3d printers for microsocpy

[Aryeh Weiss]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

My faculty will very likely be acquiring a 3D printer.

I know that there are many of you on this list who have used 3D printers
in order to fabricate accessories (eg holders) for microscopy applications.

I would appreciate hearing from you concerning what to look for in a 3D
printer, what printers you use, what you would recommend,  which
materials you use, etc.

Please feel free to write directly to me, or post on line since I am
probably not the only one interested in this information.

Thanks in advance

--aryeh

--
Aryeh Weiss
Faculty of Engineering
Bar Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900 Israel

Ph:  972-3-5317638
FAX: [phone]

[Alexander Cramer]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Greetings Aryeh,

We employ two different types of 3D printers for creating parts and 3D models at
the University Imaging Centers at the University of Minnesota.

We have a couple a MakerBot Replicators for simple parts that have worked
relatively will for our users needs and our own, but we've also very recently added
a MarkForge II (https://markforged.com) for stronger parts.

It prints using Nylon as it's base material but then has a second extruder that adds
a fiber filament such as Carbon Fiber, Kevlar, or Fiber Glass for added part
strength.

You do have the option to just print in Nylon too which is quite useful even without
fiber reinforcement.

Both printers are pretty affordable which was a key point for our core since we
have just entered the world of 3D printing.

Word to the wise if you do purchase a MakerBot of any model- Make sure it has the
new Smart Extruder +. Any of the older models are woefully inadequate and will
give you nothing but headaches.

If you have any questions just let me know, happy to answer what I can.

Alex

[Vladimir Ghukasyan-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Aryeh,

You have an option to go to filament extruder printers or stereolithography
printers. First group as you probably already know, melt a thermoplastic
filament and extrudes it in a particular layout. In stereolithography a
laser is polymerizing a curable resin. We tried the Makerbot Replicator 2
for the filament printers (FDM). It was ok, but wasn't easy to handle. This
is a high-maintenance printer and tends to break a lot. You need to figure
out the settings for different details, so we have got many bad prototypes
with it. Makerbot is now out of business - they stopped manufacturing 3D
printers. We recently bought a Form2 SLA printer and are very happy with
it. It provides with a high-resolution nice finish details and you get to
vary the mechanical properties with the resin - Formlabs, the manufacturers
of Form2 offer a variety of different formulations - Tough resin with good
tensile strength, Flexible resin for squishy parts, a range of standard
plastics, and a Dental resin - a biocompatible one. A disadvantage here is
that cured resin tends to change mechanical properties and become brittle.
This, however, is what theory says and we have not seen this as of yet
(this will probably affect the parts over the course of years). Another
consideration is the cost of the resins - you will need to spend ~$150/l of
resin. To give you an example, we printed a model of fly brain with the
size of approx. 3''x2''. That model consumed 90ml.  So for big parts - this
is not practical. For smaller parts or parts that require high precision I
would trust the SLA more. The cost is reasonable ($3400) and the customer
service is good.

If you want to choose an FDM printer, please consider a review made by the
Make magazine. We found the ratings they do pretty reliable and thoroughly
made (http://makezine.com/comparison/3dprinters/). According to their
review, LulzBot is very good along with the Zortrax. A Maker facility here
on campus has bought LulzBot and was very happy with it - it appeared to be
very reliable. The printer that Alexander mentioned is very tempting, but
is much more costly.

Good luck with your printing.
Vladimir


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Alexander Cramer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Greetings Aryeh,
>
> We employ two different types of 3D printers for creating parts and 3D
> models at
> the University Imaging Centers at the University of Minnesota.
>
> We have a couple a MakerBot Replicators for simple parts that have worked
> relatively will for our users needs and our own, but we've also very
> recently added
> a MarkForge II (https://markforged.com) for stronger parts.
>
> It prints using Nylon as it's base material but then has a second extruder
> that adds
> a fiber filament such as Carbon Fiber, Kevlar, or Fiber Glass for added
> part
> strength.
>
> You do have the option to just print in Nylon too which is quite useful
> even without
> fiber reinforcement.
>
> Both printers are pretty affordable which was a key point for our core
> since we
> have just entered the world of 3D printing.
>
> Word to the wise if you do purchase a MakerBot of any model- Make sure it
> has the
> new Smart Extruder +. Any of the older models are woefully inadequate and
> will
> give you nothing but headaches.
>
> If you have any questions just let me know, happy to answer what I can.
>
> Alex
>

