What is 3D printing?

3D printing is a method of manufacturing everything from tools to shoes to jewelery, or even car and aerospace parts using a computer-controlled printer. The fundamental rule of 3D printing is that it’s an additive manufacturing technique, unlike machining, turning, milling, and sawing which are subtractive.

While there are different kinds of 3D printing, all 3D objects are generally built out of layers. A 3D printer starts with the bottom layer, waits for it to dry or solidify, and then works its way up. This layering process differs depending on the printer and the material it works with — metal, plaster, polymer, resin — but it also depends on whether it’s an industrial or commercial 3D printer.
Industrial vs. commercial

While consumer- and small business-oriented 3D printing is only just taking off, mostly thanks to the MakerBot and RepRaps, 3D printing has been used in an industrial setting for 30 years. Industrial 3D printers tend to be very large and very expensive, but at the same time they are a lot faster than commercial printers. Some industrial printers can print with multiple nozzles at the same time, or even use metal (more on that later). For the most part, industrial printers are nearly always used for rapid prototyping (usually by architects, automakers), but sometimes 3D printed objects — especially in the case of metal objects — are used in final products.

Consumer-oriented 3D printers are cheaper, smaller, slower, and are usually lower resolution than their industrial counterparts. Consumer printers are still used for rapid prototyping, but they’re also used by people who just like the idea of printing stuff out. Generally, consumer printers use thermoplastic extrusion — i.e. it dribbles out tiny dots of melted plastic.
Different printing techniques

3D printing -- the original is on the left hand sideDepending on the material used, how many colors you want, the resolution you require, and how much money you’re willing to fork out, there are at least five popular 3D printing methods to choose from. Some are very similar, but some are really rather crazy (or brilliant).

Fused deposition modeling – The most common 3D printing method is fused deposition modeling (FDM). The raw material with this process is a spool of plastic or metal wire, which is melted and placed by the printer’s nozzle. It quickly hardens, and then the next layer can be added. As far as commercial printers are concerned (like the MakerBot), FDM always uses plastic wire (filament) and is usually called “thermoplastic deposition” in layman’s terms
Inkjet printing — Using special inks (resins and binders) it’s possible to build up a 3D model using a device that’s very similar to a home or office inkjet printer. Layer upon layer of resin and binder are added until an object is created. This is the only 3D printing process that allows for custom colors.
Selective laser sintering – Sintering is the process of creating solid objects from powders, and in the case of selective laser sintering (SLS) the powder can be metal, plastic, ceramic, or glass. Basically, SLS uses a pulsed laser to “draw” the desired cross-section. The powder fuses, and then then the laser forms the next layer on top. This is very much an industrial method, as it requires a rather strong laser.
Digital light processing – With DLP (yes, the same technology behind DLP projectors), a vat of liquid polymer is turned into a very strong solid by exposing it to light. Very high accuracy/resolution can be achieved with this technique — and again, this is an industrial method. Stereolithography is similar to DLP manufacturing, but a lot more expensive.
The others – Finally, there are a few 3D printing techniques that aren’t used extensively, but could be in the future. Resin can be cured using LEDs (similar to the DLP approach); 2-photon photopolymerization can be used to create ultra-small 3D-printed features; laminated object manufacturing uses bits of paper or card stuck together that are then cut out using a laser.

The future of 3D printing

Star Trek teleporterWe’ve already alluded to a few uses for 3D printing — prototyping, making stuff at home — but it’s worth diving into some of the crazier things that 3D printing is capable of now, and what it will be capable of in the future.

3D printers can be used to create titanium aircraft parts, human bones, complex, nano-scale machines, and more. In the future, it’s fairly safe to assume that we’ll be able to manufacture almost anything with a 3D printer — and everything we can’t make with a printer (clothes, textiles), automated CNC machines, or something like them, will take care of. Ultimately, 3D printers might also be the key to matter replicators, just like in Star Trek. It’s important to note that we already have very accurate tools for creating 3D models of existing objects; we have the ability to scan a cup, and then create an exact copy using a 3D printer.

Eventually, one day, you will walk up to a 3D printer and say “make me an iPad,” and it will make you an iPad. If we can create 3D printers with atomic-level resolution, they might also usher in another Star Trek gadget: teleporters. There’s also the (rather worrying?) fact that many commercial printers are labeled as “self-replicating,” in that they’re capable of printing their own replacement parts. In other words, if we gave a 3D printer some kind of artificial intelligence, who knows what it would into.

3D TV: Will 2012 be the year to trash the glasses?

After the rush to upgrade to HDTV, 3D was supposed to be the next big thing. Propelled by the enthusiasm for a few well-crafted media properties like the blockbuster movie Avatar, initial expectations were set very high. But cost, a lack of compelling content, potential health issues, and the need for annoying and expensive glasses have kept 3D TV from getting very far. Now, several firms are trying to break through by getting rid of those pesky glasses, offering glasses-free 3D experiences, while others are upping the ante by providing a premium experience with inexpensive polarized glasses or even new version of expensive, but now wireless, active glasses.

CES 2011 was billed as the year of 3D, but this year’s show also had dozens of offerings, many of which sound quite similar on paper. Here, ExtremeTech checks out the most exciting prospects for no-glasses 3D in 2012 and beyond.
StreamTV’s Ultra-D: Wide-viewing-angle 3D without glasses

Until now, the most common way to achieve 3D viewing without glasses has been with specially designed displays using what is called a “parallax barrier” — where any viewer to the left of the display’s center sees the image recorded by the left camera (and meant for the left eye) and any viewer to the right sees the right-side image (meant for the right eye). As you can imagine, this only works if the person viewing the screen sits exactly where the parallax barrier is set up to divide the image. As a result, it works well for personal display screens like the one on the Fujifilm and Panasonic 3D cameras, and the LG Thrill and HTC Evo 3D smartphones, which allow capturing and viewing 3D. But a parallax barrier doesn’t work well when you have more than one person in the audience, or if you want to move around at all while watching the media — since it only performs properly if the viewer is directly in front of the direction for which the barrier is tuned.

StreamTV prototype display showing multi-viewer 3D without glasses or face tracking. CES 2012 Images by David CardinalSeveral companies are using this year’s CES to launch new solutions for multi-viewer 3D without glasses. StreamTV, best known for the Elocity tablet, rolled out an impressive platform called Ultra-D, which allows not just autostereoscopic (without glasses) viewing of existing 3D content, but realtime conversion of conventional 2D images and video into its 3D format. On paper Ultra-D slices through the two major bottlenecks hampering 3D very nicely. By having displays that are autostereoscopic no glasses are required, and by allowing realtime conversion to 3D, suddenly a near infinite amount of content is available.

The Ultra-D system requires quite a bit of heavy lifting on the hardware and software side. Existing LCD, LED and OLED panels can be used, but an additional microlens layer is required for the displays, as well as new firmware and software. StreamTV is aggressively licensing its platform to makers of TVs, tablets, and smartphones, with the promise of 42-inch and 55-inch LED TVs available in retail by this summer. The Ultra-D TVs will be bundled with StreamTV’s SeeCube, which enables the realtime conversion of 2D to 3D and of traditional 3D content — designed for use with glasses — into autostereoscopic content for display on an Ultra-D device. Tablets and digital picture frames are also on tap, although details haven’t been disclosed.

StreamTV is fairly tight-lipped about how the system actually works, but from watching a variety of their prototypes and talking to some of their researchers, it turns out that instead of the traditional glasses-free solution of having two images — one for the left eye and one for the right — then showing one to each eye — Ultra-D creates 9 different images, each with a unique angle on the scene. The specially built display has an array of microlenses in front of the conventional LCD that project each image out in a series of overlapping cones. As a result each eye sees a combination of as many as 4 different images — all with a slightly different perspective — and is responsible for integrating the total into a coherent picture. Since your eyes are a few inches apart, at most viewing positions your left eye sees a different set of 4 images than your right eye (in essence your right eye is moved over by one, so if your left eye sees image 2, 3, 4, 5, for example, your right eye might see images 3, 4, 5, and 6). This clever approach means that as you move around the viewing area, the image you see actually changes.

