Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Functional 3D-Printed Tape Measure

Posted by timothy on from the if-you-don't-smile-you're-doing-it-wrong dept.

First time accepted submitter Trep (366) writes "I thought Slashdot readers might be interested in seeing how my friend is slowly building a 3D printed toolbox. He's created a fully functional tape measure which is 3D printed as a single assembly, to follow up on his 3D printed dial calipers. This is a pretty novel design, with a lot of moving parts that come out of the printer completely assembled!"

72 of 134 comments (clear)

  1. Useless by Niterios · · Score: 4, Funny

    https://xkcd.com/284/

  2. How long by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    Before a 3d printer becomes affordable? . I want one within $100 . straight USB to a linux box.

    1. Re:How long by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Before a 3d printer becomes affordable? $100

      A while yet. The cheapear ones are around $800, some assembly requires. It's the velleman kit one, and while I've never used one, I've seen the results and they are very good.

      If you want cheaper, you can build your own. There are plenty of instructions online. The awkward parts are usually either 3D printed or laser cut out of ply or acrylic.

      I don't own one. I joined a collective where one is available. If you want to print, that's probably the easiest way as it will also come with people who can tell you how to use the printer well.

      straight USB to a linux box.

      they already do that part.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:How long by Hentes · · Score: 1

      But that won't print you a tape measure. This was likely done with a UV printer, which costs quite a lot more.

    3. Re:How long by mspohr · · Score: 2

      Peachy Printer is a $100 UV printer.
      https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    4. Re:How long by Trep · · Score: 1

      Yes, this was done on a much pricier Object Connex printer. Some features, for example the pin joints on the tape, require pretty small feature resolution.

    5. Re:How long by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Before a 3d printer becomes affordable? . I want one within $100 . straight USB to a linux box.

      Be careful what you wish for. Hook one up to Watson ... and we're all doomed.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    6. Re:How long by fikx · · Score: 1

      Plastic Terminators? cool.

      --
      AB HOC POSSUM VIDERE DOMUM TUUM
    7. Re:How long by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the quality of the objects that can be printed by Peachy. It appears to use a very large beam with very rough placement. Just because it uses UV does not mean it creates the same quality. I doubt very much if you could do the tape or calipers on the Peachy.

    8. Re:How long by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Whoops, meant to reply to a different post...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    9. Re:How long by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      The Peachy won't make that, it is too small.

      The consumer accessible UV printers don't do flexible items yet. I don't know what method the Connex uses, I guess it makes sense it's UV. So it may be a matter of waiting for the material technology to go down in price. The current cheapest I've seen is the material costs $50 a liter for a rigid material, and that material isn't very good that I've seen.

    10. Re:How long by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      That's one of the earliest prints, with pre-alpha hardware and software and practically no calibration. Now that the project is getting close to completion there are more recent videos demonstrating higher print quality.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    11. Re:How long by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Still lots of horizontal lines, they call them z artifacts, and nowhere near smooth. They make references to what they could do but why didn't they just do it and show us the higher quality output.? Also why are all the objects they show less that a couple of inches on any dimension? Their video spends a lot of time blurring in and out of the objects they made and very little time in focus. It looks to me like they don't want people looking too closely at their output. Sorry but it is still a toy and nowhere near what a multi-thousand dollar printer can do. Comparing Peachy to the printer that made the tape measure is like comparing a go-cart to a Corvette. Yes they both have 4 wheels but one has much better performance.

    12. Re:How long by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I think you're just being cynical. They're a small group whose specialties clearly do not include marketing, and they're perhaps overly fond of trendy video effects, like the blurring you mentioned. There are some clear close-ups of the objects from the video in the December Kickstarter update, however, and an earlier update from November included photos of some additional prints.

      None of this is to say that the Peachy is intended to compete with multi-thousand-dollar printers, because it isn't. It may or may not have the resolution for the object in the article; either way, you'd run into issues due to the size. The sample prints for the Peachy are tiny. The quality is quite a bit better than one would think from the image you posted, however, which is all I intended to say. It's pretty remarkable, really, for a device they plan to sell for only $100.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    13. Re:How long by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      It's pretty remarkable, really, for a device they plan to sell for only $100.

      The kit, that requires extra parts, is $100. The assembles Peachy is $400.