[Sergey Tauger]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hi Aryeh,

I have a humble experience in 3d-printing for microscopy. I'd like to group pros and cons
by application and manufacturing principle
TL;DR It is better to have both FDM that uses nylon and SLA. Think about buying CNC
machine

What can you manufacture :

1. Adapters
Pitfails: broad temperature range from 18 to 60 C (if near to lamp or servo/stepper
drive). Do not forget about temperature shrinkage/elongation and about change in
mechanical properties

2. Insets for XY stage
Pitfails: temperature shrinkage/elongation. Choose fixture carefully.
Temperature shrinkage/elongation not matching copper-zinc alloy, aluminium or glass is
everlasting problem, I'll not mention it again

3. Custom dishes and observation chambers
Pitfails:
- accuracy (focus stability and medium leakage)
- gas permeability
- toxicity

4. Filter cubes, holders, etc
- accuracy (nothing special, 200-300 mkm is usually enough)

5. Gears, constuction elements, lens holders
- I'll never do it again

Printers pros and cons (not taking in account industrial $10K+ machines):
1.FDM
- cheaper (both machine and supplies)
- fast
- can print bigger details
- bigger community
- lots of open source software and hardware
- easier engeneering
- many materials proven to be non-toxic
- easier but obligatory post-processing

2. SLA
- more accurate
- facultative post-processing
- usually more durable, stong and inert materials
- materials exhibit smaller temperature shrinkage/elongation

3. CNC
- can replace a vendor detail with its exact copy
- most accurate in right hands
- cheapest cutting-edge specialists
- >50year experience of use in industry

Sorry for long-posting,
Best,
Sergey Tauger
MSU, Cell Motility Lab

[Kurt Thorn]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

We have two uPrint 3D printers
(http://www.stratasys.com/landing/uprint-affordable-3d-printer) that
I've used quite a bit for fabricating parts for our microscopes. You can
see some of the parts here:
http://nic.ucsf.edu/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=3d_printing:3dparts

We've been quite happy with the uPrint printers for our needs.
Occasionally we have a part that requires higher resolution than we can
get with the ABS extrusion from them and in those cases I've used 3rd
party printing services.  One feature of the uPrint that has been very
useful is the ability to print a dissolvable support layer. This allows
printing of cutouts and overhangs and I would definitely want it on a 3D
printer.

Kurt

On 5/24/2016 5:20 AM, Aryeh Weiss wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> My faculty will very likely be acquiring a 3D printer.
>
> I know that there are many of you on this list who have used 3D
> printers in order to fabricate accessories (eg holders) for microscopy
> applications.
>
> I would appreciate hearing from you concerning what to look for in a
> 3D printer, what printers you use, what you would recommend, which
> materials you use, etc.
>
> Please feel free to write directly to me, or post on line since I am
> probably not the only one interested in this information.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> --aryeh
>

--
Kurt Thorn
Associate Professor
Director, Nikon Imaging Center
http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/

[Gary Laevsky]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

As an FYI, in response to an inquiry to Makerbot, they are very much in
business still.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Vladimir Ghukasyan <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hi Aryeh,
>
> You have an option to go to filament extruder printers or stereolithography
> printers. First group as you probably already know, melt a thermoplastic
> filament and extrudes it in a particular layout. In stereolithography a
> laser is polymerizing a curable resin. We tried the Makerbot Replicator 2
> for the filament printers (FDM). It was ok, but wasn't easy to handle. This
> is a high-maintenance printer and tends to break a lot. You need to figure
> out the settings for different details, so we have got many bad prototypes
> with it. Makerbot is now out of business - they stopped manufacturing 3D
> printers. We recently bought a Form2 SLA printer and are very happy with
> it. It provides with a high-resolution nice finish details and you get to
> vary the mechanical properties with the resin - Formlabs, the manufacturers
> of Form2 offer a variety of different formulations - Tough resin with good
> tensile strength, Flexible resin for squishy parts, a range of standard
> plastics, and a Dental resin - a biocompatible one. A disadvantage here is
> that cured resin tends to change mechanical properties and become brittle.
> This, however, is what theory says and we have not seen this as of yet
> (this will probably affect the parts over the course of years). Another
> consideration is the cost of the resins - you will need to spend ~$150/l of
> resin. To give you an example, we printed a model of fly brain with the
> size of approx. 3''x2''. That model consumed 90ml.  So for big parts - this
> is not practical. For smaller parts or parts that require high precision I
> would trust the SLA more. The cost is reasonable ($3400) and the customer
> service is good.
>
> If you want to choose an FDM printer, please consider a review made by the
> Make magazine. We found the ratings they do pretty reliable and thoroughly
> made (http://makezine.com/comparison/3dprinters/). According to their
> review, LulzBot is very good along with the Zortrax. A Maker facility here
> on campus has bought LulzBot and was very happy with it - it appeared to be
> very reliable. The printer that Alexander mentioned is very tempting, but
> is much more costly.
>
> Good luck with your printing.
> Vladimir
>
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Alexander Cramer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Greetings Aryeh,
> >
> > We employ two different types of 3D printers for creating parts and 3D
> > models at
> > the University Imaging Centers at the University of Minnesota.
> >
> > We have a couple a MakerBot Replicators for simple parts that have worked
> > relatively will for our users needs and our own, but we've also very
> > recently added
> > a MarkForge II (https://markforged.com) for stronger parts.
> >
> > It prints using Nylon as it's base material but then has a second
> extruder
> > that adds
> > a fiber filament such as Carbon Fiber, Kevlar, or Fiber Glass for added
> > part
> > strength.
> >
> > You do have the option to just print in Nylon too which is quite useful
> > even without
> > fiber reinforcement.
> >
> > Both printers are pretty affordable which was a key point for our core
> > since we
> > have just entered the world of 3D printing.
> >
> > Word to the wise if you do purchase a MakerBot of any model- Make sure it
> > has the
> > new Smart Extruder +. Any of the older models are woefully inadequate and
> > will
> > give you nothing but headaches.
> >
> > If you have any questions just let me know, happy to answer what I can.
> >
> > Alex
> >
>

--
Best,

Gary Laevsky, Ph.D.
Director, Confocal Imaging Facility
Nikon Center of Excellence
Dept. of Molecular Biology
Washington Rd.
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey, 08544-1014
(O) 609 258 5432
(C) 508 507 1310

[Vladimir Ghukasyan-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hello Gary,

Here's the information I was referencing:
http://hackaday.com/2016/04/28/the-makerbot-obituary/

So, yes, they may still be continuing the production, but that would be
something else, they closed their factory, cut lots of jobs, and move the
manufacturing to China.

Vladimir


On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Gary Laevsky <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> As an FYI, in response to an inquiry to Makerbot, they are very much in
> business still.
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Vladimir Ghukasyan <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Hi Aryeh,
> >
> > You have an option to go to filament extruder printers or
> stereolithography
> > printers. First group as you probably already know, melt a thermoplastic
> > filament and extrudes it in a particular layout. In stereolithography a
> > laser is polymerizing a curable resin. We tried the Makerbot Replicator 2
> > for the filament printers (FDM). It was ok, but wasn't easy to handle.
> This
> > is a high-maintenance printer and tends to break a lot. You need to
> figure
> > out the settings for different details, so we have got many bad
> prototypes
> > with it. Makerbot is now out of business - they stopped manufacturing 3D
> > printers. We recently bought a Form2 SLA printer and are very happy with
> > it. It provides with a high-resolution nice finish details and you get to
> > vary the mechanical properties with the resin - Formlabs, the
> manufacturers
> > of Form2 offer a variety of different formulations - Tough resin with
> good
> > tensile strength, Flexible resin for squishy parts, a range of standard
> > plastics, and a Dental resin - a biocompatible one. A disadvantage here
> is
> > that cured resin tends to change mechanical properties and become
> brittle.
> > This, however, is what theory says and we have not seen this as of yet
> > (this will probably affect the parts over the course of years). Another
> > consideration is the cost of the resins - you will need to spend ~$150/l
> of
> > resin. To give you an example, we printed a model of fly brain with the
> > size of approx. 3''x2''. That model consumed 90ml.  So for big parts -
> this
> > is not practical. For smaller parts or parts that require high precision
> I
> > would trust the SLA more. The cost is reasonable ($3400) and the customer
> > service is good.
> >
> > If you want to choose an FDM printer, please consider a review made by
> the
> > Make magazine. We found the ratings they do pretty reliable and
> thoroughly
> > made (http://makezine.com/comparison/3dprinters/). According to their
> > review, LulzBot is very good along with the Zortrax. A Maker facility
> here
> > on campus has bought LulzBot and was very happy with it - it appeared to
> be
> > very reliable. The printer that Alexander mentioned is very tempting, but
> > is much more costly.
> >
> > Good luck with your printing.
> > Vladimir
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Alexander Cramer <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > *****
> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> > posting.
> > > *****
> > >
> > > Greetings Aryeh,
> > >
> > > We employ two different types of 3D printers for creating parts and 3D
> > > models at
> > > the University Imaging Centers at the University of Minnesota.
> > >
> > > We have a couple a MakerBot Replicators for simple parts that have
> worked
> > > relatively will for our users needs and our own, but we've also very
> > > recently added
> > > a MarkForge II (https://markforged.com) for stronger parts.
> > >
> > > It prints using Nylon as it's base material but then has a second
> > extruder
> > > that adds
> > > a fiber filament such as Carbon Fiber, Kevlar, or Fiber Glass for added
> > > part
> > > strength.
> > >
> > > You do have the option to just print in Nylon too which is quite useful
> > > even without
> > > fiber reinforcement.
> > >
> > > Both printers are pretty affordable which was a key point for our core
> > > since we
> > > have just entered the world of 3D printing.
> > >
> > > Word to the wise if you do purchase a MakerBot of any model- Make sure
> it
> > > has the
> > > new Smart Extruder +. Any of the older models are woefully inadequate
> and
> > > will
> > > give you nothing but headaches.
> > >
> > > If you have any questions just let me know, happy to answer what I can.
> > >
> > > Alex
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best,
>
> Gary Laevsky, Ph.D.
> Director, Confocal Imaging Facility
> Nikon Center of Excellence
> Dept. of Molecular Biology
> Washington Rd.
> Princeton University
> Princeton, New Jersey, 08544-1014
> (O) 609 258 5432
> (C) 508 507 1310
>

[Alexander Cramer]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

While we have 2 fifth generation MakerBot systems that perform reliably for us I
will say in 2016 you can find equal or superior performing FDM printers for less
money.

You'll hear overpriced a lot when researching 3D printers and MakerBot comes up.
That's even more accurate today then it was ~1.5 years ago when we purchased
our just released fifth gen systems.

They had momentum going for them back with the 2X due to a relatively stable
quality product that allowed experimentation and combined it with a sleek build.
The fifth gen however really fell flat relative to the progression of many it's
competitors and even self built solutions. The price unfortunately remained
inflated.

If I were in the market for a comparable unit today I'd be looking towards the
Ultimaker 2 or LulzBot.

Here is a link that provides breakdowns of many quality printers available at the
enthusiast to prosumer level: https://www.3dhubs.com/best-3d-printer-guide

[Craig Brideau]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

I have access to a LulzBot which can print in PLA or ABS. Out of all the
low-cost extruder-based models it tends to give the least headaches. As
Alexander says, be careful what model of extruder you get with any of these
types of printers. The earlier designs tend to jam up easily and require a
lot of fiddling. We also have an UltiMaker but the extruder design on it is
not great and it requires quite a bit of babying to run.
The Stratasys printers work very well. I have access to a high-end Connex
500 that does amazing work. It is extremely expensive to purchase and run
though so it requires a big budget. You can get limited biocompatible
materials for it as well which can be attractive for situations where you
have direct contact between the parts and your sample.

Craig

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Alexander Cramer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> While we have 2 fifth generation MakerBot systems that perform reliably
> for us I
> will say in 2016 you can find equal or superior performing FDM printers
> for less
> money.
>
> You'll hear overpriced a lot when researching 3D printers and MakerBot
> comes up.
> That's even more accurate today then it was ~1.5 years ago when we
> purchased
> our just released fifth gen systems.
>
> They had momentum going for them back with the 2X due to a relatively
> stable
> quality product that allowed experimentation and combined it with a sleek
> build.
> The fifth gen however really fell flat relative to the progression of many
> it's
> competitors and even self built solutions. The price unfortunately remained
> inflated.
>
> If I were in the market for a comparable unit today I'd be looking towards
> the
> Ultimaker 2 or LulzBot.
>
> Here is a link that provides breakdowns of many quality printers available
> at the
> enthusiast to prosumer level: https://www.3dhubs.com/best-3d-printer-guide
>

[Christopher Yip]

My lab uses a Solidoodle 2 (which continues to work well) even though it’s a couple of years old and the company has, I think, disappeared