The StreamTV Ultra-D prototype looked great on original 3D source material like the 3D Superbowl, but not as good on traditionally filmed football games automatically converted to 3D.The downside of this technique is an apparently less-sharp image, and a tendency for ghosting to occur. While StreamTV downplayed both issues, refusing to discuss resolution by saying there wasn’t a 3D standard for it, and blaming any ghosting on the prototype nature of the monitors, both issues are likely to dog them through its launch later this year, at least until it can show it has solved them adequately for the marketplace. In our testing, some source material, like the Superbowl filmed in 3D, was stunning, with the experience rivaling that of a 3D TV with glasses. Other material, like conventional 2D football coverage converted to 3D, was a little disorienting and the 3D effect detracted from the viewing experience. StreamTV provides two controls, found on the TV remote, to allow for tuning or turning off the effect. One changes the apparent depth of the action in the scene, and the other controls the apparent distance of the scene from the viewer. So you can have action “pop” right in your face, or have scenes with plenty of apparent depth, off in the distance.

Google is FUBAR

Google announced perhaps the biggest change it has ever made to its massive network of web services: Starting in March, your search and surf habits across all of Google’s products will be combined to form the mother of all behavioral profiles. On March 1, Search will know the contents of your email and the videos you watch on YouTube. If you use Google Docs for work, Search will know which company you work for and which industry you work in. Via Google Reader, Search and YouTube will know what content you like to consume. And of course, the kicker: Google’s ad networks — AdSense, AdWords, DoubleClick — will have full access to all of your search and surf habits from every Google web service.

Just so you understand how big this is, Google is by far the largest web property in the US: 153 million Americans hit the search engine alone in 2011 — the single largest website in the US — with YouTube coming in fifth, with 100 million uniques. This story is repeated all over the world, and in some cases it’s even worse: Google “only” has 65% of the search market in the US, but in many European countries (Germany, France, England, etc.) that figure is closer to 90%. YouTube, likewise, is incredibly popular all over the world. The figures for services like Gmail and Google Docs are harder to come by, but they both have hundreds of millions of worldwide users.

This on its own is fairly shocking, but not all that surprising. Personally, I thought Google already did this — I mean, if your entire company is based on targeted advertising, commingling all of your data makes complete commercial sense. If we mix two other factors into the equation, however, it quickly becomes apparent that Google is FUBAR.
The slippery slope

Google eggs... in one basket.First, you can’t opt out of these changes. Basically, on March 1, Google is combining 60 out of its 70 privacy policies to form a Main Privacy Policy, which mandates the sharing of data between services. If you use one of these 60 services (which includes almost everything except Google Chrome), there is no option for you to continue using the old privacy policy that existed when you signed up. If you have a Google account, you must accept this new privacy policy if you want to continue using Gmail, Docs, and so on. You must allow Google to share your data between its services.

Second, it was just two weeks ago that Google turned on Search Plus Your World (SPYW), a massive reworking of its search engine that heavily biases social content from Google+. You will have no doubt noticed that, by default, Google now pollutes your search results with images, likes, and shares from your Google+ Circles. Meanwhile, of course, Google+ is now front and center across almost all of Google’s websites, and on earnings calls Larry Page is bragging that the fledgling social network now has 90 million users (though of course he gives no indication of how many daily users it has, or whether the engagement is anywhere close to Facebook).

Now, it’s obvious where Google is going with this: It wants to be more like Facebook and Apple, both of which have a completely-unified, walled-garden approach — and both of which are enjoying huge leaps in revenue and profits, while Google falls short of quarterly expectations. Nothing happens on an Apple device without Cupertino’s knowledge, and as a result Apple can perfectly tailor its devices for its users (and ratchet up record-breaking quarterly earnings in the process). Facebook — because everything is centralized under the facebook.com domain — enjoys unprecedented access to the surfing habits, likes, shares, and messages of its users. On the other side of the fence, with a slew of discordant, disconnected properties, Google seems to be flailing. SPYW and the March 1 privacy changes are simply the next step in Google’s (rather messy) attempt to weave everything together, before it loses any more ground.


