3.9 Article

Ultra-Portable Solar-Powered 3D Printers for Onsite Manufacturing of Medical Resources

期刊

AEROSPACE MEDICINE AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE
卷 86, 期 9, 页码 830-834

出版社

AEROSPACE MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.3357/AMHP.4308.2015

关键词

photovoltaics; digital fabrication; additive manufacturing; space medicine; long-duration space missions; global health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION: The first space-based fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printer is powered by solar photovoltaics. This study seeks to demonstrate the feasibility of using solar energy to power a FDM 3D printer to manufacture medical resources at the Mars Desert Research Station and to design an ultra-portable solar-powered 3D printer for off-grid environments. METHODS: Six solar panels in a 3 x 2 configuration, a voltage regulator/capacitor improvised from a power adapter, and two 12V batteries in series were connected to power a FDM 3D printer. Three designs were printed onsite and evaluated by experts post analogue mission. A solar-powered 3D printer composed of off-the-shelf components was designed to be transported in airline carry-on luggage. RESULTS: During the analogue mission, the solar-powered printer could only be operated for <1 h/d, but was able to fabricate a functional dental tool, scalpel handle, and customized mallet splint over 2 d. Post analogue mission, an ultra-portable plug-and-play solar-powered 3D printer was designed that could print an estimated 16 dental tools or 8 mallet finger splints or 7 scalpel handles on one fully charged 12V 150Wh battery with a 110V AC converter. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to use solar energy to power a 3D printer to manufacture functional and personalized medical resources at a Mars analogue research station. Based on these findings, a solar-powered suitcase 3D printing system containing solar panels, 12V battery with charge controller and AC inverter, and back-up solar charge controller and inverter was designed for transport to and use in off-grid communities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据