I have access to a UPrintSE from Stratsys, which makes really nice parts… as well as a FormLabs II, and a laser cutter

the laser cutter is a really nice tool to also have around for prototyping


Chris


On May 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Craig Brideau <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

I have access to a LulzBot which can print in PLA or ABS. Out of all the
low-cost extruder-based models it tends to give the least headaches. As
Alexander says, be careful what model of extruder you get with any of these
types of printers. The earlier designs tend to jam up easily and require a
lot of fiddling. We also have an UltiMaker but the extruder design on it is
not great and it requires quite a bit of babying to run.
The Stratasys printers work very well. I have access to a high-end Connex
500 that does amazing work. It is extremely expensive to purchase and run
though so it requires a big budget. You can get limited biocompatible
materials for it as well which can be attractive for situations where you
have direct contact between the parts and your sample.

Craig

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Alexander Cramer <[hidden email]> wrote:

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

While we have 2 fifth generation MakerBot systems that perform reliably
for us I
will say in 2016 you can find equal or superior performing FDM printers
for less
money.

You'll hear overpriced a lot when researching 3D printers and MakerBot
comes up.
That's even more accurate today then it was ~1.5 years ago when we
purchased
our just released fifth gen systems.

They had momentum going for them back with the 2X due to a relatively
stable
quality product that allowed experimentation and combined it with a sleek
build.
The fifth gen however really fell flat relative to the progression of many
it's
competitors and even self built solutions. The price unfortunately remained
inflated.

If I were in the market for a comparable unit today I'd be looking towards
the
Ultimaker 2 or LulzBot.

Here is a link that provides breakdowns of many quality printers available
at the
enthusiast to prosumer level: https://www.3dhubs.com/best-3d-printer-guide

[Craig Brideau]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Your correction collar servo spinner is impressive! I also have a
collection of 'well plate-holder-to-whatever' adapters like you have made.

Craig

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Kurt Thorn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> We have two uPrint 3D printers (
> http://www.stratasys.com/landing/uprint-affordable-3d-printer) that I've
> used quite a bit for fabricating parts for our microscopes. You can see
> some of the parts here:
> http://nic.ucsf.edu/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=3d_printing:3dparts
>
> We've been quite happy with the uPrint printers for our needs.
> Occasionally we have a part that requires higher resolution than we can get
> with the ABS extrusion from them and in those cases I've used 3rd party
> printing services.  One feature of the uPrint that has been very useful is
> the ability to print a dissolvable support layer. This allows printing of
> cutouts and overhangs and I would definitely want it on a 3D printer.
>
> Kurt
>
>
> On 5/24/2016 5:20 AM, Aryeh Weiss wrote:
>
>> *****
>> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
>> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
>> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
>> *****
>>
>> My faculty will very likely be acquiring a 3D printer.
>>
>> I know that there are many of you on this list who have used 3D printers
>> in order to fabricate accessories (eg holders) for microscopy applications.
>>
>> I would appreciate hearing from you concerning what to look for in a 3D
>> printer, what printers you use, what you would recommend, which materials
>> you use, etc.
>>
>> Please feel free to write directly to me, or post on line since I am
>> probably not the only one interested in this information.
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
>> --aryeh
>>
>>
>
> --
> Kurt Thorn
> Associate Professor
> Director, Nikon Imaging Center
> http://thornlab.ucsf.edu/
> http://nic.ucsf.edu/blog/
>

[Rusty Nicovich]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Our lab has a Zortrax M200 and has used it a good bit over the past ~5
months since it's arrived.  Worked straight out of the box with almost no
tuning.  Continues to do well with minimal maintenance - just turn it on
and hit 'Go'.  A bit higher resolution than the usual filament extruders,
too.

The Zortrax model is more closed-source than others.  It only supports the
Zortrax brand filaments, which are whatever their proprietary blend of
plastic is (though they seem to be roughly aligned with the usual PLA,
ABS...).  No option to use anything but the (included) Zortrax slicing
software to generate the machine code from STL files.

When we need to go very high-res, or print in exotic materials, we can send
jobs to the workshop run by the architecture school here.  They seem to
have one of everything, but the laser cutter and SLA printer of theirs are
machines we've taken advantage of.  It's great to have a lower-end printer
on hand for the more every-day and one-off stuff (optomech adapters, sample
chambers, and the like) and then have the option to go for bigger runs with
a local service.  Also, bigger machines seem to mean more maintenance, and
we don't have the volume of work to justify anything but the
low-maintenance Zortrax machine.

