Someone should team up with MDs to design parameterized IUDs. From first exam to customized device to insertion in 1 day. Material cost under $1.00. Most of the world's problems are traceable to overpopulation.
Someone should team up with MDs to design parameterized IUDs. From first exam to customized device to insertion in 1 day. Material cost under $1.00. Most of the world's problems are traceable to overpopulation.
Created by lack of education.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
If there is a good amount of money to be made in it, you can already be rest assured there is a pharmaceutical company somewhere already well into progress on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
There are no fundamental or basic causes for anything. For any cause, you always can ask why, and produce one or more reasons that caused the cause. Overpopulation is one of the causes for global warming, ocean acidification, food shortages, loss of arable cropland, inflation, mass extinction of species, and many more. Think behind the daily news and you will see consequences of overpopulation everywhere.
Not for money. Because it is the right thing to do. A little effort could have a major effect on overpopulation, by making contraception conveniently available and affordable to a large part of the world's population who are denied access now. People created this mess. Only people can fix it. Please, someone with appropriate talent, help solve this problem. There are few situations where a technological fix can be so effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff
Do you have any idea how an IUD works? What makes you think they need to be customised?Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
They are a simple device requiring no customisation. One or two sizes fits all.
They rely on either embedded hormones or the inclusion of a reactive metal, usually copper.
They have a horrible safety record and are no more effective than pills or barriers.
IUDs are already mass produced and coming up with a pointless design to print them cannot compete on a cost per unit basis.
Another case of "3D Printing will save the world" miss-information.
There are many causes in this world that are just as noble, and would be the right thing to do, but unfortunately unless there is significant financial gain to be made, it's up to the backyard tinkerers such as yourself to take that first step and start. If it's something you are so passionate about, maybe start looking into things 3D Oz talked about and how you can improve on those things first. I'm not trying to be down on your plight to fix what is a big problem, and I applaud you, but it's not a problem this very minute thousands if not millions are scientists are working on to resolve right now, among so many other world important issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
If all countries would stop fighting for a minute and focus time effort and money into medical research, things would be very different :/
Mjolinor was more correct than you give credit, it is a matter of education rather than technology.
Effective and efficient contraceptives have been available for decades and still uncontrolled population growth in countries struggling to support what they have already continues to be a problem.
You could invent a contraceptive that was free and 100% effective and still you would need to overcome religion, fear and misinformation before it could have an impact.
I certainly am no expert on the subject. 3D printing allows easy experimentation on improvements to the old Lippes loop design that no longer has FDA approval. No guarantee of success, but worth trying because of big potential payoff in reducing overpopulation. Lippes design is inert, no copper or hormones, requires custom fit. 3D printing can make it very inexpensive. Eventually 3D printers will be ubiquitous. Doctor can e-mail parameters to local 3D printer, get custom device and perform implant on same day. See Wikipedia "intrauterine device" for discussion of designs and safety. Improvements could include safety, comfort, and efficacy improvements.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3D OZ
Education is a big part of the solution. Witness resistance to Ebola safety measures.Quote:
Originally Posted by 3D OZ
Overpopulation caused in part by lack of education caused in part by poverty caused in part by high cost of resources caused in part by scarcity of resources caused in part by overpopulation. Typical positive feedback loop not amenable to control. Technological fix can help break that loop. Worth trying, considering the potential cost/benefit ratio.
Typo: "nreak" should be "break".Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
Lippes loop does not require customisation and has lost FDA approval largely because it doesn't work as well as active IUDs.
No IUD requires any level of customisation, there is no such thing as a customised IUD!
ALL IUDs are mass-produced, not a field where 3D printing can or should help.
No inert IUD has approval in the US, UK, Canada or Australia.
There is no benefit in 3D printing a small, standard, non-customised plastic item when far better options exist in both methods of manufacture and device types.
I applaud your intent but this is not a puzzle solved by 3D printers.
