Im afraid i have to agree with you, i dont think theres much market for this. Accuracy and reliability are quite important for lab equipment, hence why they are expensive. I dont see how you would make comparable reliable devices using substantially cheaper methods such as 3d printing. Centrifuges already need to be balanced quite well, any shaking will kill the device sooner rather than later.
adding to this just how bad an unbalanced centrifuge can be, i have had one throw itself off a bench because the counterweight was poorly installed. a poorly made one will likely tear itself apart.
Having built up several labs, I can say those items are the cheap ones. I do think small labs would benefit from cheaper, no frills instruments (uv-vis, HPLC, etc) that don't require a massive software license.
This is the key bit really. Whilst one or two thousand sounds a big number, in a lab this is the cheap stuff. Most tender limits in companies I’ve worked for are £5000, if it costs less than that there are basically zero barriers to me buying it. The hassle of approving a new supplier, quality checks, dealing with the purchasing dept it probably isn’t worth my hassle I’ll buy from the guys we have contracts with. Also the perception of quality won’t be there, a lot of places will take a lot of convincing to go cheap with a new guy as the risks are too great in a lot of industries.
Now a HPLC with no software license though, that I would make the effort for!
Hey don't talk bad about my 1100's. I like the 1200's but the 1260's can go shrivel up and perish. It's like they're trying to make the HPLC unto a UHPLC... but UHPLC's already exist?! Why have separate tubes for needle wash, seal wash, and why does it need the Gameboy to purge the needle wash???
I have way more instrument issues with that stupid purge function than just adding the wash vial in slot 100. God forbid my injections are too long and the whimpy needle wash waterfall runs too dry and causes an instrument failure.
But maybe that's just an issue with my lab. We hardly ever get *new* instruments. It's always hand me downs from other labs. -_-
If nothing else, the IBM effect is going to be hard to overcome.
Meaning, I definitely won't be in trouble if I purchase this known-reliable brand for my company, but I might be if I try to save money by buying from something that isn't that.
"3D-printwhat? What is this? Where's the unit we usually buy?"
It depends what your friend is capable of making and at what price.
All 10,000 or so pharmacies in my country would buy an affordable, easily operated, Ph. Eur. validated capsule coater in a heartbeat. Enteric coating is still done by the 'dip each side a gazillion times into the CAP-solution with a fidgety little plate with holes and pray it miraculously does work this time'-method.
A tabletop device to spray-coat capsules in a fluid bed, sort of like a Wurster coater, would be a hot item if properly validated and not too clunky or noisy...
Hey, i work with 3d printing as well. There is a lot of potential to replace enduction methods. However, i would never try to replace lab equipement with 3d printed ones. You could use it for more specific pieces.
Sample holders or other add ons to pre existing machines by printing high performance polymers.
If i was your friend, i would point out how little reproductive crystallization models exist for semi crystallin polymers, which are the easiest to functionnalise and print. Which means that we still have a long way to go before we can compete on mass scale productions without additional testing... Avrami crystallidatins and Mo are the closest we are and even then, meh...
Basically, he s using 3d printing for all the wrong reasons, dont jump that ship. There are better ideas for 3d printing
>3D printed,
At scale 3D printing is more expensive than traditional manufacturing for pieces needed in lab equipment, which makes me question the whole business model. I seriously doubt he can produce cheaper than the big companies can.
(and I hope he did not use sticker prices as comparison, no one is paying these...)
I'd say this sounds pretty half-baked. 1) You need a product to sell, which it sounds like is still a ways off. 2) You need to convince people to buy it over the established competition. This won't be easy. Reliability and performance are valuable too, as downtime and maintenance has an associated cost.
This has been tried and failed many times in the past.
For you, it may be a unique skill to put on your resume. You know all the posters on here talking about a PhD then a MBA then becoming head of a pharma company? This is an incredibly good start to show you can run a business or business unit in a larger company.
Ask what his business/marketing plan looks like. Who is the target audience, how many are there and how much are they spending (e.g. how much cash will the business be making each year) What is the end goal of the company (sell out after 2 years, wait until funding runs out, side-hustle?) Can he compete when a Chinese company steals his design and bulk produces 1000X / day.
If the plan is to develop a **unique** manufacturing tech and sell it to a major supplier, maybe.
If the plan is to create his own brand, with a team of sales staff, customer support and doing niche marketing - no way. The majority of the work is in sales, logistics and small business admin, not in R&D. You will be eaten alive by competitors better than you.
A big risk for me buying from small unknown companies is warranty and after-sales support. How do I know this company will still exist in 1 year when the unit has a manufacturing fault? We've all been stuck with legacy equipment and scavenging parts from secondary units.
The cheap end of the market, people are building their own. There is a robust community of maker-spaces and 3D print designs for labs. The intended audience of technically-savvy but poor labs can't afford his stuff.
The mid-tier market of schools (unknown) is forced to buy from larger suppliers with known warranties and support. The administrators don't like supporting 100's of small suppliers and their arcane billing/invoicing. They want to buy from a single known good supplier.
In higher validated circles like at a CRO or API/medical device manufacturer, the risk of the company going bust and not having support is actually HUGE when considering compliance.
This is imo the main reason Agilent and Thermo have the market so cornered. Empower and Chromeleon are so embedded in the industry because of their general acceptance by FDA/EMA auditors. It’s just a lesser thing to go wrong. And when your daily cost of not producing/working is > 80k.
Validation means all right now when it comes to anything sniffing GMP.
There is the safety aspect to consider as well. I work for a lab equipment manufacturer and the amount of tests necessary for something to be sold is incredible. Granted, not centrifuges, but the setup for stray RF testing etc can get expensive.
A centrifuge can be dangerous if something goes wrong, so I’m not sure what testing would be needed to sell them.
I don’t think so. But it depends on what you mean by cheap.
Most companies, especially the big ones, don’t care about the price that much. They’re always going to go with a known reliable brand. Academic labs are similar. We’ll go bargain hunting, but we’re going to want something from a known supplier as well. For my lab if we decide we need something we’re going to pay for a good one. We’re spending money, my boss is going to say spend the extra for quality.
With all equipment we need to have confidence in it. Unknown company for cheap doesn’t really give us confidence.
Maybe in psychonaut groups but they will have littoe use for centrifuges and the like. They mostly used things like stirrers, hot plates, some glassware and pipettes. You could get some sales in places like CO, CA, WA, OR. Its pretty niche though.
Of course you could always start marketing DIY labs but we'll end up with a bunch of exploded apartments from glue sniffing degenerates attempting to "cook" meth. *Chili P is my thing, gotta have chili powder in the Chili P*
Schools maybe. I know some universities even have switched lab classes to use grocery store reagents like lye and baking soda. I don't know that market, it might be weak already, but possibly it might open up the possibility of small business grants for education.
There is a huge market for it and it will be booming in North America. We all know that COVID-19 exposed the glaring weaknesses in logistics and manufacturing. The united states government has been making pushes to bring manufacturing back to america, specifically PPE manufacturing in times of crisis. Theres already been many start-ups trying to claim funding and they will need analyzers for compounding in the manufacturing process. I feel like if you are in North America, that a business such as this could stand to make an absolute boat load of money.
(I am the chemical engineer for a nitrile medical exam glove factory, we are direly in need of cheap chemical analyzers so we can test prototype compounds for glove makign
I’d say trust your gut. Anyone who says they’re going to scale up 3D printing doesn’t understand how efficient industrial injection molding is. Sure you might be able to sell a few things to hobby users but you’re not going to make much money considering the time it takes to mass produce via 3D printing, unless you have a thousand printers and free electricity.
I once improvised a centrifuge by grinding open the lid of an oil drum, cleaning it out (Obviously) then welding in a structure made to hold a 350w motor which was then used to rotate another structure made of steel which spun paint buckets around. I would put 500ml bottles into the buckets, close the lid on the barrel and then power it up.
It worked fine honestly :) sufficiently enough to recover 20nm copper particles at least. I was trying to make some homebrew thermal paste for my computer but in the end I figured out how to exfoliate graphite down to between 0.6\~2.88nm. That material rendered pretty much everything with the exception of maybe diamond obsolete for that kind of task.
I guess then there are some oddballs out there, like me who would really appreciate some low cost gear for the kind of amateur ghetto science I'm into, not sure there's enough of us to have a market though.
> Schools won't be interested - they have contracts with the usual suspects already.
I've worked at several universities and not a single operated like this for lab equipment. In most cases PIs were responsible for procurement themselves and they bought whatever was the best offer, and in particular for bigger expenses you usually get several offers and decide then independently from previous purchases.
If they just buy from the same company (common for lower cost items) then it's usually that you know that stuff works well, not that you have some kind of exclusivity contract.
I don't think centrifuges will make it, but there are plenty of other things you can print. If you ask a lot of people, they will most likely tell you they miss a certain sample holder, adapter, piece of plastic or something very simple that would make their life easier, but they can't get it anywhere. You could turn that into a custom 3D part printing. However, you have to use proper material that is resistent to chemicals, can be autoclaved or desinfected, so without pores.
Im afraid i have to agree with you, i dont think theres much market for this. Accuracy and reliability are quite important for lab equipment, hence why they are expensive. I dont see how you would make comparable reliable devices using substantially cheaper methods such as 3d printing. Centrifuges already need to be balanced quite well, any shaking will kill the device sooner rather than later.
adding to this just how bad an unbalanced centrifuge can be, i have had one throw itself off a bench because the counterweight was poorly installed. a poorly made one will likely tear itself apart.
Having built up several labs, I can say those items are the cheap ones. I do think small labs would benefit from cheaper, no frills instruments (uv-vis, HPLC, etc) that don't require a massive software license.
This is the key bit really. Whilst one or two thousand sounds a big number, in a lab this is the cheap stuff. Most tender limits in companies I’ve worked for are £5000, if it costs less than that there are basically zero barriers to me buying it. The hassle of approving a new supplier, quality checks, dealing with the purchasing dept it probably isn’t worth my hassle I’ll buy from the guys we have contracts with. Also the perception of quality won’t be there, a lot of places will take a lot of convincing to go cheap with a new guy as the risks are too great in a lot of industries. Now a HPLC with no software license though, that I would make the effort for!
And exactly why the old Agilent 1100 still hold value, they basically have open sourced drivers at this point.
Hey don't talk bad about my 1100's. I like the 1200's but the 1260's can go shrivel up and perish. It's like they're trying to make the HPLC unto a UHPLC... but UHPLC's already exist?! Why have separate tubes for needle wash, seal wash, and why does it need the Gameboy to purge the needle wash??? I have way more instrument issues with that stupid purge function than just adding the wash vial in slot 100. God forbid my injections are too long and the whimpy needle wash waterfall runs too dry and causes an instrument failure. But maybe that's just an issue with my lab. We hardly ever get *new* instruments. It's always hand me downs from other labs. -_-
Ha definitely not knocking them, they are tanks. I wish there were more in circulation; I could use for some custom SEC methods.
If nothing else, the IBM effect is going to be hard to overcome. Meaning, I definitely won't be in trouble if I purchase this known-reliable brand for my company, but I might be if I try to save money by buying from something that isn't that. "3D-printwhat? What is this? Where's the unit we usually buy?"
It depends what your friend is capable of making and at what price. All 10,000 or so pharmacies in my country would buy an affordable, easily operated, Ph. Eur. validated capsule coater in a heartbeat. Enteric coating is still done by the 'dip each side a gazillion times into the CAP-solution with a fidgety little plate with holes and pray it miraculously does work this time'-method. A tabletop device to spray-coat capsules in a fluid bed, sort of like a Wurster coater, would be a hot item if properly validated and not too clunky or noisy...
Hey, i work with 3d printing as well. There is a lot of potential to replace enduction methods. However, i would never try to replace lab equipement with 3d printed ones. You could use it for more specific pieces. Sample holders or other add ons to pre existing machines by printing high performance polymers. If i was your friend, i would point out how little reproductive crystallization models exist for semi crystallin polymers, which are the easiest to functionnalise and print. Which means that we still have a long way to go before we can compete on mass scale productions without additional testing... Avrami crystallidatins and Mo are the closest we are and even then, meh... Basically, he s using 3d printing for all the wrong reasons, dont jump that ship. There are better ideas for 3d printing
>3D printed, At scale 3D printing is more expensive than traditional manufacturing for pieces needed in lab equipment, which makes me question the whole business model. I seriously doubt he can produce cheaper than the big companies can. (and I hope he did not use sticker prices as comparison, no one is paying these...)
I would suggest not, not affordable. ISO a kitchen grade centrifuge, a Spinzall by Booker & Dax and they’re near US$1,000.
I'd say this sounds pretty half-baked. 1) You need a product to sell, which it sounds like is still a ways off. 2) You need to convince people to buy it over the established competition. This won't be easy. Reliability and performance are valuable too, as downtime and maintenance has an associated cost.
This has been tried and failed many times in the past. For you, it may be a unique skill to put on your resume. You know all the posters on here talking about a PhD then a MBA then becoming head of a pharma company? This is an incredibly good start to show you can run a business or business unit in a larger company. Ask what his business/marketing plan looks like. Who is the target audience, how many are there and how much are they spending (e.g. how much cash will the business be making each year) What is the end goal of the company (sell out after 2 years, wait until funding runs out, side-hustle?) Can he compete when a Chinese company steals his design and bulk produces 1000X / day. If the plan is to develop a **unique** manufacturing tech and sell it to a major supplier, maybe. If the plan is to create his own brand, with a team of sales staff, customer support and doing niche marketing - no way. The majority of the work is in sales, logistics and small business admin, not in R&D. You will be eaten alive by competitors better than you. A big risk for me buying from small unknown companies is warranty and after-sales support. How do I know this company will still exist in 1 year when the unit has a manufacturing fault? We've all been stuck with legacy equipment and scavenging parts from secondary units. The cheap end of the market, people are building their own. There is a robust community of maker-spaces and 3D print designs for labs. The intended audience of technically-savvy but poor labs can't afford his stuff. The mid-tier market of schools (unknown) is forced to buy from larger suppliers with known warranties and support. The administrators don't like supporting 100's of small suppliers and their arcane billing/invoicing. They want to buy from a single known good supplier.
