Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Smartphone-Enabled Replicators Are 3-5 Years Away, Caltech Professor Says

Posted by Soulskill on from the if-you-are-excited-about-replicating-hard-plastic dept.

merbs writes: In just a few years, we could see the mass proliferation of DIY, smartphone-enabled replicators. At least, Caltech electrical engineering professor Ali Hajimiri and his team of researchers thinks so. They've developed a very tiny, very powerful 3D imager that can easily fit in a mobile device, successfully tested its prowess, and published the high-res results (PDF) in the journal Optics. Hajimiri claims the imager may soon allow consumers to snap a photo of just about anything, and then, with a good enough 3D printer, use it to create a real-life replica "accurate to within microns of the original object."

83 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Oh wonderful... by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Funny

    And you thought dick pics were a problem...

    1. Re:Oh wonderful... by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Think of the revenge porn.

    2. Re:Oh wonderful... by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Somewhere, the NSA has a warehouse full of your genitalia.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re: Oh wonderful... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Where'd you get that idea anyways?

      Jeremy Oliver and Edward Snowden. Why?

  2. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Says random PhD student. I wonder which one of us will be right in the end.
    I'm thinking it will be me.

    1. Re:No by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      If it happens, the big winners will be lawyers - the quantity of possible trademark and patent violations is huge.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  3. Let's fix that headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bad headline: "Smartphone-Enabled Replicators Are 3-5 Years Away, Caltech Professor Says"

    Good headline: "Smartphone-Enabled 3-D Scanners Are 3-5 Years Away, Caltech Professor Says"

    1. Re:Let's fix that headline by Protonome · · Score: 1

      The news did replicate.. http://slashdot.org/story/15/0...

    2. Re:Let's fix that headline by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yeah.. and if they by replicator mean the replicator(tm)(c)(r)(patented) series of 3d printers from makerbot.. hmm. actually I don't think they're smartphone enabled.

      you could "smartphone enable" any of the open source 3d printers on the market(majority of the market, actually) by hooking a raspberry pi to it(or some with more advanced boards you don't need the raspberry even).

      it's just talking about a decent 3d scanner resolution for a smarpthone. 123d-catch does crappy resolution today already.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Let's fix that headline by Sleuth · · Score: 1

      Hahahaha, well, no. Your headline is not nearly as sensational!

  4. What is possible vs. what is useful by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is a replicator sensor on a phone really that useful? A camera is nice to have around all the time and even that often isn't used much by many phone owners. Yes, this thing is small but space is at a premium on phones. How often do you look at something and say "I wish I could create a mediocre quality 3D printed version of this"?

    I don't see it as a mainstream feature. Maybe an option. Maybe useful for measuring things.

    1. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      ^append... I didn't mean to imply this isn't pretty cool. It is.

    2. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by ThePackager · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps it only peripherally relates, but... I'm interested in the team that recycles all these damn plastic wrappers, bags, bottles and endless polymer stuff into usable 3D printer raw material. Now let's se THAT breakthrough!

      --
      Please have respect for people with different abilities, especially children.
    3. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      It doesn't need to be built into the phone. If people find it useful, connecting via USB or Bluetooth would be sufficient. Then if people use that it can move into the phone in another 3-5 years.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    4. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And which part of "this will, at best, create a SHELL of the EXTERIOR of an object" do you not comprehend? Or do you think if I take a picture of a Commodore 64 I'll be able to magically 3D print the (invisible on the picture) PCB and all the chips on it?

      You're insane.

    5. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Idou · · Score: 1

      . . . really that useful?

      Typical /.er comment. . . I think the first such comment made by a ./er was about the Internet, back when Slashdot was still a BBS. . . and we all know how the Internet turned out to be useless. . .

      --
      Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    6. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      There's already a lot of those: https://www.google.com/search?...

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    7. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      we all know how the Internet turned out to be useless...

      Give it a few years and the marketing companies, spammers, black hat hackers and governments will finish the job.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    8. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      How often? All the time. Only I constantly wish for improvement, so that "mediocre" can eventually be left out.

      How often you look at something and think the same is apparently "same as a person with no concept of the future, with no imagination, and who is dead inside and is best left alone with a unloaded handgun, some bullets, and a bottle of sloe gin."

      Luddite.

    9. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How often do you indulge your inner need to tell the world just how forward thinking you believe you are?

    10. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Rei · · Score: 1

      Not everyone has the same needs as you.

      I live in Iceland. It costs a fortune to get specialty parts here. Just ignoring that some parts aren't available at all, and the waits can be huge. Let's look at my needs that I've had to special order in the past month.

      1) Welder nozzle: Part of the nozzle at the end of my MIG welding torch was broken, a little metal piece (no, not a consumable like the copper contact tip). Fine, just replace it right? Well, except for the fact that this welder is from the 1960s, the part is simply no longer available, even on used markets; not only did I search, but I contacted the manufacturer who told me as much as well. So instead I had to buy a euro-torch adapter and a whole new torch. Cost, about $180 USD. Plus a couple weeks searching, then the purchase.

      2) Refrigerator compartment cover: The clear plastic door on the cheese compartment in my refrigerator came loose, feel on the floor, and cracked beyond repair. Just a little piece of plastic, but the cost for a replacement? About $50 USD and several weeks wait.

      3) Torch feed tube: #1 turned out not to be enough! Because due to the differing shapes of the connectors the 120mm feed tube that came with #1 turned out to be insufficient, I need a longerfeed tube to prevent birdsnesting. Except that no store here sells them. I found some online in the UK (180mm) after a day or two of looking around for a reasonable deal, but it's been a pain to get them sent out, I ordered them a few days ago... hopefully they'll get sent out today and arrive in a couple of weeks. After shipping and customs getting their cut? About $50 USD for two little brass tubes a couple millimeters in diameter.

      In the case of #3, I was seriously considering designing them in blender and then 3d printing them (I even took measurements for the design). If the ones from the UK don't fit, I may still have to.

      And here I am not doing any project that's focused around lots of smaller parts. I can only imagine if I was, say, fixing up an older car or something like that - the ability to scan in a rusty or cracked part, maybe apply a couple filters to clean up the scan (remove any rust growth/pitting, seal cracks, etc) and have a local 3d print service print it out would be incredible. I've tried using photogrammetry for these sorts of purposes but it's just so limited - it has trouble working in the best of conditions, if you face any sort of shine or transparency - which, for example, all three of my above examples had - it's unlikely to work.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    11. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I think you're spot on with the clear plastic door on your fridge, those sorts of things are ridiculously over-priced, and you wouldn't need a particularly clever 3D scanner/printer to be able to replicate it..

      However, until 3D printers can do proper metal, I don't see how they're going to be much use for a welder nozzle or rebuilding an old car.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "I wish I could create a mediocre quality 3D printed version of this"?

      Which part of "accurate to within microns" did you not comprehend?

      What part of "3D printers can currently only produce mediocre quality plastic representations" do you not understand? Sure, in five years time maybe we will all be printing out our trainers and cars. Maybe.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      And which part of "this will, at best, create a SHELL of the EXTERIOR of an object" do you not comprehend? Or do you think if I take a picture of a Commodore 64 I'll be able to magically 3D print the (invisible on the picture) PCB and all the chips on it?

      You're insane.

      No, no, don't forget that in five years time we'll be able to print out anything on our quantum level printers. Including fully functioning human brains.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Rei · · Score: 2

      Welding services do metal just fine (actually, more than "fine", I'd say "superbly"). I designed and printed out a detailed brass medallion as a gift before and it came out just beautiful. Most services these days just use lost wax casting, but there's also metal sintering, and the newest player is thermal spraying, such as laser spraying.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    15. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Rei · · Score: 1

      What part of "3D printers can currently only produce mediocre quality plastic representations" do you not understand?

      What part of "you're completely and utterly wrong" do you not understand? Makerbots != All 3d printers. There are excellent sintering and spraying metal printers out there, and lots of 3d printing services that 3d-print the initial mold for lost wax casting. People churn out huge numbers of 3d-printed metal parts. Brass, gold, silver, bronze, steel, titanium, you name it. I've purchased such parts myself. I even know of a rocketry startup that's 3d printing inconel aerospikes with a laser sintering system, having it churn out one version after the next in evolutionary sequence so they can maximize the real-world performance.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    16. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Sleuth · · Score: 1

      Wow, really? So you have access to a usable 3D printer for metals, but not a basic machine shop? I'm missing something here.

