Some time ago, I tried to use https://github.com/alisinabh/paperify to back up some data I had in the form of QR codes on paper. Turns out the standard printer is very limiting in terms of how many bits of data you can fit into paper if you want to read it reliably. I would guess this would be the same in their case. Maybe they will come up with a good protocol with error codes that would suit their "printer".
Anyway, I like the concept of storing QR codes on paper or other medium even if it is not really practical.
"A4 paper sheet-sized ceramic film could hold more than 2 TB of data" Just 2 TB? Makes you appreciate just how much 2 TB of data is.
Also, what's the point of "storing our future" if it is so difficult to read and decode? How would one even know where to look for the data if it's get lost. So besides doing it for fun I don't see the point of this and how it can be ever scaled to be in everyday use.
Right. This is probably just a start though. Just as Richard Feynman stated:
There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom.
I recently wanted to purchase a 3TB harddrive. The price is not that heavy
(e,. g. at around 100 Euro), but I also realised that I'd much prefer that
price to go down significantly. I am still in shock at the RAM prices. That
is no longer affordable really.
Looking at the end result, honestly surprised a QR code scanner could read it - other than the corner squares, the lack of pixel fidelity and strong outlines makes the code look melted or smudged
Despite the HN title (and while the focusing optics are similar), the structure in the article was directly milled with an ion beam (FIB), not electrons.
Why did I see the headline and my first thought was the “Scientific Method” episode of Voyager.
That being said, I am curious what the use case is. It mentions data storage but the QR code is not really storing data (ok it is storing something obviously but not in the traditional sense).
In a way the story of nanofabrication seems like a tale of disappointment. Many decades after Feynman's "Plenty of room at the bottom" or Drexler's "Engines of creation" and we have very little to show in a way of progress. What happened? Why were knowledgeable minds like Feynman too optimistic about our ability to make this happen?
Yes, of course the etching on silicon process has been refined to a level nobody thought possible. But this is more like a CNC process at a tiny level. What we don't have is additive manufacturing at nano scale. The nano assembler that Drexler and Feynman thought were possible is not panning out.
Its a scaling problem. You can do a lot of cool things with fib/ebip etc. but the process itself is very slow and requires patience unless you want to destroy your structure via codeposits or other side effects. Kinda like the AI field back in the 80s the hardware still isn't there to really make use of the ideas.
Anybody was able to read that? Mine phone app does not recognise this as qr code.
Some time ago, I tried to use https://github.com/alisinabh/paperify to back up some data I had in the form of QR codes on paper. Turns out the standard printer is very limiting in terms of how many bits of data you can fit into paper if you want to read it reliably. I would guess this would be the same in their case. Maybe they will come up with a good protocol with error codes that would suit their "printer".
Anyway, I like the concept of storing QR codes on paper or other medium even if it is not really practical.
Fountain codes will work well here.
"A4 paper sheet-sized ceramic film could hold more than 2 TB of data" Just 2 TB? Makes you appreciate just how much 2 TB of data is.
Also, what's the point of "storing our future" if it is so difficult to read and decode? How would one even know where to look for the data if it's get lost. So besides doing it for fun I don't see the point of this and how it can be ever scaled to be in everyday use.
Right. This is probably just a start though. Just as Richard Feynman stated:
There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom.
I recently wanted to purchase a 3TB harddrive. The price is not that heavy (e,. g. at around 100 Euro), but I also realised that I'd much prefer that price to go down significantly. I am still in shock at the RAM prices. That is no longer affordable really.
Looking at the end result, honestly surprised a QR code scanner could read it - other than the corner squares, the lack of pixel fidelity and strong outlines makes the code look melted or smudged
Points on a QR code do not have to be square "pixels" anyway.
But how to read it out? Doesn't that take too long?
I imagine capacity/density and reliability/durability are more important factors than read speed when it comes to archival.
Despite the HN title (and while the focusing optics are similar), the structure in the article was directly milled with an ion beam (FIB), not electrons.
Yeah. I drew mario on a pin head with a fib in 2015.
Why did I see the headline and my first thought was the “Scientific Method” episode of Voyager.
That being said, I am curious what the use case is. It mentions data storage but the QR code is not really storing data (ok it is storing something obviously but not in the traditional sense).
QR codes store bits, arranged into bytes (A byte is the shape of a 3x3 square with one corner missing), so how more traditional can it get?
Ha! Reminds me of when my buddy in grad school drew a dick with CO molecules. It was, what, 40 angstrom long?
Good times.
Anyone else expecting to be rickrolled by the world's smallest QR code?
In a way the story of nanofabrication seems like a tale of disappointment. Many decades after Feynman's "Plenty of room at the bottom" or Drexler's "Engines of creation" and we have very little to show in a way of progress. What happened? Why were knowledgeable minds like Feynman too optimistic about our ability to make this happen?
> we have very little to show in a way of progress. What happened?
Our semiconductors have had features below 100 nm for a while (actual features, not just process node names), so that's been wildly successful.
Why nanofabrication hasn't been as commercially successful outside of semiconductors is a much harder question to answer.
Yes, of course the etching on silicon process has been refined to a level nobody thought possible. But this is more like a CNC process at a tiny level. What we don't have is additive manufacturing at nano scale. The nano assembler that Drexler and Feynman thought were possible is not panning out.
Its a scaling problem. You can do a lot of cool things with fib/ebip etc. but the process itself is very slow and requires patience unless you want to destroy your structure via codeposits or other side effects. Kinda like the AI field back in the 80s the hardware still isn't there to really make use of the ideas.
Talk's cheap.
The feats we've archived in miniaturisation of logic and memory is already mind-blowing, in my opinion.
great, we can rick roll people in the next pandemic vaccines!