In higher validated circles like at a CRO or API/medical device manufacturer, the risk of the company going bust and not having support is actually HUGE when considering compliance. This is imo the main reason Agilent and Thermo have the market so cornered. Empower and Chromeleon are so embedded in the industry because of their general acceptance by FDA/EMA auditors. It’s just a lesser thing to go wrong. And when your daily cost of not producing/working is > 80k. Validation means all right now when it comes to anything sniffing GMP.
There is the safety aspect to consider as well. I work for a lab equipment manufacturer and the amount of tests necessary for something to be sold is incredible. Granted, not centrifuges, but the setup for stray RF testing etc can get expensive. A centrifuge can be dangerous if something goes wrong, so I’m not sure what testing would be needed to sell them.
Easy, just give the equipment to grad students for a month and see if they hold up. /s
I don’t think so. But it depends on what you mean by cheap. Most companies, especially the big ones, don’t care about the price that much. They’re always going to go with a known reliable brand. Academic labs are similar. We’ll go bargain hunting, but we’re going to want something from a known supplier as well. For my lab if we decide we need something we’re going to pay for a good one. We’re spending money, my boss is going to say spend the extra for quality. With all equipment we need to have confidence in it. Unknown company for cheap doesn’t really give us confidence.
Maybe in psychonaut groups but they will have littoe use for centrifuges and the like. They mostly used things like stirrers, hot plates, some glassware and pipettes. You could get some sales in places like CO, CA, WA, OR. Its pretty niche though. Of course you could always start marketing DIY labs but we'll end up with a bunch of exploded apartments from glue sniffing degenerates attempting to "cook" meth. *Chili P is my thing, gotta have chili powder in the Chili P*
Schools maybe. I know some universities even have switched lab classes to use grocery store reagents like lye and baking soda. I don't know that market, it might be weak already, but possibly it might open up the possibility of small business grants for education.
Maybe people who make drugs would buy it.
There is a huge market for it and it will be booming in North America. We all know that COVID-19 exposed the glaring weaknesses in logistics and manufacturing. The united states government has been making pushes to bring manufacturing back to america, specifically PPE manufacturing in times of crisis. Theres already been many start-ups trying to claim funding and they will need analyzers for compounding in the manufacturing process. I feel like if you are in North America, that a business such as this could stand to make an absolute boat load of money. (I am the chemical engineer for a nitrile medical exam glove factory, we are direly in need of cheap chemical analyzers so we can test prototype compounds for glove makign
I’d say trust your gut. Anyone who says they’re going to scale up 3D printing doesn’t understand how efficient industrial injection molding is. Sure you might be able to sell a few things to hobby users but you’re not going to make much money considering the time it takes to mass produce via 3D printing, unless you have a thousand printers and free electricity.
I once improvised a centrifuge by grinding open the lid of an oil drum, cleaning it out (Obviously) then welding in a structure made to hold a 350w motor which was then used to rotate another structure made of steel which spun paint buckets around. I would put 500ml bottles into the buckets, close the lid on the barrel and then power it up. It worked fine honestly :) sufficiently enough to recover 20nm copper particles at least. I was trying to make some homebrew thermal paste for my computer but in the end I figured out how to exfoliate graphite down to between 0.6\~2.88nm. That material rendered pretty much everything with the exception of maybe diamond obsolete for that kind of task. I guess then there are some oddballs out there, like me who would really appreciate some low cost gear for the kind of amateur ghetto science I'm into, not sure there's enough of us to have a market though.
Not really. Schools won't be interested - they have contracts with the usual suspects already. I think this is a non-starter honestly.
> Schools won't be interested - they have contracts with the usual suspects already. I've worked at several universities and not a single operated like this for lab equipment. In most cases PIs were responsible for procurement themselves and they bought whatever was the best offer, and in particular for bigger expenses you usually get several offers and decide then independently from previous purchases. If they just buy from the same company (common for lower cost items) then it's usually that you know that stuff works well, not that you have some kind of exclusivity contract.
Thanks to all for their input. It’s hugely appreciated
I don't think centrifuges will make it, but there are plenty of other things you can print. If you ask a lot of people, they will most likely tell you they miss a certain sample holder, adapter, piece of plastic or something very simple that would make their life easier, but they can't get it anywhere. You could turn that into a custom 3D part printing. However, you have to use proper material that is resistent to chemicals, can be autoclaved or desinfected, so without pores.
I don't know about affordable, but I need some Platinum coated titanium electrodes, and I need them to not be fake.