A Modest Proposal: A Pocket 3-D Printer

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


In the series "A Modest Proposal," my colleagues and I will propose inventions and projects that I think are eminently doable and would love made real.

The world is witnessing a revolution in 3-D printing, where one can feed machines blueprints and have them conjure virtually whatever you want right from a dazzling variety of materials — plastic, ceramic, bone, glass, steel, titanium and even more unusual ingredients such as sugar, mashed potatoes, chocolate and living cells.

In June, a portable 3-D printer was announced, one no bigger than a carton of milk and only 1.5 kilograms (3.3 lbs.) in weight. That made me wonder — is a pocket 3-D printer possible, one the size of a paperback book or a pack of cards?


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A variety of pocket 2-D printers currently exist, with which one can dash off photos, stickers and cards, kind of like having a miniature stationary store. I might wonder if a pocket 3-D printer might be more like a miniature hardware store or even candy shop. You could feed it blueprints wirelessly with a smartphone.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WPd7M8V7N0

Creating pocket 3-D printers could be a real challenge, perhaps an insurmountable one. Their key parts might not be miniaturizable enough, or they might require too much power for even the best of batteries, or they might need more stability to work than getting stuck on the go in a pocket could provide.

There's also the question of what pocket 3-D printers would even be useful for. I would imagine they could only manufacture objects the size of maybe a pack of gum or candy bar. I do think a pocket 3-D printer might be attractive if it could manufacture electronics — since 3-D printers are already getting used to make robotic insect wings, maybe a pocket version could whip up little droids on the fly.

There's never any telling what use a technology is useful for until it gets in the hands of the public. And isn't the possibility of an ultimate Swiss Army knife an intriguing one, a device that acts like a Star Trek replicator enabling you to materialize items from your pocket like a magician?

You can email me regarding A Modest Proposal attoohardforscience@gmail.comand follow the series on Twitter at #modestproposal.

Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents.

More by Charles Q. Choi

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe