6 ms·

That's all my sources, plus an extra news article[1]. Click reactions are interesting. What's the point of this ? first, it's offering places with lack of sol

by hershel 13y ago

That's all my sources, plus an extra news article[1]. Click reactions are interesting. What's the point of this ? first, it's offering places with lack of solid access to medicines and materials a good source. Second, it has similar motivations to any 3d printer as a research tool : easy copying and sharing and faster innovation. [1]http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/21/chemputer-that-prints-out-drugs http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/21/chemputer-tha...

wuschel 13y ago
Hi hershel, thanks for your links/lit. I was not trying to to stomp down any intiative towards employing 3D printers in chemistry - on the contrary, I find these are very interesting tools that I was watching with envy in my final years of university life. I just wanted to point out some of the problems that can not be solved easily by just making use of a 3D printer: 1. control of reaction 2. purification 3. analytics are as important as choosing the recipe of the reaction because side-reactions can be found most of the time with synthesis e.g. due to imperfect reaction conditions, reactant aging, nature of reaction (kinetic vs thermodynamic control), steric factors, solvent, many factors that are difficult to control etc. Quite unfortunate, I know. Not sure what the current resolution of the printers is - I was following this exciting idea for some time, but until now I could not figure out a concept that would allow to bootstrap a 3D printing system that provides some interest value proposition to a specific customer segment. I guess we will see many more projects with 3D printers in the respective journals. As for medicine, I would not gulp any stuff that has been made by a 3D printing system - quality control is the one of the things the pharmaceutical does right. It costs a lot of $ but is necessary in order to be confident enough that the compounds you are making are really the compounds you wanted to create.

by hershel 13y ago

wuschel 13y ago

Hi hershel, thanks for your links/lit. I was not trying to to stomp down any intiative towards employing 3D printers in chemistry - on the contrary, I find these are very interesting tools that I was watching with envy in my final years of university life. I just wanted to point out some of the problems that can not be solved easily by just making use of a 3D printer: 1. control of reaction 2. purification 3. analytics are as important as choosing the recipe of the reaction because side-reactions can be found most of the time with synthesis e.g. due to imperfect reaction conditions, reactant aging, nature of reaction (kinetic vs thermodynamic control), steric factors, solvent, many factors that are difficult to control etc. Quite unfortunate, I know. Not sure what the current resolution of the printers is - I was following this exciting idea for some time, but until now I could not figure out a concept that would allow to bootstrap a 3D printing system that provides some interest value proposition to a specific customer segment. I guess we will see many more projects with 3D printers in the respective journals. As for medicine, I would not gulp any stuff that has been made by a 3D printing system - quality control is the one of the things the pharmaceutical does right. It costs a lot of $ but is necessary in order to be confident enough that the compounds you are making are really the compounds you wanted to create.