A real replicator requires a huge library of atomic and molecular patterns which we do not have nor is it technologically economic to compile. Beyond that is needed a system of cheap transmutation so that energy can be easily transformed into matter precisely placed in a structure. Not even on the scientific horizon at the moment.

Then make a corporation out of it. Have them assembled, or see if nature could half way assemble matter strings as a basic componet. For making Gold, or Oil, it could be worth it. And im not talking about turning energy into matter, thats like obtaining light speed with the whole E=MC2. I mean, just moving an already assembled matter string into the right place, thats already matter.

Without transmutation you cannot make gold. It's been done but the energy input makes the process not worth the effort.

Actually, i had this idea that if you could strip away the electrons through that process, (dont remember the name. Some japan chick did it, made an element just below Mass by stripping away all electrons from it) then we could reconstruct gold by adding back the right amount of electrons needed to make the element Gold.

Unfortunately your basic understanding of the nature of the different elements seems totally lacking. Each different element has, within its nucleus, a characteristic number of protons and neutrons. The only way to change that element into another is to alter the number of protons in the nucleus. This takes huge energy inputs. Altering the number of electrons in the outer shells of the atom has no effect on the nature of the element although it does vary the electric charge of the atom.

well i know the three parts of an atom, but as far as creating metals, and what not, no im not really sure how its done. Never was a fan of chemistry.

You are overestimating computer's power, and underestimeting nature. This is too much even for fantasy. Are you talking about something like ... God?

Hell no. As a concept, i just cant see it being so hard. A computer could arrange a 3d puzzle of a million pieces or more if told how to do it once, so why not something else? Its not in one place, but we gather pieces of nature for everything, to build whatever, so why not do it on a molecular scale. I can understand that the energy involved is great, and its a question of chemistry, but this could still be a possibility. They got a transporter in austrailia, then we could do this too.

When you start breaking up or synthesizing atomic nuclei you generate a good deal of dangerous radiation. It is nothing you want to do in a normal unshielded facility, even if the energy requirements were practical or worthwhile - which they aren't. It would be worth your while to educate yourself a bit in the area before you entertain ideas beyond our current technology.

Mechanical engineers commonly use 3D prototyping of various sorts that sort-of resembles a replicator, but takes hours. The machine I've used takes a plastic that approximates a fishing line and it feeds it into something a little like a plotter head moving back and fourth to deposit droplets of just-melted plastic in exactly the right place to build the object up out of layers, making a 3D part.

Other machines flood a fluid in thin layers and solidify it with a laser.

I believe these machines are certainly on the right track toward a replicator, but we'll see.

3D printers are on the market for about $12,000. but they make only plastic mock-ups (http://www.dimensionprinting.com/3d-printers/3d-printing-uprint.aspx) and may make usable parts for limited purposes. This can be expanded, theoretically, for multiple materials but the concept of reproduction at the atomic level with transmutation of materials is way beyond current technology.

sand, with a 3-d printer, if you desire a part made out of plastic, a plastic 'mock-up' fits the bill just fine. The parts are fairly rugged and they have surface finish and color if you set those things.

Also, it seems to me that the system of melted droplets could still work to prototype in metal, albeit it would take much more development and require and inert-gas environment. Wonder if anyone's tried it?

But my opinion is that rearranging molecules is too much trouble for the task--we'll have a much better chance of getting there sooner if we follow this path.