3D printers can use metal, glass and various other materials. Semiconductors can be printed, as can batteries.
Now I don't think there is any that can do all of these things of course. On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > I wrote: > > >> It seems unlikely to me that anyone will be able to fabricate a cold >> fusion device at home, using 3-D printers or what-have-you. Not for the >> next thousand years or so, until those machines evolve into Clarke's >> universal replicators. >> > > Maybe 1,000 years is too much, but it will be a long while. > > There has been a lot of enthusiastic talk about these 3-D printer > replicator things. I am all for them! I think they are great. But I think > some naive commentators fail to recognize some crucial limitations to > today's versions: > > 1. They use only material. Plastic. They cannot be used to fabricate > metal, wood, silicon or nickel. You cannot make a NiCad battery or a cold > fusion device with that. > > 2. Resolution is limited. You could not make a computer chip, even if the > devices could lay down silicon and metal. I do not think resolution is fine > enough for a cold fusion device. Certainly not nanoparticle devices. > > Despite these limitations, I expect these things will become useful for > making parts in the lab such as the fitting that holds the cathode and > anode in place. > > In the distant future, the capabilities of these machines may gradually > expand, until they can lay down any element in any configuration. Such as, > for example: a fried egg, the Hope Diamond, a copy of the Mona Lisa correct > down to the molecule, or a thermonuclear bomb. That is what Clarke > predicted. By the time that happens we can hope that the machines will have > so much built-in intelligence, it will refuse to fabricate a thermonuclear > bomb. The process will be so complicated that no human will be able to > override the build-in protections, or run the machine manually. > > - Jed > >
