2025-12-18 05:00:26
Anyone with an inkling of interest in super-sized remote control aircraft probably has at least seen some of the mind-blowing projects that [Ramy RC] has worked on over the years, with examples like the ongoing Airbus A380-800 build approaching the size of a full-sized business jet. That said, they recently got the offer to build a flying prototype of the Natilus Horizon, a blended wing body (BWB) aircraft that’s currently being developed into a full-sized production aircraft.
Suffice it to say that BWB RC aircraft isn’t something that they have built before, but as co-founder of Natilus, [Aleksey Matyushev], explains, they want to prove in this manner that building scale prototypes of future production aircraft is not nearly as complex as it’s often made out to be. Meaning that even two blokes in a shed as is the case here should be able to pull it off.
Natilus was founded in 2016 amidst strongly rising interest in these BWB aircraft designs that may one day threaten today’s tubes-with-wings. Their Kona design would be the cargo version and this Horizon prototype that [Ramy RC] is building the passenger version.
In this first video of two total, we can see the CAD project of the prototype and how the basic aircraft structure is being constructed out of carbon fiber composite, wood and foam. To this the engine nacelles, landing gear and wings are mounted, readying it for its maiden flight. The Natilus engineers have previously done all the simulations that should mean that it’ll fly like a glider, but we will have to wait until the next video to see whether that is the case.
2025-12-18 03:30:19
This week Jonathan chats with Jonathan Thomas about OpenShot, the cross-platform video editor that aims to be simple to use, without sacrificing functionality. We did the video edit with OpenShot for this episode, and can confirm it gets the job done. What led to the creation of this project, and what’s the direction it’s going? Watch to find out!
Did you know you can watch the live recording of the show right on our YouTube Channel? Have someone you’d like us to interview? Let us know, or have the guest contact us! Take a look at the schedule here.
Direct Download in DRM-free MP3.
If you’d rather read along, here’s the transcript for this week’s episode.
Theme music: “Newer Wave” Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
2025-12-18 02:00:58
Once upon a time, surgery was done on patients who were fully conscious and awake. As you might imagine, this was a nasty experience for all involved, and particularly the patients. Eventually, medical science developed the techniques of anaesthesia, which allowed patients to undergo surgery without feeling pain or even being conscious of it at all.
Adults are typically comfortable in the medical environment and tolerate anaesthesia well. For children, though, the experience can be altogether more daunting. Thus was invented the PediSedate—a device which was marketed almost like a Game Boy accessory intended to deliver anaesthetic treatment in order to safely and effectively prepare children for surgery.
The patent filing for the PediSedate doesn’t give away much in the title—”Inhalation And Monitoring Mask With Headset.” Still, US patent 5,697,363 (PDF) recorded an innovative device, intended to solve several issues around the delivery of anaesthesia to pediatric patients. Most specifically, those developing the device had noted a great deal of anxiety and stress when using traditional anaesthesia masks with young patients. The device was created by Geoffrey A. Hart, an anaestheologist based in Boston. His hope was to create an anaesthesia delivery device that could be used with a child in a “non-threatening, non-intrusive manner.”
The resulting device looked rather a lot like a big, colorful audio headset. Indeed, it had headphones that could play audio to the wearer, while an arm that extended out over the face could deliver nitrous oxide or other gases via the nasal route. Sensors were included for pulse oximetry in order to track the patient’s heart rate and blood oxygenation, while an integrated capnometer measured vital respiratory factors, including carbon dioxide levels in the breath. Provision in the patent was also made for including a microphone, either for interactivity purposes with entertainment content for distraction’s sake, or to allow communication with medical personnel at a distance. This would be particularly useful in the case of certain imaging studies or treatments, where doctors and nurses must remain a certain distance away.
Press materials and a website were launched in 2009, as the device went through Phase II clinical trials. Most materials showed the PediSedate being used in tandem with a Nintendo Game Boy. The device featured an aesthetic that followed the late 90s trend of bright colors and translucent plastics. It was often paired in photos hooked up to a Game Boy to help distract a child during sedation, with the device often talked about as an “accessory” for the handheld console. This wasn’t really the case—it was essentially a child-friendly anaesthetic mask with headphones that could be hooked up to any relevant sound source. However, at the time, a Game Boy was a readily available way to distract and calm a sick child, and it could be had in colors that matched the PediSedate device.