    17. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Sleuth · · Score: 1

      That makes a lot more sense....

    18. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Sleuth · · Score: 1

      Given the comments and where we are? Hahahaha. I think we know.

    19. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by MooseTick · · Score: 1

      The ability to make a clear plastic door could be handy, except you said it "came loose, feel on the floor, and cracked beyond repair". How would you take a picture of that to create a replica? Or would you take a picture before you break any/every random object in your life?

      --
      Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
    20. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Rei · · Score: 1

      I didn't say "cracked into a million pieces"; it simply no longer had the structural integrity to stay in its slot in the door and my attempts to glue together in a manner that would restore its structural integrity without having it ending up looking hideous failed in both respects. It was still one piece though.

      Even if a scanner could detect the cracks, it's not hard to picture the interface having a trivial "crack repair" filter. I'd expect it to be part of any basic package along with rust removal, scratch removal, corner wear repair, etc; it's not algorithmically complex by any means; the first is just vertex merging within a given radius, the second could take several forms, the third is a selective gaussian blur filter, the fourth is a selective sharpening filter, etc. Popular 3d editors like Blender already have functions that can do all of these sorts of stuff and more.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    21. Re:What is possible vs. what is useful by Rei · · Score: 1

      Wow, really? So you have access to a usable 3D printer for metals,

      Yes, everybody on the planet does. Online 3d print services are everywhere nowadays.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
  5. I would have to assume... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 1

    that the "accurate within microns" part is only applicable if you feed it some scaling information.

    Otherwise, it's going to only be as accurate as the person guessing the size of the original.

    --
    I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
    1. Re:I would have to assume... by slew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that the "accurate within microns" part is only applicable if you feed it some scaling information.

      Otherwise, it's going to only be as accurate as the person guessing the size of the original.

      AFAICT, the technique used by this imager is FMCW (frequency modulated continuous wave) which basically give you a very accurate time-of-flight measurement. In this type of system, the received optical frequency difference from the transmitted frequency is measured by optical-coherent mixing and sensing the resultant beat signal frequency. Apparently this groups contribution to this technique is to measure both the phase and amplitude of this beat signal digitally so multiple algorithms can be deployed to analyze the beat signal.

      In any case, given a very accurate distance to an object, the solid angle projection to the imaged object, and some basic optical system calibration data, it is presumably fairly straightforward compute the actual size of the object w/o guessing.

    2. Re:I would have to assume... by Rei · · Score: 1

      This is of course just a first step. The ultimate would be to be able to get a precise reading *within* an object, not just "what your sensor can read from where you stand". And not just geometry, but composition as well. And not just geometry and composition, but also discontinuities - for example, a screw in a socket may look like a continuous piece of metal even at high resolution, but there's a very important discontinuity there that you need to detect. And of course your 3d print service either needs to be able to print out discontinuities in place (I can envision methods for this), or automatically assemble things from smaller parts.

      Note: "gluegun" style printers will never be able to achieve this sort of task flexibility; even basic sinterers would have trouble. The only type I can envision managing it are thermal spraying-based printers; for example, there's at least one laser spraying printer / CNC combo on the market that I'm aware of. With such a printer you're almost material unlimited, being able to custom dial-in a particle impact velocity and temperature over a wide range. The same device could even coat, paint, sandblast, whatever your part when it's done.

