Will this print? Medical Research

[DrGlassDPM]

Hello,

I'm working on a pilot for medical research. This will eventually be
a published research manuscript in a medical/surgical journal. In
short, I'm wondering if these generated models will print well in a
Makerbot, before I use funding to purchase one...

These models are a little rough, but let me know your thoughts
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10661524/badexamle.tiff
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10661524/goodexample.tiff

Thanks in advance,
Nick

[M.Rule]

I've had good success with medical files like these, with support
material. You may want to break up the model into individual bones and
print them separately. Tweaking support material in Skeinforge takes
some patience. If the UP! printer lives up to the rumors, its support
material setting should be well calibrated by default.

I would suggest you use shapeways or a local shop at university or
hackerspace if you want only a few high quality prints. It can take a
surprisingly long time to tune a makerbot to high quality, or at
least, it used to.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
> To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.
>
>

[DrGlassDPM]

This is all one model that has been "reconstructed" from a high res
computed tomography scan (CT). We want them to be whole models, even
if not to full scale.

Funding would permit a $1500 thingomatic if it means we can print at
will. I was just curious if these gaps or thin walls would be serious
defects that would reduce anatomic usefulness.

[M.Rule]

you would need to clean up the gaps and thin walls. The thinnest I've
been able to print in a complex shape like that is 2mm.

[DrGlassDPM]

Ok, that makes sense then. If it printed as is, would it cause some
sort of error?

[M.Rule]

I recently printed an animal skull, which was quite thin. Walls that
were too thin effectively did not exist : the printer must lay down
filaments of plastic, and when the part gets too small or too
complicated, these filaments don't structurally support one another,
and that part of the model turns into a 'nest' of plastic. The part
itself was still very fragile.

Meshlab can be used to clean up a mesh, but it will be tricky. Maybe
other people on this list have suggestions ?

Things may have improved somewhat, I am using an original Cupcake.
Newer models may support smaller nozzles.

I don't know about the ThingOMatic, but I needed about $200 dollars in
improvements to the Cupcake I bought. It sounds like the ThingOMatic
has fixed many if not all of the problems with the Cupcake, but also
added a new "Automated Build Platform" that uses a conveyor belt. I've
heard on this list that the platform is difficult to get working, and
some people seem to be paying to 'downgrade' to a simple heated build
platform.

It took me about three months before I was getting good quality
prints, and I had to purchase new parts and do some re-designing along
the way.

The process will go much more smoothly if you have someone in the area
who's built, debugged, and tuned a MakerBot before.

MakerBots are the best printer for hobbyists, but because they tend to
be unreliable and sometimes require clever repairs, some people who
have purchased them for business have been very disappointed, and
unable to get the product to work in time.

[Peter Charles]

Nick-

Unless you or someone in your lab/practice is pretty electromechanically savvy, you may be better off ordering prints from someone like Shapeways (http://www.shapeways.com/materials/), FineLine (http://www.finelineprototyping.com/), or ProtoLabs (http://www.protolabs.com/?ls=PSGPL&s=PSGPL&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=branded-protolabs&gclid=CPXSicTVrKkCFUiA5QodIW5eMQ) for proof of concept. I have used all three, and have a MakerBot. Somethings are better for some jobs than others. Just my $0.02. YMMV.

--

Best regards,

peter

Peter C. Charles, PhD
Director,
Research and Technology Division
Advanced Photobiology Laboratory
CyberBiota, Inc.
5905 Triangle Drive
Raleigh, NC 27617

Professor of Biology, Anatomy and Physiology
College of Arts and Sciences
Durham Technical Community College
Rm. 281 Collins Building
1637 Lawson Avenue
Durham, NC 27703

Web: http://cyberbiota.com
Email: pcha...@cyberbiota.com
Office: 919.536.7223 ext. 8038
Cell: 001.919.308.3839

[Mike Payson]

It sounds like M Rule has more experience than me on this specific type of model, but personally I would not recommend a Makerbot or other RepRap-style printer for this sort of model. They most likely do not have enough resolution to give you models you will be satisfied with. About the smallest detail you can reliably reproduce on a RepRap is about 1x1 or 2x2mm 

I was satisfied with the price and speed of the parts I had printed by http://www.fastprotos.com/ and they can do substantially higher resolutions than the RepRap is capable of.  