      Another problem with the technology, and a reason for the small parts, is that it uses a steered mirror system. The laser will be coming from one spot and as the piece gets bigger horizontally the laser will hit the resin at more of an angle. The laser spot will be larger, no longer circular and angled near the edge of the tank. Higher priced printers move the mirror much like a plotter so the laser always hits the resin in the exact same manner.

      You may be impressed but I am much more picky.

    14. Re:How long by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      The kit, that requires extra parts, is $100. The assembles Peachy is $400.

      These "extra parts" consist of some containers and a length of pipe. Not exactly hard to come by. You're mainly paying to avoid doing the assembly yourself (est. one hour, probably more for the inexperienced).

      Another problem with the technology, and a reason for the small parts, is that it uses a steered mirror system. The laser will be coming from one spot and as the piece gets bigger horizontally the laser will hit the resin at more of an angle.

      Agreed, though you could mitigate that somewhat, at the expense of resolution, by moving the laser assembly further away from the resin. But to each his own.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    15. Re:How long by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Agreed, though you could mitigate that somewhat, at the expense of resolution, by moving the laser assembly further away from the resin.

      It is also at the expense of accuracy as any error in mirror movement will be multiplied as the distance between the laser and the media gets larger. In effect you are just trading one error for another.

      I am just really tired of people posting "but you can do it for cheap with this device" when there is no way that the cheap device will be able to produce the object. There is no way that Peachy would ever be able to produce the tape or calipers. The technology is just not accurate enough.

      They have been playing with Peachy for a very long time yet they have shown less than ten different very small, very rough objects. Every object has the same type of horizontal striations as fused deposition printers. Take a look at this picture. Even the vertical column that comes off the cube has very rough sides. That is an indication of very poor accuracy of beam placement. Sorry but I am not confidant that they can get an actual smooth surface on an object of significant size.

  3. Let me know when... by cjellibebi · · Score: 1

    ...you can use a 3D printer to print a 3D printer.

    1. Re:Let me know when... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      ...err, wasn't that one of the selling points when they were still relatively underground?

      Seeing this tape measure makes me think of a few other ideas. It would be nice to print myself a new custom fly reel instead of paying for overpriced crap sold at some trendy Orvis store.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    2. Re:Let me know when... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      It can't print all the parts. Only some gears and stuff.

    3. Re:Let me know when... by _merlin · · Score: 1

      Yo, sup dawg...

    4. Re:Let me know when... by rossdee · · Score: 2

      "Not all at once. It can't form complex machines. Guns and explosives have chemicals in them. Moving parts. It doesn't work that way, but it can form solid metal shapes. Knives and stabbing weapons.

      So how long to print out a working motorcycle cop?

    5. Re:Let me know when... by ninlilizi · · Score: 1

      The joke at my local hackspace is that the only thing 3d printers are good for. Is printing other 3d printers.

    6. Re:Let me know when... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The technology is overhyped, A 3D printer makes you a product designer any more than a laser printer didn't made you a newsletter editor in the 80's.

      One other reason I say that is when I see how fashion designers design their ridiculous stuff and "3D print" it. To suggest that people want to wear a fused plastic dress and call it high fashion is some serious encroachment on the story of the emperor's new clothing. Some of the items are a giant shoulder thing that might as well be an oversize tiara. Some of the works make the British Royal family look sane.

      Outside of some niches, it's still mostly a rapid prototyping technology. That's what I use it for.

    7. Re:Let me know when... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      That's the nice part. You can print smaller scaled versions of the cop and merge them together when you want a larger one.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    8. Re:Let me know when... by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      ...you can use a 3D printer to print a 3D printer.

      Be careful what you wish for. Hook one up to Watson ... and we're all doomed.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    9. Re:Let me know when... by sd4f · · Score: 1

      It is making some large inroads in some industries, CNC technology in general is being heavily thrown into dental, for instance. A lot of the cast parts such as teeth and crowns are being milled, while I've also seen 3D printers being used to make other parts as well, such as dentures.

      However, in general, the 3D printers aren't really brilliant yet. Problem with the original article is that it doesn't describe what machine it was made on. The quality of the print, and the ability to print all assembled indicates that it's a very expensive commercial model, rather than the cheaper consumer ones. Reality behind it is, why bother 3D printing those parts if the machine costs tens of thousands of dollars, and material costs hundreds of dollars per kilo.

  4. How does that work? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    How do you print a fully assembled item like that without the parts sticking together? Does it use some kind of dissolvable substance between the parts that is washed away afterwards?