Those behind the PediSedate noted the device was “very well received by parents, kids, and health-care workers.” The benefits seem to pass the common-sense check—it’s believable that the PediSedate succeeded at being a less-scary way to present children with anaesthetic treatment while also giving them something pleasant to focus on as they drifted out of consciousness. However, success was seemingly not on the cards. The PediSedate website disappeared from the internet in 2011, and precious little was heard of the device since. The creator, Geoffrey A. Hart, continued to practice medicine in the intervening years until he resigned his license in 2024, according to the Massachusetts Board of Medicine.
An explainer video demonstrated the use of the device, which was going through Phase II trials in 2009.
By and large, the medical field has gotten by without devices like the PediSedate. Children undergoing sedation with inhalational anaesthetics will typically be treated with relatively conventional masks, albeit in small sizes. They lack colorful designs or hookups for game consoles, but they seem to do the job. It might have been nice to play a little Donkey Kong before a daunting procedure, but alas, the PediSedate never quite caught on.
Featured image: still from Sharkie’s Gaming Controllers video on the PediSedate.
2025-12-18 00:30:31
Most of us choose our own outfits on a daily basis. [NeuroForge] decided that he’d instead offload this duty to artificial intelligence — perhaps more for the sake of a class project than outright fashion.
The concept involved first using an AI model to predict the weather. Those predictions would then be fed to a large language model (LLM), which would recommend an appropriate outfit for the conditions. The output from the LLM would be passed to a simple alarm clock which would wake [NeuroForge] and indicate what he should wear for the day. Amazon’s Chronos forecasting model was used for weather prediction based on past weather data, while Meta’s Llama3.1 LLM was used to make the clothing recommendations. [NeuroForge] notes that it was possible to set all this up to work without having to query external services once the historical weather data had been sourced.
While the AI choices often involved strange clashes and were not weather appropriate, [NeuroForge] nonetheless followed through and wore what he was told. This got tough when the outfit on a particularly cold day was a T-shirt and shorts, though the LLM did at least suggest a winter hat and gloves be part of the ensemble. Small wins, right?
We’ve seen machine learning systems applied to wardrobe-related tasks before. One wonders if a more advanced model could be trained to pick not just seasonally-appropriate clothes, but to also assemble actually fashionable outfits to boot. If you manage to whip that up, let us know on the tipsline. Bonus points if your ML system gets a gig on the reboot of America’s Next Top Model.
2025-12-17 23:00:10
The PC has had its fair share of bus slots. What started with the ISA bus has culminated, so far, in PCI Express slots, M.2 slots, and a few other mechanisms to connect devices to your computer internally. But if the 8-bit ISA card is the first bus you can remember, you are missing out. There were practically as many bus slots in computers as there were computers. Perhaps the most famous bus in early home computers was the Altair 8800’s bus, retroactively termed the S-100 bus, but that wasn’t the oldest standard.
There are more buses than we can cover in a single post, but to narrow it down, we’ll assume a bus is a standard that allows uniform cards to plug into the system in some meaningful way. A typical bus will provide power and access to the computer’s data bus, or at least to its I/O system. Some bus connectors also allow access to the computer’s memory. In a way, the term is overloaded. Not all buses are created equal. Since we are talking about old bus connectors, we’ll exclude new-fangled high speed serial buses, for the most part.
There are several trade-offs to consider when designing a bus. For example, it is tempting to provide regulated power via the bus connector. However, that also may limit the amount of power-hungry electronics you can put on a card and — even worse — on all the cards at one time. That’s why the S-100 bus, for example, provided unregulated power and expected each card to regulate it.
On the other hand, later buses, such as VME, will typically have regulated power supplies available. Switching power supplies were a big driver of this. Providing, for example, 100 W of 5 V power using a linear power supply was a headache and wasteful. With a switching power supply, you can easily and efficiently deliver regulated power on demand.
Some bus standards provide access to just the CPU’s I/O space. Others allow adding memory, and, of course, some processors only allow memory-mapped I/O. Depending on the CPU and the complexity of the bus, cards may be able to interrupt the processor or engage in direct memory access independent of the CPU.
In addition to power, there are several things that tend to differentiate traditional parallel buses. Of course, power is one of them, as well as the number of bits available for data or addresses. Many bus structures are synchronous. They operate at a fixed speed, and in general, devices need to keep up. This is simple, but it can impose tight requirements on devices.