[Mike Payson]

Can you post photos of similar items you have printed?

[DrGlassDPM]

That's a little discouraging to hear. After watching the videos
online and browsing thingiverse, I was pretty excited to say the
least. One of the exported models from the reconstruction is linked
here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10661524/foot.stl

Would printing that turn out, on a makerbot, look like a disaster?
I'd love to see a pic

Otherwise, if I absolutely need to devote more funding in this
direction, should I go with something like this?
http://www.dimensionprinting.com/3d-printers/printing-productspecs-uprintpus.aspx
Their promotional video on youtube looked pretty convicing, afterall.
The price would be about 10X increase, which is a huge bummer, but is
that what it'll take? or is the model (linked above) not printable
without major refinement, despite the vendor?

Thanks for your answers so far. I'm very impressed with the makerbot
community despite the drawbacks you describe.
Nick

[Mike Payson]

Dimension is certainly going to be a better choice, if for no reason other than it uses a soluble support material. The RepRap currently only prints support with the same material as the model, so it is hard to remove from the sort of small cavities you have in your models. Other than that, the Dimension uses the same basic print technology as the reprap, so while it is higher resolution, it still may not be the best choice for your needs.

There are several other commercial choices that may be better than a dimension for the types of models you do. The site I mentioned earlier uses an Objet printer, they are far higher resolution (600x600x900DPI). Their low-end printer is $20k also. http://www.objet.com/

Z-corp printers have good resolution, but the finished parts are not as strong. I think their printers start at around $15,000. http://www.zcorp.com/en/home.aspx

Solido used to offer their printer for $3000... But you had to buy something like $10,000 worth of consumables with the printer to get that price. I am not sure about the current pricing, but it may be worth contacting them to see if it is a good choice for you: http://replicatorinc.com/blog/2010/02/solido-2950-3d-printer/

There are probably other options as well. Before I bought a commercial 3d printer, I would try to get the manufacturer to print you a sample of one of your models to make sure it will meet your needs.

I hate steering anyone anyone away from the RepRap, but I suspect it will just not meet your needs at the present time. It is rapidly improving, but I think it will be a while before we can print those models. M.Rule may well be able to prove me wrong, though.

[B Stott]

From a look at your foot image Dr. our machines are too small. Unless, you are allowed to scale down the printed models from life size.

The build area for the MakerBot T-O-M is: 96 mm width x length 108 mm x Height 115 mm

The foot model with its missing toes is still at 80.52 mm x 158.19 mm x 119 mm.

The model would have to be, as suggested earlier, printed in parts and then assembled.

If your project is longer term and you are wanting the immediate flexibility of in house fabrication then you are better to commit and go larger dollar for better capable technology. In that case do not over look 3D Systems' newer V-Flash printer.

If you are just experimenting to then document and move on then our technology is worth a look. But, if you are working to get a jump into the new world of technology and really see the use then spend the money up front. Our machines are fraught with build, tuning and maintenance. They are very good for what they are but, a professional is not able to rely on them to supplement they operations with additional time critical services. Our devices are great for the market that they are targeted the home hobbyist. The maker with time to tinker. We are not the professional with critical decisions to make - now!

Take a look at this entry into the 3D prototyping arena - http://printin3d.com/experience-difference

The build envelope for a 3D Systems V-Flash is: 228.6 mm x 171.45 mm x 203.2 mm and its base price is $9,900.00. It prints faster than the uPrint and because of its method of printing it has a higher resolution for fine details, uses less support material so more parts are printed quicker and requires less total materials to consume. Per the marketing glossies that is. The machine should equate to less cost overall as compared to the Dimension uPrint. The V-Flash doesn't use the same technology that the RepRap or Dimension uses and does not slow down for multiple printing objects. This will save you much time to view and use your prints. The V-Flash device uses Film Transfer imaging for finer detail than the filament (FDM) printing of the Dimension.

The Dimension uPrint has a build envelope of: is 203 mm x 152 mm x 152 mm. This is significantly smaller than the 3D Systems printer and its base price of $14,900.00 is $5,000.00 more than the entry level 3D Systems machine.

Sorry, just some more confusion to place before you. But, the MakerBot machine is Cool! The building is enjoyable. The adventure is exciting and the groups are a good sized number of very interesting helpful people. So, is the need camaraderie, adventure, knowledge, experience(s) or business?

************* I've downloaded your foot.stl. There is some mesh problems with the file and the foot is missing portions of toes. I'm not very skilled but, I'm performing some repair to the file. I can not grow new toes for the decapitated foot but, I will still attempt a print tomorrow (Today - Saturday). I'm not sure if I should learn to break out stl files to make multiple prints of portions of bone groups and re-assemble the foot or just to scale it down. ****************

[Steven Dick]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM, DrGlassDPM <glas...@gmail.com> wrote:

One of the exported models from the reconstruction is linked
here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10661524/foot.stl

Would printing that turn out, on a makerbot, look like a disaster

There are a number of factors that would make this printable or not, and it depends a great deal on the type of detail that you need.  A lot of people here have already spoken for the experimental nature of the machine, let me address the medical model directly.

First, CT scans of bone typically produce porous models with extremely complex internal geometry that the makerbot can not reproduce in a reliable or timely way at all.  This is not to say that it can't print it, just not the internal detail. If all you care about is the outside surface, then this is much easier.  Software processing is required to turn the porous bone into its exterior shell.  If the shell can either then be made solid, or a shell with a more or less constant thickness (say, 2mm), that would help significantly.  Bones typically also have small holes (I guess for blood vessels, nerves, and muscle attachment points?)  These would also have to be cleaned up, either by elimination, or by cutting them off at some depth inside the bone.  The shelling process might close most of those if a minimum aperture is specified.  You also need to consider if you want to model the hollow part of the bone where it is cut off, or close the cut ends and model the cut bones as solid.

Next, there are some external small fragments that would be problematic.  Some of these are bone fragments on the edge of the scan region, and presumably could just be removed from the model (e.g., near the toes).  I see a bone chip near the heel that might be a problem, depending on the scale the model is built, and some smaller specs around the ankle that appear well below any printable resolution and would best be cleaned out.

I see in the region near the toes that looks a bit strange; it appears separate bones were joined in the mesh due to limitations of the resolution of the original scan.  I would assume that you would not care about this as much, since this is a limitation of the scan data, not of the build process.

Lastly, as others have mentioned, this model would need a significant amount of support structure to build.  With that support, it should build fine, but unless a soluble support was used, it would require post processing of the built model, and care would have to be taken to separate the support from the model without changing the shape of the model.  Current versions of the makerbot do not do multiple materials (ie., model and soluble support) but this might happen in the next year or so, and makerbot is selling the support material for people experimenting with multiple extruder heads.  Also, machiens that use a DC extruder motor would leave strings connecting some or all of the gaps between bones.  If you want a single solid model, this might be accidentlly helpful (but possibly not reliably).  Newer extruders with stepper motors would leave less strings (but I don't have a lot of experience with that).

So, yes, this model could be built in a makerbot assuming certain details are not of concern (chips, internal structure, either model size or post processing reassembly, and repairable defects related to support structure).  However, it would require some cleanup work to print well, both in software prior to printing, and physically after printing.  (Most of the higher end commercial printing processes would also need this extra work done to some degree.)

[DrGlassDPM]

Many thanks for the detailed and informative response. Let me explain
a little more of what I need the prints for...

As far as internal geometry and such, I'll defer to the actual CT
imagery in our PACS. They are quite detailed and will offer more than
enough information for what we need.

As far as the gross anatomic shape, this is where the printed models
will be used for preoperative planning. People with complex
deformities like
Charcot Foot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G9ZZ0MfbkU
Pilon Tibial/Ankle fractures - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb2Hx6r3PAQ
Calcaneal fractures such as the foot model linked in my previous
message...

Surgical reconstruction of these feet is often challenging and can be
unpredictable. My goal with this medical/surgical research is to make
prints of the patients pathology, and be able to plan and prepare for
the case by having a practice template. This idea is somewhat
unexplored in the surgical realm, as it is often an expensive endeavor
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21613771.