    1. Re:How does that work? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2

      The interface between the parts is made very thin (or left void to reduce clinging together during the actual printing), and you break it by hand after printing.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:How does that work? by Trep · · Score: 1

      Yes. What you don't see in that video is the "support material". This is a dry, gel-like, sort of "pasty" material that holds everything in place while it is printing. It is removed afterwards using a water pressure washer. Here's some photos of the process (not from the tape measure, but on the same equipment): http://imgur.com/h8E9Re5

    3. Re:How does that work? by Trep · · Score: 1

      I think that is true in some varieties of 3D printers. However, it is not the case for this one. No breaking is involved after it prints. However, my friend did say he spent 2 hours cleaning off the support material from inside the tape measure. Note that the support material probably means that all of the holes in the case are not just to show off the internals. If would be very difficult (impossible?) to get the support material out without those holes.

  5. Typical US creation by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A great creation, made using a great new technology, obviously thought of by a bright mind, and it's graduated in... wait for it... inches.

    *Sight*

    I guess that's what sets the US and Burma apart: one of the two countries can make antiquated objects with 21st century technology. (No wait! Even Burma is switching to the metric system!)

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Typical US creation by Dog-Cow · · Score: 4, Funny

      What are you sighting, and why are you trying to emphasize the event?

    2. Re:Typical US creation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But, if I switch from miles to kilometers, every drive would take over twice as long!

    3. Re:Typical US creation by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      But you will have to pay half the cash for your car fuel :D

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    4. Re:Typical US creation by RogL · · Score: 1

      A great creation, made using a great new technology, obviously thought of by a bright mind, and it's graduated in... wait for it... inches.

      *Sight*

      I guess that's what sets the US and Burma apart: one of the two countries can make antiquated objects with 21st century technology. (No wait! Even Burma is switching to the metric system!)

      Inches / metric is not an issue. Give this a moment's thought.
      Just apply a scaling-factor to the design & print it, you'll have a metric version.

      His dial-caliper design already has comments at thingiverse giving the size to print at to produce a metric version marked in mm.

    5. Re:Typical US creation by rossdee · · Score: 1

      I thought Burma was called Myanmar nowdays.

    6. Re:Typical US creation by graphius · · Score: 1

      Canada is a bad example. We are so overwhelmed by US influence we cannot convert fully. Use a less schizophrenic European country, for example, and there is not a whiff of the US imperial system.

    7. Re:Typical US creation by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Not if you switch to metric time.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    8. Re:Typical US creation by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Another example: try to buy metric drill bits at regular hardware stores.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    9. Re:Typical US creation by graphius · · Score: 1

      Drill bits, sockets, and other tools are usually not a problem. Printing paper (A4 vs US Letter) or building material (4' x 8' plywood, or 2x4's) are not metric. Canada is a bit of a hodge-podge...

    10. Re:Typical US creation by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, metric drill bits are harder to find. I generally use number & letter gauge drills and just use the closest one. For my needs, the tiny difference is negligible. But I don't make aerospace & government parts, if so, then I'd use the specified size. A lot of cities seem to have a nearby machine tool supplier (there's two in my nearby mid-sized city), and they'll sell you just about any variation of metric tooling you want.

    11. Re:Typical US creation by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      But, if I switch from miles to kilometers, every drive would take over twice as long!

      I hear ya bro. When I get a pizza, I have them cut it in six pieces. Eight would fill me up.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    12. Re:Typical US creation by profplump · · Score: 1

      And pretending the UK doesn't still use it is even more inaccurate.

    13. Re:Typical US creation by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      US instance an cling to the imperial system is indeed maddening.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
    14. Re:Typical US creation by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      China wants to do the same thing. Don't see how this is a bad thing for either nation to do.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  6. meh by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I like the caliper better. But really... the 3D printer folks need to stop printing things that clearly wont work well once they are 3D printed. For example, he's copied an existing tape measure... a device that has existed and has worked very well for well over a century. It's been perfected to the point that you can now buy one for less than a dollar just about anywhere. I'd think he should design an entirely new tool that does the same job but better... taking into account the limitations and advantages of the medium he's working in.

    I'm interested in 3D printing but I'm still unimpressed with the quality of the material it prints. When they get better, higher temperature plastics, or even some sort of metal alloy, I'll be a lot more interested. And yes, I'm aware there are $50k+ machines that can do that, but I mean machines for home use.