I lack the requisite skills. I am old and retired and in poor health. I am in no condition to develop this myself. That is why I started this thread: to divorce having an idea from developing the idea. I hope that other people with other ideas that they cannot develop, will post their ideas here. I hope that people looking for ideas to develop, will read this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff
Not a positive feedback loop. It is self controlling. The only reason that "we" are concerned is that if "we" let it control itself then that control does not discriminate between us and them, epidemic will reduce the numbers, problem solved until next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
Our problem is that "we" want to not let the control take a natural course by stopping the cycle. Whether or not it is a sensible and correct thing to do depends on whether or not you are "us" or "them". To us, stopping the birth of children that will die is sensible. To them, having lots of children to satisfy immediate needs should you grow dependant is the sensible thing to do.
No right or wrong here, just different views and not solvable or relevant to a 3d forum. It will make people get hostile and result in a thread that no one will ever read.
This is a completely separate idea that I got from a science fiction story when I was young, seemingly 2 centuries ago. Ever-shrinking machine shops. Use a conventional machine shop to build a smaller machine shop. Use that to build an even smaller machine shop. Etc. An iterative process. Its success requires that mechanical error tolerances become smaller as the machines become smaller.
At present there exist conventional machine shops and nanodevices fabricated on chips. There does not exist anything of in-between size.
Could 3D printers of differing manufacturers and differing design principles, be teamed together to make the next smaller size family of 3D printers? The next smaller size 3D printers need not look the same or even work the same as their larger forbears. They just need to be of practical use. It would be nice if they were complete enough to make even smaller 3D printers.
May I have some of whatever you are smoking? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
Make many copies of the same widget, select the most accurate one. Statistics work in your favor. There are microscopes that can resolve very small images, to help in selection. The microscopes are expensive, rent microscope time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
Maybe the techniques that stabilize microscope images, can be applied to 3D printer stability. The microscopes are not mass produced. Maybe 3D printing can reduce the cost of the microscopes. Contact Rich Didday rich@indecsystems.com . Tell him Dan sent you. He is very tolerant.
At present we lack fabrication methods for arbitrary electromechanical devices in thr 1/100 inch to 1/1000 inch size range, that are made of components 1 to 2 orders of magnitude smaller.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjolinor
These devices could (1) circulate in the human body and (1a) locate tumors and cut off their blood supply, (1b) repair broken nerve fibers in the spine, (1c) perform eye surgery beyond what can be done with laser surgery, (1d) act as radio transducers in the brains of people with Parkinson's disease or epilepsy, (2) medicate marine mammals, (3) circulate in plants and attack fungal and other infections and infestations, (4) kill the parasites that are killing bees, (5) what more is needed to convince you of their value?
This is the sort of thing that gives lawyers orgasms. Imagine what happens when a woman gets sick with one of these things inside her - the feeding frenzy over the "3D-printed gun" would fade into insignificance. If you don't remember the Dalkon Shield, look it up. This was the product of a major pharmaceutical company, and it bankrupted that company. Who would be to blame for a 3D printed device's failure -its designers, the doctor that installed it, the company that printed it, the manufacturers of the printer, the producers of the materials that went into it, or all of the above?
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
I've seen a 3dprinted iud. Either in one of brian's press releases or on a 3d file site.
And yep - it really was very simple.
Found it - here you go: http://www.3ders.org/articles/201301...d-concept.html
So, next topic to argue about please :-)
Well, it's not really a IUD, it's an idea for a IUD. Nobody (least of all the inventor) is taking responsibility for it. Here's what it says on that site: "The Bearina IUD is a conceptual product and absolutely should not be used as an IUD or for any internal use. But as an Open Design, it is designed in relation to dimensions, materials and shapes commonly found in IUDs. And it is available for experimenting with and improving, and could evolve into a functional IUD."
Let the arguments rage on....
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
Interesting and simple design. The legal disclaimer seems disingenuous. I think that the designer thinks he has a workable product. 3D printing was essential to the design, but appears unnecessary if some manufacturer picks up on it. So be it. There is no need to add complication. 3 points regarding the comments at the end. 1st, boiling is an effective means of sterilization, readily available to everyone. 2nd, insertion could be performed by doctors or by trained midwives. 3rd, open source design prevents profit gouging by patent holders. The liability issue is no worse than for any other IUD design. This is an example of 3D printing living up to its initial promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by curious aardvark
"I think that the designer thinks he has a workable product. 3D printing was essential to the design, but appears unnecessary "Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
**editing my post.
I think Dan, you summed up my feelings in that sentence, and simultaneously proved alot of peoples arguments here :)
At the time that we all posted, we were unaware of this new design. I wanted experimentation, possible improvement. I thought 3D printing a promising vehicle for experimentation. If improvement involved customization, 3D printing would be a promising vehicle for customization, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff
Please forgive me if I now misinterpret the objections that I received. The fact is that Lippes loop once had FDA approval, but approval has been revoked because superior designs now exist. The posted objections were that (1) further experimentation is unnecessary because the Lippes loop is obsolete, and (2) any improvement will not require customization because the Lippes loop did not involve customization. The logic of those arguments escapes me.