This is also a good time to plug some work one of my students did creating
3d-printable magnetic sample chambers:

https://github.com/PRNicovich/BenlideChambers

These were originally made on a Up Plus 2 in ABS, plus some laser-cut
silicone rubber and small magnets, for ~$5 USD each.  Currently working on
the next round which includes new sizes and a chamber for electrochem +
imaging.  Files and assembly instructions all in the repo.

Thanks,
Rusty

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 5:50 AM, Christopher Yip <
[hidden email]> wrote:

> My lab uses a Solidoodle 2 (which continues to work well) even though it’s
> a couple of years old and the company has, I think, disappeared
>
> I have access to a UPrintSE from Stratsys, which makes really nice parts…
> as well as a FormLabs II, and a laser cutter
>
> the laser cutter is a really nice tool to also have around for prototyping
>
>
> Chris
>
>
> On May 24, 2016, at 3:08 PM, Craig Brideau <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> I have access to a LulzBot which can print in PLA or ABS. Out of all the
> low-cost extruder-based models it tends to give the least headaches. As
> Alexander says, be careful what model of extruder you get with any of these
> types of printers. The earlier designs tend to jam up easily and require a
> lot of fiddling. We also have an UltiMaker but the extruder design on it is
> not great and it requires quite a bit of babying to run.
> The Stratasys printers work very well. I have access to a high-end Connex
> 500 that does amazing work. It is extremely expensive to purchase and run
> though so it requires a big budget. You can get limited biocompatible
> materials for it as well which can be attractive for situations where you
> have direct contact between the parts and your sample.
>
> Craig
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Alexander Cramer <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> While we have 2 fifth generation MakerBot systems that perform reliably
> for us I
> will say in 2016 you can find equal or superior performing FDM printers
> for less
> money.
>
> You'll hear overpriced a lot when researching 3D printers and MakerBot
> comes up.
> That's even more accurate today then it was ~1.5 years ago when we
> purchased
> our just released fifth gen systems.
>
> They had momentum going for them back with the 2X due to a relatively
> stable
> quality product that allowed experimentation and combined it with a sleek
> build.
> The fifth gen however really fell flat relative to the progression of many
> it's
> competitors and even self built solutions. The price unfortunately remained
> inflated.
>
> If I were in the market for a comparable unit today I'd be looking towards
> the
> Ultimaker 2 or LulzBot.
>
> Here is a link that provides breakdowns of many quality printers available
> at the
> enthusiast to prosumer level: https://www.3dhubs.com/best-3d-printer-guide
>
>
>

[Sergey Tauger]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Hello Rusty,

Did you try taper (conical) tread between top and bottom parts? It will allow get rid of
magnets and probably silicon rubber. I saw teflon chambers with taper thread, made using
CNC app 20 years ago, they still perform good enough.

Best,
Sergey

[Rusty Nicovich]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Sergey,

We haven't tried threaded chamber junctions.  It's an intriguing idea,
though.  I'm a little worried that the printing tolerances and surface
finish wouldn't be sufficient to provide a good seal, but at the same time
I did 3D print a cap for 15 mL conical vials for another project that was
water-tight.

Will certainly give it a shot when I get some free time.

Thanks,
Rusty

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Sergey Tauger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Hello Rusty,
>
> Did you try taper (conical) tread between top and bottom parts? It will
> allow get rid of
> magnets and probably silicon rubber. I saw teflon chambers with taper
> thread, made using
> CNC app 20 years ago, they still perform good enough.
>
> Best,
> Sergey
>

[Craig Brideau]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Maybe make the tolerances on the threads slightly looser and use Teflon
tape to reinforce the seal?

Craig
On May 24, 2016 6:06 PM, "Rusty Nicovich" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Sergey,
>
> We haven't tried threaded chamber junctions.  It's an intriguing idea,
> though.  I'm a little worried that the printing tolerances and surface
> finish wouldn't be sufficient to provide a good seal, but at the same time
> I did 3D print a cap for 15 mL conical vials for another project that was
> water-tight.
>
> Will certainly give it a shot when I get some free time.
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Sergey Tauger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Hello Rusty,
> >
> > Did you try taper (conical) tread between top and bottom parts? It will
> > allow get rid of
> > magnets and probably silicon rubber. I saw teflon chambers with taper
> > thread, made using
> > CNC app 20 years ago, they still perform good enough.
> >
> > Best,
> > Sergey
> >
>