In the year 2011, I feel that the increase in technology and the
decrease in cost is right for this to become common practice, soon.
So far my pilot looks a little something like this:
-Patient Pathology imaged with CT
-CT -> Print
-Print -> Surgeon for preoperative preparation/practice

The hypothesis is that surgical outcome will improve, as measurement
of OR time, complications, and overall decrease in intra-operative
stress. This will also reduce the cost of surgery, by not requiring
expensive hardware or biologic supplements, because a more sound and
cost efficient hardware construct will be applied. (plates, screws,
frames, etc...)

I'm fine with breaking the foot models up into individual chunks and
superglueing them back together. Also, the toes in the foot model
linked above are not important, because that's not the area of
interest for the template. Understand?

I'm just hoping that for better or worse, the foot model(s) will print
with minimal expenditure of time needed to refine, and be able to be
printed and useful as a sawbone http://www.apticsuperbones.com/_catalog_78762/Lower_Extremities
The advantage with personalized/custom sawbones, that you print out
yourself or email to a colleague across the country is obviously so.

I'm a bit more computer minded than most of my counterparts, but you
guys take tops, indeed.

Nick




On Jun 11, 5:14 am, Steven Dick <kg4...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM, DrGlassDPM <glass....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One of the exported models from the reconstruction is linked

> > herehttp://dl.dropbox.com/u/10661524/foot.stl

[Brian Stott]

Your STL conversion was fine for a print. Your method was what is needed to print. Unfortunately for my printing, besides the model being too large and the toes amputated, I do not like the looks of what there is to print. I do not believe it would be useful scaled by 50%. Detail of bone structure and relations look wrong. Here is where your expertise and interest would dictate to print or not. From having seen many anatomic models I feel a printed model under these conditions would look grossly unfamiliar as a human foot.

---

From: Steven Dick <kg4...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2011 5:14 AM
To: make...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [MakerBot] Re: Will this print? Medical Research

On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM, DrGlassDPM <glas...@gmail.com> wrote:

One of the exported models from the reconstruction is linked

here http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10661524/foot.stl

Would printing that turn out, on a makerbot, look like a disaster

There are a number of factors that would make this printable or not, and it depends a great deal on the type of detail that you need.  A lot of people here have already spoken for the experimental nature of the machine, let me address the medical model directly.

First, CT scans of bone typically produce porous models with extremely complex internal geometry that the makerbot can not reproduce in a reliable or timely way at all.  This is not to say that it can't print it, just not the internal detail. If all you care about is the outside surface, then this is much easier.  Software processing is required to turn the porous bone into its exterior shell.  If the shell can either then be made solid, or a shell with a more or less constant thickness (say, 2mm), that would help significantly.  Bones typically also have small holes (I guess for blood vessels, nerves, and muscle attachment points?)  These would also have to be cleaned up, either by elimination, or by cutting them off at some depth inside the bone.  The shelling process might close most of those if a minimum aperture is specified.  You also need to consider if you want to model the hollow part of the bone where it is cut off, or close the cut ends and model the cut bones as solid.

Next, there are some external small fragments that would be problematic.  Some of these are bone fra

[The entire original message is not included]

[Brian Stott]

Stephen, we are making models of objects. The requestor has seen the videos of our crude machines. I believe anyone in his situation would know we aren't printing internal vessels and molecular structure. Did you look at the stl model submitted? It is a left skeletal foot. I'm sure the requestor just wants a foot. Not a frankenstein.

Too much detail.

[Brian Stott]

To print your foot is - intimidating.

[Bob Sponsler]

Just a thought but have you looked into sites like ponoko - they do
powder/laser stuff pretty cheaply.

[B Stott]

Watch out - Wall-O-Words....

I'm 3+ hours into a fun and interesting experiment. I like your endeavors to do more.

I've scanned your very complete e-mail. And will read after this experiment.

I (am trying) have finished (to print) printing a half scale of the foot. See: It - is - a foot.

 As I watched what was printing, with full support plastic included, it is intimidating. It is a very busy model. The model, at half size, took 1 hour and 29 minutes to print. Watching the machine printing the plastic support structure to hold up the model added to the complexity and confusion of the model. I would not care to pick through the bones. :-)

Note: I understand you have the CT information but, you should load ReplicatorG 25 with Skeinforge 41. Then, select any Makerbot printer and generate the gcode. Watch the different layers through the animation. The foot STL is very detailed. As the foot model printed and each layer was built it was very interesting. The bone structure, density, marrow pockets, venous pathways all seem to be there viewable layer by layer. I'm not sure if my descriptions are clear but, there is a lot of detail. Of course, as pointed out earlier, only the external 3D form would be needed thus printing time should be shorter.