Let us not beat a dead horse. Please confine your reply to my (this) post, to a single comprehensive post. I will not reply to your post. You may have the last word.
Also please, no more personal abuse. It can escalate and destroy the value of the thread.
Hi Dan, I apologize if in any way that members conflicting ideas about your topic somehow transcended into what you would consider personal abuse, I don't feel that was the intention of anyone posting here, but remember this is a public forum and for all purposes an open session for debate - but I am genuinely sorry if you were made to feel that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
Since I have absolutely no experience in any medical field whatsoever, and also don't possess a Uterus myself, it would be silly for me to make any comment on the actual device's practicality, I was more sticking to the lines of financial interest as that what seems to drive the majority of the pharmaceutical companies.
Update on new technologies, thanks to my friend Nick.
http://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/mandelbulber.html Mandelbulber is open source software for visual rendering of 3D fractals. The 2nd image on the Web page reminds me of pollen. If there were a 3D printer that could make objects sufficiently small, it MIGHT be possible to develop a non-allergenic vaccine against hay fever and asthma.
http://www.micronautomata.com/ This is a totally new hardware architecture that could vastly speed up the digitization of complex objects such as real life pollen, that approximates a 3D fractal.
You have chosen to misinterpret the objections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
The Lippes Loop lost FDA approval because it was proven over time to NOT BE EFFECTIVE and therefore better options exist.
No inert IUD (your proposal) has approval in any major Western Nation.
There is no reason to expect any 3D Printed IUD design to ever be approved anywhere in the world, the fact that it could be customised adds further reason for it to never be approved.
Nobody said customisation is not required because the Lippes Loop didn't require customisation. IUDs in their entirity DO NOT REQUIRE CUSTOMISATION.
There is essentially no such thing as a customised IUD and no need for one. One size fits all.
The current range of commercial hormonal and Copper IUDs work perfectly fine, there is no realistic scope for improvement through design.
Google "customised IUD" and you get no hits other than this forum.
Personal abuse? Where?
I still am trying, with yet another idea. If you object, please make it substantive like 3D OZ's objection above, not merely abusive about what I have been smoking. OK, on to the idea. It is a project that can be done now. Use a 3D printer to experiment with geometric shapes of objects that interlock or entangle with each other. Once an effective shape has been found, 3D printing has completed its job. Use 3D printed models to patent the shape. Develop applications or license the patent to application developers.
Application 1: a coarse powder that promotes blood clotting. Potential beneficiaries include hemophiliacs, burn victims, surgery patients.
Application 2: sealants. There are many varieties of sealants. I think some still use asbestos, despite being carcinogenic.
Application 3: riprap. Global warming will cause more severe weather, increased coastal damage from storms.
You must be a very lonely or sad person to take a joke about "what you are smoking" as a personal abusive attack. I shall refrain from such posts in future and apologize for not being aware of your lack of sense of humour.
Please note, the above is not any kind of attack or abusive post it is merely a conclusion I draw from your posts. Do not take it to heart, do not be upset by it. If it bothers you then perhaps you should stop reading forums because the world is a big place with many people in it and most of them have some sense of humour.
This is a product that I have wanted for over 25 years, but never seen in stores. It is an ant-proof pet food bowl for use outdoors. Visualize a bowl on top of a saucer. The bowl contains pet food. The saucer contains soapy water, a contact killer for ants. I have used the bowl & saucer combination, but it is unsatisfactory. A 1-piece design is preferable. Problems to eliminate: Pets bump into the bowl and spill the contents. Bowl knocked over and ants invade the pet food. Bowl and saucer both knocked over, spilling soapy water into the pet food. Pet's sloppy eating drops dry pet food into the saucer, dry food absorbs soapy water emptying the saucer and providing a path for ants. Leaves dropping and providing the ants an alternate path to the pet food; maybe need a separate cover to keep leaves out but allow pets in; cover should align the bowl so that bumping either the bowl or the cover does not provide a path for ants, does not block pet access to bowl; cover must be removable for human servicing of bowl & saucer. Rain turns dry pet food into a mushy moldy mess; solved by the cover.