If you want confirmation, here’s what Larry Page — Google’s CEO — reportedly said at a staff event celebrating the launch of SPYW:

“This is the path we’re headed down – a single unified, ‘beautiful’ product across everything. If you don’t get that, then you should probably work somewhere else.”

Mark Zuckerberg vs. Larry Page and Sergey BrinAccording to Pando Daily, this ultimatum and the complete corporate about-turn that SPYW represents has already resulted in Googlers fleeing the company for more pleasant climes. Remember, Google built its entire empire on a search engine that espoused relevancy above all else. Google’s unofficial corporate motto — “don’t be evil” — is meant to remind Googlers that the consumer, rather than the shareholder, is king. With SPYW, Page’s tyrannical declaration, and the upcoming privacy-destroying switch-throw on March 1, Google has sold its soul to the capitalist devil.

In other words, Google has pushed in all of its chips in an epic gamble to beat Facebook at its own game. Google has abandoned its bread and butter in search of greener, tighter-targeted, socially-relevant pastures. The thing is, though, Google doesn’t actually have a choice in the matter. Going social is the right play. Indexed search has peaked. Apps — be it web apps or native mobile apps — are the future, and the only way to index them is through social sentiment, which Google can’t currently do… until it links all of its services together on March 1.

Google Plus, the New FacebookWhy is Google FUBAR, then? Because it is biting the hand that feeds it. Indexed search might have peaked, but it’s still huge, and still propelled Google to over $10 billion in revenue this past quarter. To become Facebook, Google must forsake almost everything that brought it success in the first place. It must irreparably alter its fleet of successful web properties to become more Facebooky. It must alienate users with weird, ungooglesque features. It must force Chrome and Google+ down the throats of users who are simply looking for a brilliant search engine.

The path towards Facebookness is fraught with strife. Facebook, as the incumbent with almost a billion active users, has a huge head start. Facebook can push onwards, continue to reap the truly monumental power of its network effect, and innovate without user backlash. Google on the other hand now has to spend the next year or two maneuvering its gribbly juggernaut between anti-trust, fair trade, and privacy allegations — all while trying to keep the users happy with a search engine that’s no better than Bing. Google is FUBAR.

IBM creates 9nm carbon nanotube transistor that outperforms silicon

IBM has demonstrated a nine nanometer (9nm) carbon nanotube transistor (CNT) — the smallest CNT ever made, and significantly smaller than any commercial silicon transistor. At 9nm, IBM’s transistor is also smaller than the physical limit of silicon transistors, which is around 11nm.

Beyond its diminutive size, the 9nm CNT is capable of switching at very low voltages (0.5V), thus consuming less power than its silicon counterparts — but it can also carry four times as much current, meaning a better signal quality and a wider range of applications.

Carbon nanotubes, much like graphene, have long been heralded as the eventual replacement for silicon transistors due to their improved electrical qualities. There are (obviously) problems for the adoption of CNTs, though: They’re hard to mass produce (though maybe IBM should talk to Berkeley about that), and they also have to reach a maturity level that can unseat a semiconductor technology that has ruled supreme for more than 40 years. It’s not that Intel & Co. don’t want to use carbon nanotubes, but when you’re churning out billions of dollars worth of silicon chips there’s an awful lot of inertia preventing a sideways leap to a new technology.

9nm carbon nanotube transistor from IBMIt is this inertia that resulted in Intel’s 3D FinFET chips — a last gasp effort to squeeze a few more years out of silicon semiconductors. The question is, does Intel also have a working CNT, or does IBM now have the upper hand? Intel’s projected roadmap has an 11nm node in 2015 — but what about after that? It’s important to remember that IBM has one of the most advanced semiconductor processes in the world, along the same lines as TSMC and GloFo. If IBM is the first to market with carbon nanotube transistors, Intel might finally have a challenger.