Researchers 3D print key components for a point-of-care mass spectrometer
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240404113429.htm
pdf:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jasms.3c00409

Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Summary:
Researchers 3D printed a miniature ionizer, a key component of a mass spectrometer. Their device could someday enable an affordable, in-home mass spectrometer for health monitoring.

On 08/04/2024 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> Researchers 3D print key components for a point-of-care mass spectrometer
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240404113429.htm
> pdf:
> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jasms.3c00409
>
> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
> Summary:
> Researchers 3D printed a miniature ionizer, a key component of a mass spectrometer. Their device could someday enable an affordable, in-home mass spectrometer for health monitoring.

It is complete nonsense. Making the hard vacuum needed for ions to move
freely in mass spectrometry and sample handling to introduce the sample
into the unit without losing vacuum are fundamentals that won't go away.

The closest to a quick dirt cheap MS is time of flight laser ablation if
your sample is a solid or can be put on one. Liquid samples are really
messy and water vapour is the bane of vacuum systems.

Selective ion probes offer a much better alternative for bio samples (I
suppose the MIT PR department has to justify its existence somehow).

--
Martin Brown

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:23:24 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 08/04/2024 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> Researchers 3D print key components for a point-of-care mass spectrometer
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240404113429.htm
>> pdf:
>> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jasms.3c00409
>>
>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>> Summary:
>> Researchers 3D printed a miniature ionizer, a key component of a mass spectrometer. Their device could someday enable an affordable, in-home mass spectrometer for health monitoring.
>
>It is complete nonsense. Making the hard vacuum needed for ions to move
>freely in mass spectrometry and sample handling to introduce the sample
>into the unit without losing vacuum are fundamentals that won't go away.
>
>The closest to a quick dirt cheap MS is time of flight laser ablation if
>your sample is a solid or can be put on one. Liquid samples are really
>messy and water vapour is the bane of vacuum systems.
>
>Selective ion probes offer a much better alternative for bio samples (I
>suppose the MIT PR department has to justify its existence somehow).

I'd expect 3D printed stuff to outgas forever.

3D is super slow, too. I've heard of modestly complex parts taking
days to fab. The upside is that it can make things that are impossible
to machine or mold.

On 2024-04-08 10:28, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:23:24 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2024 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Researchers 3D print key components for a point-of-care mass spectrometer
>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240404113429.htm
>>> pdf:
>>> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jasms.3c00409
>>>
>>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>>> Summary:
>>> Researchers 3D printed a miniature ionizer, a key component of a mass spectrometer. Their device could someday enable an affordable, in-home mass spectrometer for health monitoring.
>>
>> It is complete nonsense. Making the hard vacuum needed for ions to move
>> freely in mass spectrometry and sample handling to introduce the sample
>> into the unit without losing vacuum are fundamentals that won't go away.
>>
>> The closest to a quick dirt cheap MS is time of flight laser ablation if
>> your sample is a solid or can be put on one. Liquid samples are really
>> messy and water vapour is the bane of vacuum systems.
>>
>> Selective ion probes offer a much better alternative for bio samples (I
>> suppose the MIT PR department has to justify its existence somehow).
>
> I'd expect 3D printed stuff to outgas forever.
>
> 3D is super slow, too. I've heard of modestly complex parts taking
> days to fab. The upside is that it can make things that are impossible
> to machine or mold.
>
3D resin printers are super cheap nowadays, and can do beautiful things.
They're basically contact printers made with 8k display LCDs and UV
LEDs, and give you nice repeatable 17-micron voxels.

It doesn't matter so much that something takes a day to print, if you
can have a shelf full of printers for $2k.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

On 9/04/2024 12:28 am, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:23:24 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2024 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Researchers 3D print key components for a point-of-care mass spectrometer
>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240404113429.htm
>>> pdf:
>>> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jasms.3c00409
>>>
>>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>>> Summary:
>>> Researchers 3D printed a miniature ionizer, a key component of a mass spectrometer. Their device could someday enable an affordable, in-home mass spectrometer for health monitoring.
>>
>> It is complete nonsense. Making the hard vacuum needed for ions to move
>> freely in mass spectrometry and sample handling to introduce the sample
>> into the unit without losing vacuum are fundamentals that won't go away.
>>
>> The closest to a quick dirt cheap MS is time of flight laser ablation if
>> your sample is a solid or can be put on one. Liquid samples are really
>> messy and water vapour is the bane of vacuum systems.
>>
>> Selective ion probes offer a much better alternative for bio samples (I
>> suppose the MIT PR department has to justify its existence somehow).
>
> I'd expect 3D printed stuff to outgas forever.

It wouldn't be much use in a mass spectrometer if it did.
Out-gassing vaccuum systems always involves getting them hot for quite a
while and pumping them hard. Maybe you have to laser fuse a thin layer
over the entire surface while maintaining a high vaccuum.

> 3D is super slow, too. I've heard of modestly complex parts taking
> days to fab. The upside is that it can make things that are impossible
> to machine or mold.

As Phil Hobbs says, the printers are cheap so you can put a lot in
parallel. The post-processing to get the outgassing down might not be so
easily paralleled.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:49:34 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote:

> On 2024-04-08 10:28, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:23:24 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/04/2024 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>> Researchers 3D print key components for a point-of-care mass
>>>> spectrometer
>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240404113429.htm
>>>> pdf:
>>>> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jasms.3c00409
>>>>
>>>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology Summary:
>>>> Researchers 3D printed a miniature ionizer, a key component of a mass
>>>> spectrometer. Their device could someday enable an affordable,
>>>> in-home mass spectrometer for health monitoring.
>>>
>>> It is complete nonsense. Making the hard vacuum needed for ions to
>>> move freely in mass spectrometry and sample handling to introduce the
>>> sample into the unit without losing vacuum are fundamentals that won't
>>> go away.
>>>
>>> The closest to a quick dirt cheap MS is time of flight laser ablation
>>> if your sample is a solid or can be put on one. Liquid samples are
>>> really messy and water vapour is the bane of vacuum systems.
>>>
>>> Selective ion probes offer a much better alternative for bio samples
>>> (I suppose the MIT PR department has to justify its existence
>>> somehow).
>>
>> I'd expect 3D printed stuff to outgas forever.
>>
>> 3D is super slow, too. I've heard of modestly complex parts taking days
>> to fab. The upside is that it can make things that are impossible to
>> machine or mold.
>>
> 3D resin printers are super cheap nowadays, and can do beautiful things.
> They're basically contact printers made with 8k display LCDs and UV
> LEDs, and give you nice repeatable 17-micron voxels.
>
> It doesn't matter so much that something takes a day to print, if you
> can have a shelf full of printers for $2k.
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs

Not all 3D printers use resin, for instance:

<https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-tests-3-d-printed-rocket-part-
to-reduce-future-sls-engine-costs/>

This isn't the first 3D printed part in the RS-25 engine (evolved from the
SSME), just the largest so far. The printer for beach-ball size titanium
parts might cost a bit more than $2k and probably won't fit on a shelf,
but I bet those helium-tight components don't outgas much :-).

(I did the detail, process and tooling designs for the HP oxidizer
turbopump shaft seals for the original SSME ~1980, per proposal design and
design rules by the late Dr. Philip Stein, PhD in metallurgy from MIT 1927
IIRC. LOX on one side, hot H2 and steam on the other, lube oil mist and
bearings in between, ~28k RPM shaft with play and significant thermal
movement, engines shut down automatically if either seal fails. So I
check now and then to make sure none of my parts have failed :-).

Glen

Glen Walpert <nospam@null.void> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:49:34 -0400, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-04-08 10:28, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:23:24 +0100, Martin Brown
>>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/04/2024 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>>> Researchers 3D print key components for a point-of-care mass
>>>>> spectrometer
>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240404113429.htm
>>>>> pdf:
>>>>> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jasms.3c00409
>>>>>
>>>>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology Summary:
>>>>> Researchers 3D printed a miniature ionizer, a key component of a mass
>>>>> spectrometer. Their device could someday enable an affordable,
>>>>> in-home mass spectrometer for health monitoring.
>>>>
>>>> It is complete nonsense. Making the hard vacuum needed for ions to
>>>> move freely in mass spectrometry and sample handling to introduce the
>>>> sample into the unit without losing vacuum are fundamentals that won't
>>>> go away.
>>>>
>>>> The closest to a quick dirt cheap MS is time of flight laser ablation
>>>> if your sample is a solid or can be put on one. Liquid samples are
>>>> really messy and water vapour is the bane of vacuum systems.
>>>>
>>>> Selective ion probes offer a much better alternative for bio samples
>>>> (I suppose the MIT PR department has to justify its existence
>>>> somehow).
>>>
>>> I'd expect 3D printed stuff to outgas forever.
>>>
>>> 3D is super slow, too. I've heard of modestly complex parts taking days
>>> to fab. The upside is that it can make things that are impossible to
>>> machine or mold.
>>>
>> 3D resin printers are super cheap nowadays, and can do beautiful things.
>> They're basically contact printers made with 8k display LCDs and UV
>> LEDs, and give you nice repeatable 17-micron voxels.
>>
>> It doesn't matter so much that something takes a day to print, if you
>> can have a shelf full of printers for $2k.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> Not all 3D printers use resin, for instance:
>
> <https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasa-tests-3-d-printed-rocket-part-
> to-reduce-future-sls-engine-costs/>
>
> This isn't the first 3D printed part in the RS-25 engine (evolved from the
> SSME), just the largest so far. The printer for beach-ball size titanium
> parts might cost a bit more than $2k and probably won't fit on a shelf,
> but I bet those helium-tight components don't outgas much :-).
>

Fun. The resin printers start at around $100, though. I’m very willing to
trade off the ability to print titanium for that. ;)

> (I did the detail, process and tooling designs for the HP oxidizer
> turbopump shaft seals for the original SSME ~1980, per proposal design and
> design rules by the late Dr. Philip Stein, PhD in metallurgy from MIT 1927
> IIRC. LOX on one side, hot H2 and steam on the other, lube oil mist and
> bearings in between, ~28k RPM shaft with play and significant thermal
> movement, engines shut down automatically if either seal fails. So I
> check now and then to make sure none of my parts have failed :-).

An excellent idea.
I do the same with my body parts. ;)
>
> Glen
>

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

On 08/04/2024 15:28, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 10:23:24 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2024 05:47, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> Researchers 3D print key components for a point-of-care mass spectrometer
>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/04/240404113429.htm
>>> pdf:
>>> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jasms.3c00409
>>>
>>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>>> Summary:
>>> Researchers 3D printed a miniature ionizer, a key component of a mass spectrometer. Their device could someday enable an affordable, in-home mass spectrometer for health monitoring.
>>
>> It is complete nonsense. Making the hard vacuum needed for ions to move
>> freely in mass spectrometry and sample handling to introduce the sample
>> into the unit without losing vacuum are fundamentals that won't go away.
>>
>> The closest to a quick dirt cheap MS is time of flight laser ablation if
>> your sample is a solid or can be put on one. Liquid samples are really
>> messy and water vapour is the bane of vacuum systems.
>>
>> Selective ion probes offer a much better alternative for bio samples (I
>> suppose the MIT PR department has to justify its existence somehow).
>
> I'd expect 3D printed stuff to outgas forever.

Some of the exotic very crosslinked UV polymers from resin baths might
not outgas but the sintered stuff would be very problematic. Using 3D
printing for a variant of lost wax metal casting would be OK though.

Back when I was involved the only polymers allowed in hard vacuum were
PTFE (which creeps) and PEEK (which is a good engineering plastic).
Nothing else could stand up to the aggressive baking procedures needed
to dry them out to hard vacuum.
>
> 3D is super slow, too. I've heard of modestly complex parts taking
> days to fab. The upside is that it can make things that are impossible
> to machine or mold.

My favourite toy demo on 3D printers is a digital sundial which shows
the time in a 7 segment style display with 10 minute resolution.
Adjusting it for summertime is a trivial rotation.

--
Martin Brown