Version 1
: Received: 19 October 2023 / Approved: 20 October 2023 / Online: 20 October 2023 (10:21:04 CEST)
How to cite:
da Rocha Vaz, G.M.; Paulino Silva, L. Parameterization of the E-value in G-codes for Different Bioprinters. Preprints2023, 2023101313. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202310.1313.v1
da Rocha Vaz, G.M.; Paulino Silva, L. Parameterization of the E-value in G-codes for Different Bioprinters. Preprints 2023, 2023101313. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202310.1313.v1
da Rocha Vaz, G.M.; Paulino Silva, L. Parameterization of the E-value in G-codes for Different Bioprinters. Preprints2023, 2023101313. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202310.1313.v1
APA Style
da Rocha Vaz, G.M., & Paulino Silva, L. (2023). Parameterization of the E-value in G-codes for Different Bioprinters. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202310.1313.v1
Chicago/Turabian Style
da Rocha Vaz, G.M. and Luciano Paulino Silva. 2023 "Parameterization of the E-value in G-codes for Different Bioprinters" Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202310.1313.v1
Abstract
In the bioprinting process, controlling the motion of bioprinters involves a computer-aided design (CAD) model, converting that model into g-code, and transmitting the motion commands to the bioprinters. The g-code file contains information about the motion of the axes and can be generated using various software. However, a challenge arises when using g-code between different bioprinters. Therefore, the objective of this study was to propose a reliable method for analyzing the differences in 3D bioprinting devices by parameterizing a crucial variable for extrusion bioprinting: the E-value. Four bioprinters from three different manufacturers were used to investigate the extrusion behavior when subjected to the same E-value.
Keywords
3d bioprinting; extrusion value; 3D printer
Subject
Biology and Life Sciences, Food Science and Technology
Copyright:
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: The theme is fascinating!
I found the discussion about the operation of G-code in the 3D BioPrinter quite informative. It's intriguing to see how G-code commands allow for direct adjustments of acceleration, speed, and step functions. These features provide printer operators with valuable tools to control and optimize various aspects of the printing process, including the speed of the print head, acceleration, and layer resolution.
What's particularly impressive is that these adjustments can be made without the need for lower-level programming, such as C/C++. Instead, operators can easily modify the parameters in the G-code file itself, which is then interpreted by the printer's firmware. This approach simplifies the process of customizing and optimizing the printing procedure to suit specific project requirements, making it accessible and flexible.
In terms of addressing the challenge of G-code compatibility among different bioprinters, the suggestion to develop G-code standards or code translators is quite promising. This approach could significantly enhance interoperability and make it possible for the same G-code to function across various devices. However, the success of such solutions would depend on industry collaboration and the establishment of widely accepted standards.
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment:
The theme is fascinating!
I found the discussion about the operation of G-code in the 3D BioPrinter quite informative. It's intriguing to see how G-code commands allow for direct adjustments of acceleration, speed, and step functions. These features provide printer operators with valuable tools to control and optimize various aspects of the printing process, including the speed of the print head, acceleration, and layer resolution.
What's particularly impressive is that these adjustments can be made without the need for lower-level programming, such as C/C++. Instead, operators can easily modify the parameters in the G-code file itself, which is then interpreted by the printer's firmware. This approach simplifies the process of customizing and optimizing the printing procedure to suit specific project requirements, making it accessible and flexible.
In terms of addressing the challenge of G-code compatibility among different bioprinters, the suggestion to develop G-code standards or code translators is quite promising. This approach could significantly enhance interoperability and make it possible for the same G-code to function across various devices. However, the success of such solutions would depend on industry collaboration and the establishment of widely accepted standards.
Commenter:
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
I found the discussion about the operation of G-code in the 3D BioPrinter quite informative. It's intriguing to see how G-code commands allow for direct adjustments of acceleration, speed, and step functions. These features provide printer operators with valuable tools to control and optimize various aspects of the printing process, including the speed of the print head, acceleration, and layer resolution.
What's particularly impressive is that these adjustments can be made without the need for lower-level programming, such as C/C++. Instead, operators can easily modify the parameters in the G-code file itself, which is then interpreted by the printer's firmware. This approach simplifies the process of customizing and optimizing the printing procedure to suit specific project requirements, making it accessible and flexible.
In terms of addressing the challenge of G-code compatibility among different bioprinters, the suggestion to develop G-code standards or code translators is quite promising. This approach could significantly enhance interoperability and make it possible for the same G-code to function across various devices. However, the success of such solutions would depend on industry collaboration and the establishment of widely accepted standards.
Commenter:
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
I found the discussion about the operation of G-code in the 3D BioPrinter quite informative. It's intriguing to see how G-code commands allow for direct adjustments of acceleration, speed, and step functions. These features provide printer operators with valuable tools to control and optimize various aspects of the printing process, including the speed of the print head, acceleration, and layer resolution.
What's particularly impressive is that these adjustments can be made without the need for lower-level programming, such as C/C++. Instead, operators can easily modify the parameters in the G-code file itself, which is then interpreted by the printer's firmware. This approach simplifies the process of customizing and optimizing the printing procedure to suit specific project requirements, making it accessible and flexible.
In terms of addressing the challenge of G-code compatibility among different bioprinters, the suggestion to develop G-code standards or code translators is quite promising. This approach could significantly enhance interoperability and make it possible for the same G-code to function across various devices. However, the success of such solutions would depend on industry collaboration and the establishment of widely accepted standards.