why would that be the case?

I suppose people making the decisions (i.e. with the money to invest into such things) are not doing the welding.

This makes me pissed off, it reminds me of my time where "stake holders" would not let me work on simplifying the systems I was charged with maintaining mostly out of fear of something going wrong, but really because it was cheaper for them to pay me to suffer through that shoddy system and all I could really do about it was quit, which I did eventually. where is that startup now? acquired by a bigger one.

I mean augmented reality has been extremely hard even for normal uses without the extreme environment of welding involved. Even Apple still hasn’t nailed it yet according to reports. Hard to see how a welding company could succeed where Apple and Meta struggle.

AR is used today in automotive manufacture and repair (Bosch), and surgery (Mount Sinai, John Hopkins). There's also military applications, or construction. Meta is not, by a long shot, on the forefront of actual uses of the technology. Their hardware, and ease of use is top notch, no question about it.

But there are real, and pratical use cases out there done by smaller companies in specialized fields. The issue lies in creating something with mainstream appeal, which I do agree with you, that's a whole other story.

It looks like the Bosch solution is an AR iPad app. I was really thinking about the challenge of developing a full headset for welding. https://www.boschaftermarket.com/gb/en/diagnostics/solutions...

It wasn't totally clear, but it looks like Mount Sinai might be using Microsoft hololens.

It does seem like John Hopkins has something interesting.

I am not saying it is impossible, but I certainly would not say I was "surprised" Miller welding has not developed full AR glasses for welding. AR is hard and this is early days.

I am not a welder.

That being said, I'd imagine the active circuitry required to capture and process the images in realtime (or 30fps, in this case) is expensive and bulkier than what's currently used. Processing stereoscopic 2048x2048 HDR streams is no easy task, you'd basically be looking at a VR helmet once you consider where to put battery and compute unit.

It's a cool invention, but probably one of those "analog computer" ideas that's harder to scale/apply than the cheaper alternatives.

welding helmets can exceed $1k already. and at a working minimum of $80/hr, if you can improve quality and reduce time (rework is the worst thing here - it never comes out right, takes forever, and so its often more cost effective to start the work from the beginning), the economics might easily work out..especially at the higher end

Obviously the high dynamic range is a challenge, but besides that: car reverse camera's cost a few bucks, I don't think this would need to be Way more expensive. It also doesn't have to be stereoscopic and 2048x2048 I'd say... - it would quickly be a step up from the current solution which only allows you to see the welding arc

A car's reverse camera doesn't have the dynamic range to filter headlights at night, much less an arc that's hot enough to give you a sunburn.

You could just use two cameras, or even four, or eight cameras! Each with a different level of filter. Camera sensors are cheap. Degradation of the sensors on the "bright" cameras would be an issue, however.

Welding helmets are bulky, VR headsets are similar. Lets parts in a helmet but the helmet needs to protect your face and neck from sunburn and potentially bits of metal (depending on your position).

And any processing bulk could be belt worn or even sitting on the ground connected by a cable: you're already tethered to the welder and buffer gas tank after all!

The link mentions that the topic is mined with a patent. Sadly makes a lot of sense for no one even daring to think about innovating in that field then.