My mother was hard of hearing. She spent $200 each ear for hearing aids. Then she spent $600 each ear for better model hearing aids. 1985 dollars. I suggested using ordinary plastic kitchen funnels as ear trumpets. No batteries to replace. No squealing when the volume control was set too high. Good frequency response over speech frequencies. My mother was too self-conscious to use funnels. Many people in the world live on $2 per day. They cannot afford hearing aids or the luxury of being self-conscious. There is need for an ear trumpet that is self-supporting on the ear, so the wearer does not have to dedicate a hand to holding the trumpet in place.
Prince Rupert's drops have the shape of raindrops. These days they are made by heating the end of a soft glass rod with a Bunsen burner. When the glass melts, it is allowed to drop into a bucket of cold water from a height of about 4.5 feet. Usually the glass drop shatters when it hits the water. But occasionally the glass hardens, forming a Prince Rupert's drop. Surface tension makes the glass very hard. The head of the drop can withstand being hit with a hammer; a really strong blow will just dent the hammer. But the tail of the drop shatters easily, causing the entire drop to shatter.
So far (about 350 years), the drops have been just a novelty. Each drop has a unique shape. There has been no way to protect the sensitive tail from shattering the entire drop. Digitizing each drop and 3D printing a customized holder that protects the tail, could enable exploitation of the extreme hardness of the head of the drop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Rupert%27s_Drop
Sorry Dan, you have lost me now... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
I assume you mean lost sympathy, not lost intellectually. Any further posts will have clear immediate application.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff
Hi Daniel, I am going to leave the thread. I think now I feel like the one who is copping abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
I was simply saying you lost me now, not for poking fun, not for being 'sympathetic' nor intellectually lost. To clear it up, I was just wondering how we got from the hearing aids to the prince ruperts drops. The hearing aid was on track with the theme of the thread in 3D printing advancements and how we can use this technology to better the world..
... . then the ruperts drops, as fascinating as they are, did not connect the dots for me for any of the other topics we have discussed so far in this thread. Is that a bit clearer? if I missed something I apologize.
Anyway, Good luck with your myriad of ideas, hopefully one of them will come to fruition.
Pilot relief valve for vehicles stuck in traffic. Adapt aspects of Air Force design. Wikipedia article does not convey nuance.
Design improvement. Around the large end of the funnel, provide screw threads for an optional add-on attachment. The attachment is a hollow cylindrical tube with slots cut around the side, vaguely similar to a gun silencer. The principle is the same as for a shotgun microphone, causing extreme directivity at the cost of some of the funnel's acoustic gain. Compromise directivity vs. loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microph...ic_microphones
In most of my clothes and luggage that have zippers, the zipper is the first component to fail. There is need for zipper design improvement. The zipper is a mature product. Design improvement may be impossible.
There are 2 sources of zipper failure, one in the slider and one in the teeth.
Slider failure occurs when the crosspiece between the inside and outside parts of the slider, bends. The inside and outside parts of the slider separate slightly. The teeth are not forced together sufficiently to make them interlock completely. A sturdy U-shaped cover over the slider, attached after the rest of the zipper is assembled, and glued to both the inside and outside parts of the slider, would prevent bending and separation of the slider.
Tooth failure occurs when meshed teeth separate spontaneously. Look carefully at the Wikipedia diagram of the teeth. It appears that the teeth do not mesh smoothly. That may be fact, or it may be a deficiency of the diagram. In the mid-20th century there was mathematical derivation of the optimal curve for meshing of gear teeth. I think the derivation also would apply to meshing of zipper teeth. Investigation needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipper
3D printer would be used for experimentation and prototyping, maybe on a scaled-up model.
This thread has been moved to off topic as it does not relate to the Makerbot forum.
Or buy items with YKK produced zippers. Lifetime warranty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ross