I too have optimism and you are right - In a few years we will be able to get a cheap to free MB printer or similar with our computer purchase. But, from today to then you will have made many hundreds of thousands and saved many, many, many people lots of grief with your entry expense of ??? $15,000.00 for a machine. You will look back longingly remembering history and tell some youngster what the beginning was like.

Oh - Contact me. I've a foot to deliver.

Regards,

Brian Stott
E-mail Contact

[B Stott]

I just looked at our communications and I find I have a problem sending e-mails from my phone. It is sending duplicates.

Forgive me for spamming this very interesting discussion.

[Andrew Plumb]

No duplicates on this side.  Sometimes the duplicates are Google reflecting e-mails back to sender, other times it's the phone e-mail client set up to bcc itself.

Andrew.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MakerBot Operators" group.
To post to this group, send email to make...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to makerbot+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/makerbot?hl=en.

--

Makerbot Number Nine... #9... 0x09... 0o11... 0b1001... 
http://clothbot.com/wiki/MakerBotNumberNine

[B Stott]

Thanks Andrew. Good to know what is seen outside the box.

[DrGlassDPM]

wow. First of all, thank you all for your attention to this
discussion.

Ponoko looks like an amazing service to me. May be a bit beyond my
needs at the moment, but most impressive by concept alone. I'll have
to revisit in the coming months and see the API's and apps they have
running by then. Seems like a whole new venture in itself.

As far as the printing adventure:
You're saying my workflow should look something like CT ->
Reconstructed STL -> Skeinforge -> Replicator G? What will skeinforge
be doing for me? Are the support structures added by default from
replicatorG? Excuse my ignorance, but my CAD/CAM experience is with
Newtek's Lightwave 3D. (That's what I use for the podcast content)
www.youtube.com/drglassdpm

I've gone ahead and ordered a thing-o-matic for exploration in this
pilot. I wonder if there are any plugins/filters or settings which
would allow only external geometry to be stripped away and negate all
internal detail for models. It seems like it would be a cool process
to watch what you describe, but the human body would naturally remodel
the bones internal makeup after surgical reconstruction anyways. It's
cool, but short lived once the healing begins after surgically induced
trauma. See - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_remodeling

Side note: I think that being able to use the PLA biodegradable
filament is amazing. I imagine this to be a softer and more workable
material with our surgical saws and rotaries, plus it doesn't add too
much to the cost of printing by comparison to plastic. Very neat.

Email to you en route...

On Jun 12, 5:31 pm, B Stott <sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Watch out - Wall-O-Words....
>
> I'm 3+ hours into a fun and interesting experiment. I like your endeavors to
> do more.
>
> I've scanned your very complete e-mail. And will read after this experiment.
>
> I (am trying) have finished (to print) printing a half scale of the foot.
> See: It - is - a

> foot.<http://s1132.photobucket.com/albums/m563/stottb/MakerBot/>

>
>  As I watched what was printing, with full support plastic included, it is
> intimidating. It is a very busy model. The model, at half size, took 1 hour
> and 29 minutes to print. Watching the machine printing the plastic support
> structure to hold up the model added to the complexity and confusion of the
> model. I would not care to pick through the bones. :-)
>
> Note: I understand you have the CT information but, you should load
> ReplicatorG 25 with Skeinforge 41. Then, select any Makerbot printer and
> generate the gcode. Watch the different layers through the animation. The
> foot STL is very detailed. As the foot model printed and each layer was
> built it was very interesting. The bone structure, density, marrow pockets,
> venous pathways all seem to be there viewable layer by layer. I'm not sure
> if my descriptions are clear but, there is a lot of detail. Of course, as
> pointed out earlier, only the external 3D form would be needed thus printing
> time should be shorter.
>
> I too have optimism and you are right - In a few years we will be able to
> get a cheap to free MB printer or similar with our computer purchase. But,
> from today to then you will have made many hundreds of thousands and saved
> many, many, many people lots of grief with your entry expense of ???
> $15,000.00 for a machine. You will look back longingly remembering history
> and tell some youngster what the beginning was like.
>
> Oh - Contact me. I've a foot to deliver.
>
> Regards,
>
> Brian Stott

> E-mail Contact <bstott2...@yahoo.com>

[The Ruttmeister]

Hooray for your sense of adventure!