      What I have trouble envisioning any time soon is a scanner that can read the fine detail on lithographically printed devices, or any normal 3d printer that can print high-end chips. Certain macroscopic products which are produced by complex / sensitive chemical processes might be difficult as well. On the other hand, maybe far enough in the future the scanner might at least recognize the part that can't be printed, and then perhaps the print service could automatically order (say, via Amazon BloodDrone Prime) a delivery of whatever it can't print out, then insert and integrate the unprintable part into the print automatically. But we're looking at pretty far into the future here.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    3. Re:I would have to assume... by Rei · · Score: 1

      There's also some tremendous software needs in this regard. Sure, the basics are just being able to take scans and print them (although as we all know there's nothing simple about that). But just on the UI side, there's going to be good demand for filters / tools that can repair common types of damage / wear on the part. And many users are going to want to be able to customize their part, so you need everyday-user-friendly 3d modelling that's ideally possible to do straight on the smartphone. Then what about the people who don't have a part in front of them to scan? Some may want it through photos of something they don't have, which means better photogrammetry software that takes fewer images and can properly understand shine/reflection and transparency. And some may even want to be able to sketch it on a piece of paper and scan that in, only having to do tweaks to their sketch, and with the software trying to make a reasonable interpretation of their awful drawing skills.

      And of course, regardless of how the models are made, we're going to want a massive collaborative model database built-in to any such apps, designed to encourage people to properly tag and share their models.

      Any sort of future where this sort of thing becomes ubiquitous is going to rely on rapid production and delivery - not just of unprintable parts (as above), but also, say, prototype parts. Because let's face it most people aren't going to be sure if what they're printing is really going to fit / meet their needs. It may take a couple iterations, and they may want to make earlier prototype iterations be hollow / out of a cheaper material / with poorer finish / etc until they're satisfied that it meets their needs. If they have to wait a couple weeks between iterations, obviously that's going to suck.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
  6. Half-right, maybe... by neminem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I *can* imagine the possibility that within 5 years, we'd have portable enough 3d imagers and powerful enough phones to both stick the hardware in a phone-sized device and have a phone-sized device run the required software. I have no real understanding of how the physics of that would really work, granted, but it doesn't seem totally outside the bounds of possibility.

    But that's just the input. I *can't* really imagine the possibility that within 5 years, we'd have powerful enough *printers* to take the output of such a precise scanner, and recreate it anywhere near so precise, even if you're only talking about an object made entirely out of one or two kinds of plastic, which is unlikely to be the sort of object people would really want to "replicate". "Just about anything"? Yeah right.

    Wake me up when we can replicate food, say, and have it taste the same as the original. Will we see that in my lifetime? Maybe, if I'm lucky. Will we see that in 3-5 years? I'd bet quite a lot of money on "no", and I'm not a betting sort of person.

    1. Re:Half-right, maybe... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      I, for one, welcome our brave, new, micron-accurate D&D action figure and spork overlords.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Half-right, maybe... by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when we can replicate food, say, and have it taste the same as the original. Will we see that in my lifetime? Maybe, if I'm lucky. Will we see that in 3-5 years? I'd bet quite a lot of money on "no", and I'm not a betting sort of person.

      Just a heads up 3D printed food is pretty big

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:Half-right, maybe... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you've only seen things printed on FDM 3D printers? Get yourself a sample made on a SLS printer. Those are pretty accurate.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    4. Re:Half-right, maybe... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when we can replicate food, say, and have it taste the same as the original. Will we see that in my lifetime? Maybe, if I'm lucky.

      "He had found a Nutri-Matic machine which had provided him with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea."

      I think we'll be seeing cold fusion and flying cars before perfectly replicated food.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. Hm... by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    Might be time for a remake of Weird Science.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  8. make me a sammich by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    i done took a pitcher of hit.

  9. What?! by GayLinuxUser · · Score: 1

    Since when are those a problem?!

  10. 3D Printing, still not very useful by Moof123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Great, you can scan something and then print it in crappy plastic. Big whoop.

    Seriously, 3D printing has been around for a while now, and I am still waiting to see anything beyond the Gee-Whiz level of cool or useful. You can only make so many money clips, pencil holders, and miniature busts before it becomes clear it is just a toy. Industrial ones that can print in metal are a different story, but the crappy plastic extruders are never going to take over the world or replace China's factories.

    1. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Might look into some of the exotic filaments that have been coming out - flexibles, thermochrome, brass/stainless/copper/iron fills, glow in the dark, woodfilll, bamboo, nylon, etc. Even the metal sintering 3d printers are starting to hit consumer level prices.

    2. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by Kohath · · Score: 1

      What we really need are "Member 11-99 Foundation" license plate holders -- enough for every car in California.

