuance to the translation process than most people think, and the writing style is highly adaptive to tone, mood, context, or method of delivery, or affected by cultural differences...? I don't know, so for now I can do nothing but take it at face value, and consider what this inconsistency might imply.
People seem divided into two camps with regards to the translation: "the English version very clearly sounds like Gaster, therefore the Japanese version doesn't matter" and "the Japanese version very clearly doesn't sound like Gaster, therefore the English version doesn't matter". Frustratingly, neither of these actually address the inconsistency. If we assume it isn't Gaster, the English version clearly goes out of its way to mislead us into thinking it is (as I've already justified extensively), so why not do the same for the Japanese version? If Toby wanted to clear up ambiguity by making the Japanese version distinct from Gaster, why not do the same for the English version? Whichever way you slice it, it's a contradiction.
That said, I think there are a few things working in my favor here. For one, English is Toby's native language, as well as the most common language spoken by his fanbase. Japanese translation is handled by a different team under Toby's supervision; they had a lot of Valentines to translate, and likely a pretty strict deadline. It's believable that time constraints forced the team to prioritize accuracy to the content and tone of the letter over consistency with established text quirks.
There's also the fact that the English version is the only one to imply a clear sender (unless you want to reach and say the secrecy and metaknowledge of the Japanese version imply Gaster as well); personally, I feel inclined to believe a deliberate implication over the lack of one. Adding weight to this point, this isn't generally the sort of thing casual fans are going to speculate about — anyone who knows about the letter has likely heard of both versions, which means most will gravitate toward whichever one implies a specific identity. Because of this, the Gaster interpretation seems to prevail even in the Japanese fanbase.
Basically, I don't like that making sense of the letter forces me to either make up an arbitrary narrative explanation for the discrepancy, or to write off either the English or Japanese version as unreliable... However, this decision is made much easier by the fact that, the way I see it, only one of them provides mounds of evidence (from the context to the specific format to the anonymity to the metaknowledge to the formality to the strange mannerisms and so on) pointing toward a single interpretation.