    1. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You want to go from 0-60 while skipping 1-59. This is still the R&D phase of life for additive manufacturing. It's going to remain more expensive and produce less durable goods right now. What you're griping about is the R&D that needs to happen on the people side of things: people need to get used to working up designs for additive processes. So, at the same time we're improving the actual printers, we're also improving the people who will use them. ;) You need to crawl before you can walk or run, but nobody would argue you shouldn't run because you might need to crawl first...

    2. Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      At best, the very best, there are industrial technologies like laser sintering that get tossed into the "3D printing" grab-bag. Then you have people who look at bits of plastic from a crappy hobby "3D printer" and they think that the metal stuff is weeks away. People vastly underestimate the complexity of even cheap, commonplace items: "oh just download a file and print it!". Wow.

      People also think those industrial machines with their staff of engineers, industrial ventilation and 600V three-phase power are just days away from fitting in a pocket.

      I think we've hit "peak 3D", when years later we're still at the level of imitating cheap items with great effort. Without giving context of how many times the person tried before it worked, how long it took when it finally did work, and how much it cost.

      We've been promised Star Trek many times before, like for example nanotechnology, which was supposed to be so powerful it would turn the entire planet into Gray Goo. Decades later "nano" just means a really fine powder. Wow. We'll, I'm impressed.

      Oh this time it's different, this time we've nailed it, 3D printing is the future.

    3. Re:meh by swillden · · Score: 2

      I'd think he should design an entirely new tool that does the same job but better... taking into account the limitations and advantages of the medium he's working in.

      That would require understanding the limitations and advantages of the medium he's working in -- and no one yet fully understands them. That is the point of exercises like this. He didn't print a tape measure because he needed a tape measure (duh), he printed one because he's exploring the limitations and advantages of his 3D printer.

      Doing that while simultaneously devising some entirely new sort of object would be a truly impressive feat indeed. I presume it's the sort of thing you do routinely, though. Got links? I'd love to see genius of higher order than represented by this tape measure at work.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:meh by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Doing that while simultaneously devising some entirely new sort of object would be a truly impressive feat indeed. I presume it's the sort of thing you do routinely, though. Got links? I'd love to see genius of higher order than represented by this tape measure at work.

      I do and have. I've had a few of my tools/jigs featured in magazines (like 3) You'll have to take my word for it though. I don't care to link my slashdot account to my real name :-)

      Oh, and if software counts, I've got a bunch of that all over the place.

    5. Re:meh by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      The replicators from Star Trek basically "print" objects using atoms instead of plastic, so we only need to use atoms filaments instead of plastic filaments!

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    6. Re:meh by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      3D printing is a pretty poor name. It's all additive techniques, of which there are at least six major types, I think. And they go from inexpensive hobbyist machines to over a million dollars.

      They're useful technologies, but I think people are getting ahead of themselves. The focus should be on doing things that couldn't be done as well before, not making existing things, but more poorly and more expensively and thinking that's going to change the world. There are some uses though, tor example, I think GE has an turbine engine injector design that's now one piece instead of 23 pieces when done with conventional machining. In the GE case, it's a benefit, less complexity, less weight. Making a plastic tape measure with plastic tape, that looks like a waste of material & time.

    7. Re:meh by heson · · Score: 1

      I like the tape measure choice.
      It shows how advanced constructions you can do, and the limitations of such advanced constructions. As I understand it, it is fully functional right out of the printer. This is a little bit more advanced than "possible" but thats why it is cool.

    8. Re:meh by swillden · · Score: 1

      Feel free to e-mail the links to me, then.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:meh by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The replicators from Star Trek basically "print" objects using atoms instead of plastic, so we only need to use atoms filaments instead of plastic filaments!

      Actually, they don't use atoms. They use energy (since energy and mass are one and the same).

      It's been used to some effect (Voyager) where unneeded items are recycled back to useful energy.

    10. Re:meh by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I wanted to make a joke about the ignorance of how the world works and you totally ruined it with facts.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    11. Re:meh by jfengel · · Score: 1

      I feel at this point that it's not just the creativity, but that the machines themselves just aren't ready to do much novel work. Their shapes are one thing, but more importantly, they are very limited in terms of materials. Most consumer objects rely on other physical properties to do their jobs: hardness, stiffness, toughness, flexibility, heat conductivity... frequently different materials in different parts.