    3. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by idji · · Score: 1

      what about http://www.space.com/28095-3d-... ?

    4. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by willworkforbeer · · Score: 1

      Isn't the current movement towards optimization of expensive assets that idle 95% of the time - like cars (UBER); spare bedrooms (AirBnB) etc?

      So there's certainly a really advanced multi-material 3D printer in our future -- probably with integrated circuit board printing and a bunch of other crazy futuristic options) but even if I bought one when it arrives on the scene, it is going to be a rather pricey item (with pricey consumables) that sits around unused a lot of the day and night . Just like like my car and my spare bedroom.

      So won't we skip a step of owning the pro grade 3D printer -- just like a future generation of car buyers will skip the personal ownership step and just go right to having an UBER subscription?

      Isn't it more likely that the local FedEx Office (formerly kinkos) will have one (or two) of these Super 3D printers, and I can send my design file (or phone based micron-level scan, if TFA is correct) and have Amazon Prime Now delivery.bring my printed functional Star Trek phaser in an hour, just in time for me to stun that damned neighbor kid who keeps getting on my lawn after school?

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    5. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by just+another+AC · · Score: 1

      Toy... or a rapid prototyping device that can speed up development of a manufactured product, saving the company fairly large sums of money and more importantly time (as more companies succeed or fail by being first to market).

      I know which one my company views 3D printing as.

    6. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Probably not. Unless your needs run to Star Wars figurines, plastic spoons or other objects made primarily out of a single material, the next couple of generation printers are going to be pretty unrewarding. If you a running a prototyping shop and need an object that is going to be part of another object, you might find that one of the many fabrication shops already in existence can help you create the object of your desires. It might be CNC milled, it might be printed via laser sintering, it might be created using another technique - but these services exist.

      3D printing is a long ways away from creating complicated, useful objects that have a broad enough appeal to justify production of the thingy-bob on every other street corner. Star Trek type replicator? We're not even talking the same universe here.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Why is it whenever a 3D printing thread comes up, someone gest modded +5 insightful for their lack of imagination and knowledge. Make no mistake, the parent has no insight because he is flat out wrong.

      I also find the idea that the $50k stratasys printers with it's $300 reels of ABS, uh, sorry, crappy plastic, is used to print money clips, pencil holders and miniture busts. And not only that, but with an annual revenue of $500,000,000.

      3D printers generally come under the heading of "rapid prototyping" where the clue is in the name.

      I'm using one for short-run manufacturing of plastic cases for a prototype product. Sure, I could blow $2k and 4 weeks on getting 30 small cases injection moulded, or, I could 3D print them, make a batch try them in the field, and iterate a few times based on feedback.

      I've also used the 3D printer to print out moulds for making other things.

      Some people use them for lost wax casting to make 3D printed stuff out of metal.

      And they seem really, really popular with artistic types too because they can go from a conception to a decent 3D model of that quickly.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      People don't deny that having a machine that does rapid prototyping is a good idea, it's the extrapolation of current capabilities into "in five years time you'll be able to scan a Ferrari on your smartphone and print out an exact copy" that gets annoying.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by Rei · · Score: 1

      Why is it that this day in age we're still needing to point out that Not All 3D Printing Is Makerbots? If you wanted a professional looking poster printed out would you try to do it on a cheapo home inkjet? You're declaring the term "3d printing" as only applying to "crappy plastic extruders". The "industrial ones that can print in metal", as you put it, are *also* 3d printers. And home users *can* get prints from them, there's lots of online print services. My personal favorite is iMaterialize, as I like their materials and finish selection.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    10. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by Rei · · Score: 1

      The current generation of high end 3d printers are very rewarding, and I say this as someone who's used them. The print quality is superb. And no, you don't generally go to existing metal shops which have a CNC miller, you need a shop that has a 3d printer, the two tools are used for different roles. If you have some big part with simpler geometry that you need, you use CNC milling. If you have some small part with complex geometry, you use 3d printing. 3d printing services are already plentiful on the net. Today. They're not at every corner "FedEx Office" today, but they're certainly heading in that direction.