Alternative explanations

I've seen a few other theories regarding the writer's identity, the most common of which being the idea that Gaster was shattered into multiple personalities, and that this is a different "shard" from the one we've communicated in the past — I take issue with any theory that compartmentalizes one complicated character into multiple simple ones, but I suppose it doesn't necessarily have to be done that way. There are also theories that this is the Chapter 3/4 secret boss (associated with Gaster based on precedent), Mike (associated with Gaster through Spamton), or IMAGE_FRIEND (associated with Gaster via filename conventions), some of whom may or may not be the same person.
My main argument against these theories is that I simply don't think they're necessary. To reiterate, I think the whimsy Gaster displays here is consistent with his previous characterization (we've only seen him in scientific contexts until now, and even then a bit of whimsy manages to slip through), and the forgetfulness can easily be explained as well (since it only seems to apply to one subject). Again, the only hole I can find in my interpretation is the Japanese version, and none of these theories really explain the inconsistency there, leaving us back at square one — if it's merely a character associated with Gaster as opposed to the man himself, why aren't the similarities and differences roughly the same in both versions?
These theories don't make much sense to me when I attempt to look at them from Toby Fox's perspective, either. Getting a secret Valentine from Gaster is, technically speaking, like the coolest thing ever, and I think he realizes this. If he's willing to include a secret letter with this much lore in it, why leave out such an important character we've already communicated with? And furthermore, why give a different mysterious character so many of the same characteristics we use to identify Gaster in the absence of his appearance or name?
Also, isn't it telling that the debate seems split evenly between "Gaster" and "a theoretically infinite supply of basically made-up Gaster-adjacent characters"? While these theories could end up being accurate, I don't yet see any precedence for either Gaster having multiple personalities, nor any as-of-yet unseen/nonverbal characters sounding like the letter writer; these theories simply exist to explain a contradiction that I believe isn't truly there. They embody the principle of explosion, or "from contradiction, anything follows" — if you accept that it sounds both "like Gaster" and "unlike Gaster", you can make up anything in between these possibilities, an untouchable theory that can neither be proven by evidence or disproven by counterevidence. I personally don't find that line of thought very compelling.
In the most popular video on the topic, SpookyDood analyzes the letter through cadence, language, context, and function; however, I think something is lost from analyzing these aspects separately. Cadence, language, and function are largely dependent on context. If we accept the letter into that pool of Gaster characterization rather than nitpicking it into oblivion, we simply see new patterns emerge. We see that Gaster only uses particularly large words when he's referring to something scientific. We see that Gaster is slightly more enthusiastic when there's less pressure to be serious and professional. Basically, I feel that all of the inconsistencies SpookyDood brings up are easily explained by this letter being a different narrative context from the one Gaster has previously occupied (and I presume will largely continue to occupy), which is what I find so interesting about it.
As for cadence, SpookyDood says that "[Gaster's] pattern of each few words being broken up by a line break is no longer present", but the first 3 sentences alone are divided into 6 lines. He even calls out certain sentences in the vessel creation as going against this pattern, proving that it doesn't have to be consistent — while these line breaks do define the flow of Gaster's speech, I think the frequent use of ellipses here achieve the same effect without needlessly extending the length of the image.
The video ultimately posits that the writer is the man behind the tree, and honestly, I don't entirely disagree with that conclusion. The use of "well" checks out, as does the happy mood. In the case of both "DO YOU BELIEVE IT SO?" and "He might be happy to see you. What do you think?", the text moves on without directly responding to our answer. There's also a more loose connection to be made, in that both of these questions involve reality being dependent on our thoughts (whether each day is or is not a day of love, and whether there is or is not a man there), and likewise, dropping the egg causes the narration to act as though the egg was never there. (Obviously the man himself doesn't say any of this, but the association's still there through the narration.)
The connections don't strike me as plentiful or strong enough to stand toe-to-toe with the Gaster interpretation, but without much to go off of regarding the man, it doesn't have to deal with as much counterevidence either. I'd say I have the same problem with this theory as the others I've mentioned (an excessive avoidance of contradiction such that, instead of associating with said contradictions, the letter is attributed to a character we know so little about that it can't be argued against), but there's a fairly reasonable basis for argument here.
Thing is, I don't think these interpretations are mutually exclusive. I was ambivalent toward Gaster and the man (the mystery man, you could say) being one and the same, but the letter has done a lot to sway me toward that conclusion. Strengthening the connections between the letter, the man, and Gaster are the mutual association with forgetting (due to the blog post where Noelle can't remember the name of her egg), secrets, and disappearances. The letter's contrasting of contradictory statements ("NEW YEAR" vs. "OLD YEAR", "WASH YOUR FACE" vs. "WASH YOUR COAT") call to mind both the man ("a man" vs. "not a man", "not too important" vs. "not too unimportant") and the strange someone who corrupted Jevil ("didn't make sense" vs. "didn't not make sense").
If the letter was supposed to be written by the man, but not Gaster, I imagine the letter would have been formatted like this instead:
https://preview.redd.it/igudqtpisn0d1.png?width=2500&format=png&auto=webp&s=0dd63050999a033459f6255ac671a1ac4ad4fcd9

Conclusion

Sorry, that was long. I'm done!

Many of you have reached out to ask if we’ll be implementing the new models that OpenAI announced yesterday. To help answer that, we decided to share this blog post we’ve been working on to explain our process of evaluating new AI models for AI Dungeon.

Since the early days of Large Language Models (LLMs), we’ve worked hard to use the most advanced models in the world for AI Dungeon. We’ve seen incredible advances in the power of these models, especially in the past 6 months. We’d like to share more about how we think about AI Models at AI Dungeon, including the entire lifecycle of selection, evaluation, deployment, and retirement. This should answer some questions we’ve seen in the community about the decisions we make and what you can expect from models in AI Dungeon in the future.

Large Language Models + AI Dungeon: A History Lesson

AI Dungeon was born when our founder, Nick Walton, saw the launch of OpenAI’s GPT2 model and wondered if it could become a dynamic storyteller (just like in Dungeons and Dragons).
Spoiler: it worked! 🎉
A hackathon prototype turned into an infinite AI-powered game unlike anything before. From the very first few days, the cost of running an AI-powered game became readily apparent. The first version of AI Dungeon cost $10,000/day to run (so much that the university hosting the first version had to shut it down after 3 days!). Thus began our constant quest to identify and implement affordable and capable AI models so that anyone could play AI Dungeon.
The first public version of AI Dungeon (in December 2019) was powered by GPT-2. Later, we switched to using GPT-3 through OpenAI (in 2020). While it was exciting to be using the state-of-the-art AI tech at that time, unlike today, there were essentially no other competitive AI models, commercial or open source. We couldn’t just switch models if issues arose (and they certainly did). When you asked us for cheaper options or unlimited play, we didn’t have the leverage to advocate for lower costs for you since there was no competition creating price pressure.
But that was all about to change. New open-source and commercial models entered the market, and we explored them as they became available. The open-source GPT-J (summer of 2021) and GPT-NeoX were promising, and AI21’s Jurassic models (Fall of 2021) were explored over the next few years. Fast-forward to today, there are hundreds of models and model variants. AI Dungeon is uniquely positioned to leverage new advances in AI from various providers at scale.
Given the number of available models, picking which models to check out can be tricky. Evaluating and deploying models takes time. Here are some of the ways we think about this process:

Our Strategy for AI Models

We’ve made a few choices that impact how we handle AI model work in AI Dungeon. Together, these allow us to give you the best role-play experience we can.

1. Model Agnostic. We’ve chosen to be model agnostic so you have access to the best models on the market and benefit from the billions of dollars currently being invested into better models by multiple companies. You’ve seen the fruit of this strategy lately with the launch of MythoMax, TieFighter, Mixtral 7x8B, GPT-4-Turbo, Llama 3 70B, and WizardLM 8x22B. Read more →
2. Vendor Agnostic. We’ve also chosen to be vendor agnostic so you benefit from the competition among current providers. The recent doubling in context length was possible because of this. Read more →
3. Operate Profitably. Given the scale of AI Dungeon, we could bankrupt the company very easily if we weren’t careful. We spend a lot of time thinking about AI cost to ensure AI Dungeon will be around for a long time. Our goal is to give as much as possible to you without putting the future of AI Dungeon at risk.
4. Iterate Quickly. We’ve designed our technology, team, and models around fast learning and iteration. The recent rise of instruction-based models means models can be quickly adapted to the AI Dungeon experience without needing to create (or wait for) a fine-tuned model suited for role-play adventures.
5. Enable endless play. We want to offer models that allow you to play how you want. Outside of a few edge cases (such as sexual content involving minors and guidelines for publicly published content shared with our community), we want you to go on epic adventures, slay dragons, and explore worlds without constraint. Because of our model/vendor agnostic strategy, we have the flexibility to ensure we get to control the approach. Read more about this strategy in our blog post about the Walls Approach →

How We Identify New Models to Evaluate

At first, we evaluated every model that launched. Early providers included OpenAI, Cohere, AI21, and Eleuther. Lately, we haven’t been able to keep up with the rate of new models being launched. Here’s one visualization of just how the AI Model space has accelerated.
Cumulative count of repos by category over time. Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stable-evolution-open-source-ai-michael-spencer-oefhc/
We’re selective about which models to evaluate. We base that decision on information we source from the AI community on X, LLM leaderboards, our technology partners, and members of our AI Dungeon community.
When a model piques our interest and seems like it could be worth exploring (when it could have a desirable combo of cost/latency/quality/etc), we do some light exploration around feasibility and desirability. If there’s a playground where we can test the model, we’ll play around a bit ourselves to see what we think. We also talk to our current providers to see how/when they may offer a model at scale.
If everything seems positive, we move into our model evaluation process.

How We Evaluate AI Models

Once we’ve identified a model we are interested in, then the real evaluation starts. Here are the steps we take to verify if a model is worth offering to you in AI Dungeon:

1. Research. As mentioned in the selection process, we look to a number of sources, including industry benchmarks, leaderboards and discussion in the broader AI community, for indicators of which models are the most promising.
2. Playground testing. Someone on our team experiments to confirm we think it could work with AI Dungeon.
3. Finetuning (if required). GPT-J (which powers Griffin) and AI21 Mid (which powers Dragon) are examples of models that clearly needed fine-tuning to perform well for AI Dungeon. Newer models have been able to perform well without finetuning.
4. Integrate the model into AI Dungeon and make sure it works. For example, we recently evaluated a model (Smaug) that seemed compelling on paper but wasn’t able to generate coherent outputs due to its inability to handle the action/response format we use in AI Dungeon.
5. Internal testing. Does the model behave as we expect it to with AI Dungeon’s systems? For instance, when we first implemented ChatGPT, it became clear that we’d need additional safety systems to minimize the impact of the model’s moralizing behavior.
6. Alpha testing. Our community alpha testers help us find issues and give a qualitative sense of how good the model is. The models from Google didn’t make it past our Alpha testers due to moralizing and lower quality writing than competing models.
7. AI Comparison. Players who opt into the “Improve the AI” setting are occasionally presented with two AI outputs and asked to select the best one. These outputs are from two different models, and we compare how often one model’s responses are preferred over another’s. To achieve statistical significance for the test, we collect a few thousand responses per AI Comparison.
8. Experimental access. The final step is giving you all access to the new models in an experimental phase. We often make significant adjustments to how we handle models as a result of the feedback you share. In some cases, models may not be promoted past the experimental phase if players aren’t finding value from them. For instance, we’re considering whether to promote Llama 3 70B since players have reported it repeats frequently.

At any step of the process, we may decide to stop evaluation. Most models don’t make it through our evaluation process to become an offered model on AI Dungeon.

How We Deploy Models

Once we commit to offering a model on AI Dungeon, we then figure out the best way to run it at scale. With private models we often can only run them with the creator of the model (like AI21’s models). For open-source models, we can choose between running on rented hardware or using other providers that run LLMs as a service (which is our preference). By optimizing our model deployment costs we’re able to deliver better AI to users for the same price.
We also have an alert system and series of dashboards that show us the number of requests, average context in and out, latency profiling (average request time, max request time), and estimated cost. This lets us keep our AI models running smoothly and quickly respond to any issues that come up.

How We Retire Models

Given the complexity of models, it’s sometimes necessary to retire models that are no longer adding much value to the community. While it would be nice to offer every AI model perpetually, maintaining models takes time and development resources away from other improvements on AI Dungeon, including new AI models and systems.
Because of that, we need to balance the value a model provides against the cost of maintaining it (especially in developer time). We’re guessing most of you are no longer pining for the good old days of GPT-2 😉.
Before deciding to retire a model, we consider usage, tech advances (i.e., instruction-based models), latency, uptime, stability, error rates, costs, player feedback, and the general state of models in AI Dungeon (i.e., how many do we have for each tier).
Each model is unique, like an ice cream flavor. Taking away your favorite flavor can be frustrating, especially if that model does things that other models don’t (like mid-sentence completion). We hope there’s solace in the fact that when models are retired, the recovered development resources are reinvested into better models and new features that make AI Dungeon a better experience for you.
Today here’s the % breakdown of model usage for various models:

Free Players

MythoMax 73%
TieFighter 17.8%
Mixtral 8.8%
Griffin 0.4%

Subscribers

Mixtral 79%
MythoMax 8%
WizardLM 8x22B 5%
TieFighter 4%
Llama 3 70B 2%
Dragon 1%
GPT-4-Turbo 0.5%
ChatGPT 0.4%
Griffin 0.01%
You’ll notice a few things. MythoMax is our most popular model, even capturing some use from paid players who have access to all the models. Mixtral is the clear favorite for premium players.
Because of the advances in tech as well as low usage, we will be retiring Griffin, Dragon, and ChatGPT models on May 31st, 2024. Griffin, while it’s served us well, has exceptionally low usage, the worst uptime of all our models, and a high rate of errors. It requires more developer maintenance than all other models we offer. Dragon and ChatGPT also have lower usage now. Retiring models enables us to focus on other product work including additional model improvements, bug fixing, and building new features.
GPT-4-Turbo is somewhat of an outlier. Despite its moralizing, it’s one of the best story writing models available. Players who use it love it! While its usage rate is low relative to other models, it’s actually well represented for a model only available to Legend and Mythic tiers, though it’s clear players still favor Llama 3 70B and WizardLM 8x22B. We are evaluating the recently announced GPT-4o as a potential replacement for GPT-4 Turbo which could mean offering higher context lengths. Although venture-funded OpenAI says they’ll offer limited use of GPT-4o for free through their own ChatGPT client, it will not be a free model for API users (like AI Dungeon), so it will still be a premium model for us. First, though, it needs to pass the evaluations we’ve outlined above.

Moving Forward

This was a deeper peek into our approach to models than we’ve ever given. We hope it’s clear that we spend a lot of time thinking about which models we can offer to you and how to provide them best.
Thank you to all who have given feedback on our AI models. We will continue to communicate as much as we can about models and planned model improvements. It’s exciting to realize AI will only get better from here. The past few months have shown us just how fast things can change. And we’re excited to explore with you how much better role play can be as AI keeps improving.