      That's not to say that 3D printing has no uses, just that designers are working with one hand and four fingers tied behind their backs. I was very happy to find some 3D printed dice with various mathematical properties, for example, but try as I might I had a hard time finding anything else I could conceivably want on Shapeways. (There were decorative items, and we should see more brilliant things in that category, but I just don't have much need for items that are explicitly not functional.)

      The technology is far from finished, of course. And guys like this are certainly developing their skills: when the technology matches their ingenuity, they will be experienced and ready. And when it happens, truly novel things will happen, not just new ways of doing the old things. But I'm not surprised that it's not happening all that much yet, and not because of lack of genius on the part of makers. I think the tech just isn't ready, and probably won't be for at least another five to ten years.

  7. Amazing by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

    Brilliant stuff. I wonder what kind of printer he used?

    1. Re:Amazing by Trep · · Score: 1

      It is a pretty high-end Objet Connex printer. He and I used to work together at a company that was very generous in allowing employees to use tools for personal projects. He still works there. One of the things I miss about working there is access to an amazing shop.

  8. Jesus. CHrist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is 21st century whittling for OCD autistic nerds.

  9. Not a functional tool. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    The submitter claims it's fully functional - but he obviously has neither ever used a tape measure nor actually watched the video. With no markings, it's just a cool ribbon and not a tape measure. And the narrator on the video even admits it's not fully functional because wear will cause increasing errors in the length of the ribbon. The non repeatability of the "dial calipers" readings lead to the same conclusion - neat art object, not a functional tool.

    1. Re:Not a functional tool. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you're very confused

      even your normal machinists cnc milling machine can't grind glass lenses, that's done by different means. to put it simply, putting blank on rotating table, and then making many passes with rotating abrasive head where the amount of time spent in each area of the lens is varied. for a convex lens, more time spent around the edges. at times, the size of grit on the rotating abrasive head is made smaller and smaller

    2. Re:Not a functional tool. by Trep · · Score: 1

      It does have markings, actually. Though the video did not really make that clear. As far as accuracy...yeah, it isn't the most precise. But it is better than 1% accuracy. I guess by functional I mostly meant isn't a block that resembles a tape measure, but actually has a retractable "tape", moving parts, etc. No one is claiming you should replace your tape measure with this. It's clearly just a cool toy. I still kind of want one to keep on my desk though...

  10. About time by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    I was wondering how long it would be until we would start making tape measures in this country again.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  11. calipers, ha! by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    the tolerances on cheap 3D printers are abysmal for attempts at precise parts or machinery, 0.1 - 0.4 mm (four to sixteen one-thousandths of inch)

    as aside, even in the realm of hobby cnc milling machines, it's always amusing to see the claims made in forums by clueless geeks for their rigs of their tenths of a thousandth of inch repeatable accuracy......no pal, more like 5 thousandths slop or more...

  12. Re:too late for us by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    Time and refinement is needed. The parts don't have the structural capacity (not in any size which is practical), and the finish parts are not up to the level of actual architectural finishes in most cases.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  13. Re: Most Divisors by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    So much easier than shifting a decimal from place to place. But let me take it a step further smartypants:

    How much liquid is in a container 12 inches x 12 inches x 12 inches?

    How big of a cube do you need to exactly contain a quart?

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  14. Re:Thank god for Africans... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    IIRC Snowden fled to a non white nation, but they wouldn't have him.

    Just saying.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  15. Otherwise, it's perfect by ReadParse · · Score: 1

    I'm a big fan of 3D printing, I am. And at the beginning of this video, I just thought this was the coolest thing. Well, except for a couple of things.

    Tape measures are widely available and inexpensive.

    This one is REALLY short (just over 4 feet), and it was comparable in size to a standard 25-foot tape measure.

    Worst of all, it's not accurate. It's off by a 16th of an inch at the maximum length, and it would only get more and more inaccurate, as the length increases.

    Other than that, it's perfect :) Oh, it's definitely impressive, and I still find it hard to believe that these sophisticated contraptions are printed already assembled. It's amazing.

  16. Re: Most Divisors by sFurbo · · Score: 1

    The metric system only simplifies a few grade-school problems.

    The metric system makes calculations where you combine units easier. These tends to occur in science, particularly (in my experience) when calculating energy (because so many different formulas give energy, or because J=N*m=kg*m^2/s^2=Pa*m^3=W*s).

  17. Re: Most Divisors by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    A few grade school problems? Imagine when they are *not* grade school problems.

    BTW I will be content with using pure water, at whatever accepted definition of SATP you choose...

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.