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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe