Titanium gets hype, but is it actually the best option considering chemical and fatigue properties? I find it implausible that tensile strength-to-weight would be the weakest part even for good old fashioned stainless steel.
The advantage is much more durability. Hardier materials, and the print can lose an entire paper sheet's worth of mass/thickness, and still be readable.
Those properties sound beneficial in non-obvious corner cases.
In particular those when a sheet of paper’s thickness does not impact the required data density.
While storing data on a wear surface is desirable and necessary to system design.
And when conventional use of a engraved number as index to extended data is insufficient.
> But... is anyone doing that with a 3D printer? Or a CNC machine, for that matter?
Do you count plaques on public landmarks?
> I think some of the other answered showed that people are, it's just pretty niche. Not something a hobbyist can (currently) do, but definitely the same idea at a production scale.
Definitely is doable, having done it myself. You can probably hit your century target using the more specialized FDM/SLA/DLP hobby feedstock, if you can guarantee climate-controlled storage. Millenia if you shell out high double to low triple digits for a print service with fancy industrial machines, or if you combine a home printer with ceramics or metal jewellery skills.
I've experimented with this using one of the commercial print-on-demand services. Not filament, a binder-jet sintering marine stainless steel type of process, IIRC. Slightly modified Noto Sans Extracondensed font with... Let me check the files... 0.1mm line width, 0.45mm lower-case "m" width, dense letter and line spacing, gets 3KB ASCII per square inch. ...Engrave, don't emboss, or the letters will come off with impact and corrosion!
Filling the engraved letters with black wax makes it optically legible under a good handheld magnifying glass. Then rub with vaseline/mineral oil/wax/ACF-50, mount on a brass holder (check relative galvanic corrosion order!), store pressed against aluminium or zinc sheet sacrificial anodes Just In Case(TM), inside polyamide or ABS case. Should last basically forever.
I designed it for manual reading, so the holder doubles as the "reader". Basically just a spindle going through a hole in the disk, holding a margin in the edge and center of the disk. The text is a spiral, so you can spin the disk to help keep the viewed region aligned under a higher-power microscope.
For home printing, probably the way to go is Formlabs wax resin (or equivalent), then either learn brass casting yourself or hire a jeweller to do it. Though you won't get as good resolution/density as the metal process I tried. And really, laser engraving'll probably be cheaper and better. Consider if good-quality paper and ink, maybe laminated, inside a Pelican case'll be more practical.
I wouldn't personally trust any of the common plastic printing materials to hold up for important data under oxygen, UV, fatigue, heat cycles. Are you sure the resin's not overcured or undercured, the filament fused correctly and won't delaminate, it won't reach the glass transition temperature during summer? And bacteria is already evolving to eat plastics. Maybe SLS/MJF polyamide's okay, but in that case, I'm not sure I'd trust the sintered structure for small details (and they don't have great resolution anyway).
> The assumption was that using common 3D printer measurement tools (like for bed-leveling) would provide a way to read back whatever data was encoded onto the surface.
> And then, obviously, if that proof of concept exists, I'd wonder about some kind of advanced version that used specialized equipment for the reading (and possibly the writing/printing).
At these small amounts of data, specialized read hardware just adds risk IMO. Plain text can be read manually or with OCR. QR codes can automate reading with a standard flatbed scanner or smartphone camera.
Consider ideas for encoding: Plain text, B64, hex, Reed-Solomon codes... 1-bit depth structure turns most of 3D printing's storage density into redundancy, but anything truly 3D adds read risk. If you insist on automating reading, QR codes will get you error correction, encode/decode software, and COTS hardware for "free". Personally I think human readability is a big advantage too. Maybe OCR text, and put error codes in a QR beside the text for byte-perfect computer input?
Compare: Memory of Mankind uses ceramic tablets in a desert cave. Arch Mission Foundation project uses holographic glass. Long Now Rosetta Disk engraves with electron beam on nickel, IIRC was/is also commercially available for personallized jewellery. M-Disc and Bluray (HTL?) have modern digital storage density, good stability, work with commodity hardware. ...See design considerations of prior art for digital storage in 2D, naïve 3D version is to just use these as a heightmap:
Also, don't sleep on the centuries of work done by archivists and historians! The top comment is right; acid-free archival paper has very good overall cost, density, stability.
You make great points! I appreciate the detail of the comment, and I don't particularly disagree with any of it. I think someone else mentioned gravestones that are etched and filled with black, so your suggestion of just doing that with sensible scales and fonts seems like a slam dunk, to me.
Bummer that it doesn't really seem feasible for a hobbyist, though. I take your meaning with the wax and such, but I think my solution would just be to go bigger and store less data. And I mean bigger like, 20 characters per print bed, or something. But then, at that scale, maybe a QR code would hold up well enough in plastic, too?
Overall, I think I've mostly learned that "archiving format" is a broad term that really needs to be collapsed by describing how the archive will be stored (and what extremes/complications to expect). In any case, thanks for the links and again for the detailed discussion!
> I take your meaning with the wax and such, but I think my solution would just be to go bigger and store less data. And I mean bigger like, 20 characters per print bed, or something. But then, at that scale, maybe a QR code would hold up well enough in plastic, too?
Only way to know is to try it! I think you might be surprised. QR codes (with high redundancy settings) are very resistant to corruption.
The idea with the wax is to transfer the data into a more durable final product... Lost wax casting, you print wax, cover the wax in plaster, melt the wax, pour a metal (or epoxy) into the plaster mold.
Framed another way: The market rejects the product at the price it would cost to provide, so companies have turned to addictive designs, skeevy tracking, and information asymmetry/user ignorance to recoup their investment.
> users need to act for themselves and optimize their own privacy.
> You need coordination if you want to see the balance changed.
Which is, actually, what the BBC author of TFA is doing, by writing an article as a user, to inform other users so they too can act to protect their privacy.
Seems like industry insiders passing responsibility for their bad practices on to consumers really means they want consumers to stay divided.
> Which is, actually, what the BBC author of TFA is doing, by writing an article as a user, to inform other users so they too can act to protect their privacy.
No. The author only singles out TikTok.
Looks like a paid piece.
> Seems like industry insiders passing responsibility for their bad practices on to consumers really means they want consumers to stay divided.
I think this is why they also encourage the old trope of "It's not just <X>".
It's a truth, but used in a way that makes people feel powerless. Like the war is already lost. It makes people apathetic, because it makes people overwhelmed. It causes the evangelists to quiet themselves as they become exhausted. It normalizes the behavior. It just becomes another one of the many things we're powerless to fight against, so why even try.
I'm not accusing the OP of doing this, but I do want to point out that it is a strategy being used. Not misinformation, not disinformation, but malinformation. Truths used in a specific way, often lacking context. It is the same way people dog whistle, hiding their true intent in normalized speech (it's not a dog whistle if everyone can hear it, that's just a whistle).
The modern adtech stack is uniquely sinister, especially compared to its antecedents in society. TikTok is not only one of a select few big tech companies that dominate it, but (according to the article), it's becoming increasingly invasive "in unusual ways compared to its competitors".
(I have no idea whether that second part is true, as most of the article seems to be spent explaining the concept of the tracking pixel for non-technical readers.)
It's a bit ironic that digital goods, which are arguably the only products which once compiled can be stored, used, and copied perfectly bit-for-bit, are also the only industry that seems to have this problem with being unwilling to call a product "done".
The reasons for software churn are economic, cultural, and psychological, not technological.
Unlike modern physical products, software often has a contiguous lineage, with less individual hard cuts between releases, that e.g. necessitate setting up a new production line for each iteration.
Of course you can call individual releases "done" but then you also have to accept that the same realities apply to it that it's utility will decay over time same as e.g. household appliances do, where you also wouldn't use one that's 40 years old.
Calling a software project as a whole "done" (and claiming that it doesn't have bugs and doesn't need maintenance) would be akin to Apple saying the iPhone (the whole product line/smartphone niche) is "done".
> Of course you can call individual releases "done" but then you also have to accept that the same realities apply to it that it's utility will decay over time same as e.g. household appliances do, where you also wouldn't use one that's 40 years old.
Physical appliances decay because of wear and tear, which digital products are uniquely immune to.
Replacing and fixing physical wear and tear is more like having to occasionally clean your logs folder, or reinstall your OS. Admin maintenance on a specific installation, not updates to the product from the developer. The product itself stays the same.
Software churn, updates that change the product itself and not just the way it's run, are more like General Electric requiring you let one of their employees into your house to paint the appliance a new color every month.
> Calling a software project as a whole "done" (and claiming that it doesn't have bugs and doesn't need maintenance) would be akin to Apple saying the iPhone (the whole product line/smartphone niche) is "done".
Which seems like it would be fine? What do 95% people use their smartphone for, that an iPhone from 10 years ago was not already able to do? Besides, this comparison is a bit circular as software dropping support is often the part that forces consumers to upgrade hardware.
Hardware products without software churn do in fact get used basically forever. When they do break, they can also be replaced with the exact same product, without all the issues that running old software gets you.
Apple could make a forever-iPhone that lasts 10 years, or 40 years. But it's more profitable, competitive, exciting, and convenient to release a new product line every year (while turning old hardware into e-waste via software updates).
I'm not saying it's better or worse that things are this way, but it does cause some problems and should not be presented as inevitable.
All that you say is true in a world (or for product categories) that has reached a technological plateau.
The point about household appliances that I was trying to make wasn't about individual appliances decaying (= breaking down), but about the utility of a model decaying over time, as it e.g. becomes uncompetitive because it has worse energy efficiency than it's modern counterparts (or in the case of refrigerators uses harmful greenhouse gases).
reply