      And please, let's stop with the "they're not useful" stuff. I've used them. I know others who have used them. I know multiple companies that use them. Just because you don't has no relevance.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    11. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by Rei · · Score: 1

      See, that's the problem with you people. First you insist that 3d printers can only produce low quality plastic junk, and then when faced with the reality that they actually can produce superb products, you treat them as if they're just some sort of incremental change on earlier systems, as if 3d printers are just some form of advanced CNC system.

      They are not.

      3d printing is a completely different technology to milling, moulding, die forming, etc - your "traditional" manufacturing techniques. You could say that new 3d printers are expanding on the capabilties of 3d printers, but well, that's about the most meaningless truism one could make about technology.

      3d printing is not some universal make-all technology. But it has provided for a way to fill a previously poorly met niche: rapid low-volume production of small objects with incredibly complex, nearly arbitrary geometry. For people who need this capability, the rise of 3d printing has been invaluable. Your continual attempts to downplay it as "printing plastic junk" as you'd been doing, or "extrapolation of current capabilities" as you're doing now, are ridiculous.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    12. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by Rei · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your input, Captain Strawman.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
    13. Re:3D Printing, still not very useful by Rei · · Score: 1

      Again, Captain Strawman strikes. I am mortally wounded!

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
  11. Still needs some more work by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

    This story still needs drones and twitter. I am disappointed.

  12. Look around your home by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

    Methods are improving and materials are improving. As costs continue to drop and more materials become available, look around your home and ask: What objects could be replaced with replicas made of metal, ceramics, even advanced composites of wood or stone. A composite maplewood desk. A custom designed set of steel silverware. Porcelain plates. Ceramic bowls. Iron composite free weights. I have a painting I purchased at an art museum. It would be neat to be able to snap a photo, get home and have a replica suit of armor. Surely this won't cover everything, but certain kinds of objects will simply be available now, whether or not you purchased them directly (simply by having the materials necessary). It will be interesting to see how the market reacts, but in terms of the products that get replaced, to the innovations that build on top of this.

    1. Re:Look around your home by drunk_punk · · Score: 1

      ...and who would even WANT a computer in their home?!

      If you've ever purchased a house, you know as well as I that there are an assortment of parts for window shades, drawer pulls and knobs, or light fixture parts, that are made out of some plastic composite that are extremely difficult to source. But to be able to take a picture (or 3d panoramic vid, patent pending bitches). Now that really would be useful.

    2. Re:Look around your home by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Why would you care if these were printed? You want porcelain plates? Look it up on Amazon. You want a custom desk? Look it up on the general Internet. These things aren't going to be made at home on your makerbot, nor are they going to be produced at Kinkos+.

      You've made absolutely no case for 3D printing here.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Look around your home by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      You've made absolutely no case for 3D printing here.

      But if you had a 3D printer, you could print one.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    4. Re:Look around your home by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      When I look around my home I see mostly multi-material complex objects (like electronics) or items that are not economically viable to 3D print.
      Mass produced items use just the right material and the right process so that it can fullfill its function while optimizing costs. As a result, it will always end-up cheaper.
      On a personal level, I think the exception is art : figures, decorative objects, jewelry, etc... And even then, you need to actually have a relatively precise idea of what you want, because if you merely want something nice, your tastes are probably similar to enough people to make mass production the way to go.

      A good example is the painting you purchaced at the art museum even though you could have printed it on a sub-$100 desktop printer. Of course you could argue that a print is not a real painting but how about things like calendars, books, posters, maps, playing cards, etc... Some people do this but they are a minority.

      3D printing becomes much more interesting in the industry, where it is used extensively right now. It enables rapid prototyping, making of uncommon replacement parts and even market testing (release a 3D printed product and if it works, switch to mass production techniques).

  13. Physical keys. by stonefoz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Today, anyone with some determination and a few photographs can replicate keys. How soon will it be till the average criminal has access to an instant key duplicator? A high quality scanner could mark the end of even the top rated physical keys.

    --
    I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
    1. Re:Physical keys. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I think you just made an argument against fingerprint-enabled locks too.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    2. Re:Physical keys. by stonefoz · · Score: 2

      There are better arguments against fingerprint locks. They can't be changed even when they need to be. If more than one place is using a fingerprint, they have all the keys.

      --
      I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
    3. Re:Physical keys. by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      Anyone with silly putty and a dremel can duplicate keys, and has been able to for some time. All this does is make it easier if you have an appropriate 3d printer. If it becomes an issue, then keys can easily start featuring retractable covers. Or maybe this lock will finally see its heyday.

    4. Re:Physical keys. by stonefoz · · Score: 1

      Silly putty and a Dremel of course requires at least some amount of practice and skill. At some point 3d printing will just require a criminal, stealing a 3d printer...

      --
      I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
    5. Re:Physical keys. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Today, anyone with some determination and a few photographs can replicate keys. How soon will it be till the average criminal has access to an instant key duplicator? A high quality scanner could mark the end of even the top rated physical keys.

      If I need a spare front door key, I take my existing one to my friendly locksmith and they make a duplicate,

      Since most people don't walk around with their keys round their necks, to get a duplicate key 3D printed the criminal would have to steal/borrow it, just like now.

      I have no great faith in 3D printers transforming our world into some sort of post-scarcity utopia, but your concern is a bit like saying "what would happen if a murderous psychotic stranger printed a replica broadsword and cut someone's arms and legs off with it".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Physical keys. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      This is an easy problem to solve. Just have a retractable shroud over the key that automatically gets pushed back into the handle part when inserted in the lock. That way there won't be an opportunity to photograph the key.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  14. I'll file this... by baker_tony · · Score: 1

    I'll file this next to my "breakthrough battery tech that's just around the corner" file...

    1. Re:I'll file this... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Do you keep that file on one of the many devices you already own that contains one of those breakthroughs in battery tech?

      You appear to be one of the many people on slashdot who confuse "breakthrough" with "incremental improvement in efficiency with no significant effect on human happiness".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  15. What did he predict 5 years ago? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2

    Before we get too far with this thing, what has this guy predicted 5 years ago? How did that turn out? Without some calibration there is no reason to pay attention to his predictions more than the predictions of Satguru Somereallylongnameanandaswami.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:What did he predict 5 years ago? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I'm going to give myself future credit by predicting this: in five years, the year will be 2020 and 2010 will be ten years ago.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  16. Naked Statue by wasteoid · · Score: 1

    Either you could 3D print a statue of your hot naked girlfriend, or you could take micron-level measurements of her body parts.

  17. Re:"Tea... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    We will soon have machines that will provide us with plastic cups filled with a liquid that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  18. Re:"Tea... by amalcolm · · Score: 1

    We will soon have machines that will provide us with plastic cups filled with a liquid that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

    Last time I tried tea from a machine ... i would say your future has already arrived

    --
    Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
  19. Re:"Tea... by Buck+Feta · · Score: 1

    Last time I tried tea from a machine ... i would say your future has already arrived

    Very deep. You should send that in to the Reader's Digest. They've got a page for people like you.

    --
    I am Audience.
  20. Whoopie Do by POPE+Mad+Mitch · · Score: 1

    Being able to 3D scan something from your phone would be neat, if a bit niche, but the printer will not be mobile, and just like the current desktop scanners, your highly precise model will only be of the visible OUTSIDE of the object. That might be fine if you just want a cheap plastic replica of that sculpture, but pretty much useless if you wanted a replacement for anything but the crudest of mechanical parts.

    1. Re:Whoopie Do by Rei · · Score: 1

      Of course, objects that are visible in the visible spectrum can be translucent or transparent at other frequencies. That said, translucency (and reflection for that matter) are confusing for LIDAR. But there's potential there for some day in the (non-immediate) future.

      --
      Trump's plan to get rid of Mueller appears to be 'be so guilty of so many things that Mueller works himself to death.'
  21. So what kind of replicators are we talking here? by UDChris · · Score: 1

    Good idea: Star Trek-style replicators that can produce food or whatever gizmo we need to save the ship.

    Bad idea: Stargate SG-1 replicators that want to wipe out humanity.

    --
    "Hey, I know what we're gonna do today." -- Phineas Flynn
  22. Obligatory XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    https://xkcd.com/678/