Where in the world are you located? I think that if you connect with
some local makerbot'ers/reprap folk you might be able to move your
plan along a lot faster.
Its certainly the most interesting (and actually imminently practical)
application of the tech that I've seen in a while (and only the second
serious application of a makerbot to medical/biological science that I
have known about.... the other being me asked to print some inserts
for petri dishes)

Keep us updated.

In fact, I hope to read about this in New Scientist in the future!

[DrGlassDPM]

I'm located in Atlanta, GA for residency in current. I'm hoping
people will join the MUG, soon enough. It's been fun so far, hoping
to have some good results to post here before long. :-)

[James McCracken]

you didn't happen to go to SELF last weekend? I met someone from
Atlanta that was asking about this very topic at the fablocker booth!

[Whosawhatsis]

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:33 PM, DrGlassDPM <glas...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> Side note: I think that being able to use the PLA biodegradable
> filament is amazing.  I imagine this to be a softer and more workable
> material with our surgical saws and rotaries, plus it doesn't add too
> much to the cost of printing by comparison to plastic.  Very neat.

The PLA formulations typically used for 3d printing (usually 4042D or
4043D) are not at all soft or malleable at room temperature. It is
actually more a more rigid plastic than ABS. It starts as a hard,
almost glassy solid that is brittle in thin pieces and has a lower
melting point, becoming pliant before transitioning to a sticky fluid.
I've cut myself on the stuff. ABS is springy in thin pieces, and has a
nice higher-temperature transition from hard, through maleable, to
gooey.

It may be growing up with Legos (made of ABS), or it may be the fact
that I've had PLA parts fail catastrophically because they warped
while attached to parts that got a little warm, but I prefer the
characteristics of ABS, even if you do need a heated platform to keep
the bottom from curling as the layers cool.

[The Ruttmeister]

> > Side note: I think that being able to use the PLA biodegradable
> > filament is amazing.  I imagine this to be a softer and more workable
> > material with our surgical saws and rotaries, plus it doesn't add too
> > much to the cost of printing by comparison to plastic.  Very neat.

The biggest advantage is that its non-toxic. And being a bio-plastic
it could one day be used (in theory at least) for custom, printed,
surgical implants.

[Buddy Smith]

Hi Dr Glass,

Freeside Atlanta has a makerbot. Id love to demonstrate it for you.
Email me off list if you'd like to see one in person.

--buddy

Sent from my iPhone

[Len Trigg]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Whosawhatsis <whosaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The PLA formulations typically used for 3d printing (usually 4042D or
> 4043D) are not at all soft or malleable at room temperature. It is
> actually more a more rigid plastic than ABS. It starts as a hard,

Has anyone here had a play with the soft rubbery PLA that has been
talked about on this blog:

http://www.ifeelbeta.de/index.php/production/printing-soft-pla

Looks like it could be a great addition to the arsenal in terms of
different characteristics of the printed object.

Cheers,
Len.

[DrGlassDPM]

I've never been to SELF before. Sounds like something I'd like to
take up though.

The Freeside Atlanta sounds pretty cool. You can add my name to the
3D model maker's Skillz section if you want. How can I go about
showing up to a meetup or something?

I'll have to tinker around with the different printing mediums. I hope
to post a few videos along the way.

On Jun 13, 4:32 pm, Len Trigg <len...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Buddy Smith]

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM, DrGlassDPM <glas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've never been to SELF before.  Sounds like something I'd like to
> take up though.
>
> The Freeside Atlanta sounds pretty cool.  You can add my name to the
> 3D model maker's Skillz section if you want.  How can I go about
> showing up to a meetup or something?
>

We are open to the public every Tuesday. However, if you'd like to
visit any time, just send me an email. I can demo the makerbot for
you, or try to print your model.

http://www.freesideatlanta.org/

--buddy

[Mike Payson]

This link seems relevant to this earlier discussion:

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/07/01/howto-turn-an-mri-of.html