[Philip Nicovich]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Craig,

Right now the silicone rubber gasket seals between the bottom of the
chamber 'top' and the coverslip.  The well holding media and the sample,
from the bottom-up, is then coverslip glass - silicone gasket - 3D printed
plastic.  I am not picturing how I can get away from using some sort of
soft gasket between the plastic and coverslip and getting a good seal.  The
3D printed parts simply aren't smooth enough.  With the conical vial the
plastic of the vial can distort somewhat if you tighten it all down hard
and provide a seal but if you tried that with a coverslip it'd just snap.
Teflon tape would take up the slack in the threaded part well, but again
it's that glass-plastic transition that's harder.  Maybe there's another
geometry for these that would move away from that being the critical joint?

Thanks,
Rusty



On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Craig Brideau <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Maybe make the tolerances on the threads slightly looser and use Teflon
> tape to reinforce the seal?
>
> Craig
> On May 24, 2016 6:06 PM, "Rusty Nicovich" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > *****
> > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> posting.
> > *****
> >
> > Sergey,
> >
> > We haven't tried threaded chamber junctions.  It's an intriguing idea,
> > though.  I'm a little worried that the printing tolerances and surface
> > finish wouldn't be sufficient to provide a good seal, but at the same
> time
> > I did 3D print a cap for 15 mL conical vials for another project that was
> > water-tight.
> >
> > Will certainly give it a shot when I get some free time.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Rusty
> >
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Sergey Tauger <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > *****
> > > To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> > > http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> > > Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your
> > posting.
> > > *****
> > >
> > > Hello Rusty,
> > >
> > > Did you try taper (conical) tread between top and bottom parts? It will
> > > allow get rid of
> > > magnets and probably silicon rubber. I saw teflon chambers with taper
> > > thread, made using
> > > CNC app 20 years ago, they still perform good enough.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Sergey
> > >
> >
>

--

*Philip R Nicovich*

*Research Fellow,  **ARC Centre of Excellence in Advanced Molecular Imaging*



THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

UNSW  SYDNEY  NSW  2052  AUSTRALIA

T: [phone]

E: [hidden email] <[hidden email]>


CRICOS Provider No. 00098G

[Sergey Tauger]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Rusty, Craig,

I think that it is possible to choose one of below options if using taper tread:
1. If using PLA or other soft plastic - just apply force. The chamber will be not so durable,
but it is dirt cheap
2. If using nylon or SLA resin - instead of printing the tread it is better to use thread tap
3. Intermediate variant - printing with PLA the whole detail, then finishing with reference
screw and internal screw, and post-process with lapping plate

Best,
Sergey

[Vladimir Ghukasyan-2]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

A nice way to add threads is described below:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Add-Metal-Threads
-to-Your-3D-Prints-Make-Them-Func/

Best wishes,
Vladimir


On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:26 AM, Sergey Tauger <[hidden email]> wrote:

> *****
> To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
> http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
> Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
> *****
>
> Rusty, Craig,
>
> I think that it is possible to choose one of below options if using taper
> tread:
> 1. If using PLA or other soft plastic - just apply force. The chamber will
> be not so durable,
> but it is dirt cheap
> 2. If using nylon or SLA resin - instead of printing the tread it is
> better to use thread tap
> 3. Intermediate variant - printing with PLA the whole detail, then
> finishing with reference
> screw and internal screw, and post-process with lapping plate
>
> Best,
> Sergey
>

[Aryeh Weiss]

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

I want to thank the many people who responded to my inquiry, mostly
on-list, some off. I received a lot of very helpful information and
references.

Best regards
--aryeh


On 24/05/2016 3:20 PM, Aryeh Weiss wrote:

> My faculty will very likely be acquiring a 3D printer.
>
> I know that there are many of you on this list who have used 3D printers
> in order to fabricate accessories (eg holders) for microscopy applications.
>
> I would appreciate hearing from you concerning what to look for in a 3D
> printer, what printers you use, what you would recommend,  which
> materials you use, etc.
>
> Please feel free to write directly to me, or post on line since I am
> probably not the only one interested in this information.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> --aryeh
>
> --
> Aryeh Weiss
> Faculty of Engineering
> Bar Ilan University
> Ramat Gan 52900 Israel
>
> Ph:  972-3-5317638
> FAX: [phone]
>