Tight timing requirements constrain the length of bus wires. Slow devices may need to insert wait states to slow the bus, which, of course, slows it for everyone.
An asynchronous bus, on the other hand, works transactionally. A transaction sends data and waits until it is acknowledged. This is good for long wires and devices with mixed speed capability, but it may also require additional complexity.
Some buses are relatively dumb — little more than wires hanging off the processor through some drivers. Then how can many devices share these wires? Open-collector logic is simple and clever, but not very good at higher speeds. Tri-state drivers are a common solution, although the fanout limitations of the drivers can limit how many devices you can connect to the bus.
If you look at any modern bus, you’ll see these limitations have driven things to serial solutions, usually with differential signaling and sophisticated arbitration built into the bus. But that’s not our topic today.
A common early bus was the Digital Equipment Corporation Unibus. In 1969, you needed a lot of board space to implement nearly anything, so Unibus cards were big. PDP-11 computers and some early VAX machines used Unibus as both the system bus for memory and I/O operations.
Unibus was asynchronous, so devices could go as fast as they could or as slow as they needed. There were two 36-pin edge connectors with 56 pins of signals and 16 pins for power and ground.
Unibus was advanced for its time. Many of the pins had pull-up resistors on the bus so that multiple cards could assert them by pulling them to ground. For example, INTR, the interrupt request line, would normally be high, with no cards asserting an interrupt. If any board pulls the line low, the processor will service the interrupt, subject to priority resolution that Unibus supported via bus requests and grants.
The grants daisy-chained from card to card. This means that empty slots required a “grant continuity card” that connected the grant lines to prevent breaking the daisy chain.
Eventually, the Digital machines acquired Massbus for connecting to specific disk and tape drives. It was also an asynchronous bus, but only for data. It carried 18 bits plus a parity bit. Boards like the RH11 would connect Massbus devices to the Unibus. There would be other Digital Equipment buses like TURBOChannel.
Other computer makers, of course, had their own ideas. Sun had MBus and HP 3000 and 9000 computers, which used the HP Precision Bus and HP GSC. But the real action for people like us was with the small computers.
It is easy to see that when the designers defined the Altair 8800 bus, they didn’t expect it to be a standard. There was simply a 100-pin connector that accepted cards 10 inches long by 5 inches tall. The bus was just barely more than the Intel 8080 pins brought out, along with some power. At first, the bus split the databus into an input and output bus. However, later cards used a bidirectional bus to allow for more grounds on the now unused bus bits to help reduce noise.
Through the late 1970s and early 1980s, the S-100 market was robust. Most CP/M machines using an 8080 or Z-80 had S-100 bus slots. In fact, it was popular enough that it gave birth to a real standard: IEEE 696. However, by 1994, the IBM PC had made the S-100 bus a relic, and the IEEE retired the standard.
Of course, the PC bus would go on to be dominant on x86 machines for a while; other systems had other buses. The SS-50 was sort of the S-100 for 6800 computers. The 68000 computers often used VMEbus, which was closely tied to the asynchronous bus of that CPU.
While things like S-100 were great for desktop systems, they were generally big and expensive. That led to competitors for small system use. Eurocard was a popular mechanical standard that could handle up to 96 signals. The DIN 41612 connectors had 32 pins per row, with two or three rows.
We don’t deal much with these kinds of buses in modern equipment. Modern busses tend to be high-speed serial and sophisticated. Besides, a hobby-level embedded system now probably uses a system-on-a-chip or, at least, a single board computer, with little need for an actual bus other than, perhaps, SPI, I2C, or USB for I/O expansion.
Of course, modern bus standards are the winners of wars with other standards. You can still get new S-100 boards. Sort of.
2025-12-17 20:00:53
With the availability of increasingly cheaper equipment, welding has become far more accessible these days. While this is definitely a plus, it also comes with the elephant-sized asterisk that as with any tool you absolutely must take into account basic safety precautions for yourself and others. This extends to the way you prepare metal for welding, with [Dr. Bernard], AKA [ChubbyEmu] recently joining forces with [styropyro] to highlight the risks of cleaning metal with brake cleaner prior to welding.
Much like with common household chemicals used for cleaning, such as bleach and ammonia, improper use of these can produce e.g. chlorine gas, which while harmful is generally not lethal. Things get much more serious with brake cleaner, containing tetrachloroethylene. As explained in the video, getting brake cleaner on a rusty part to clean it and then exposing it to the intensive energies of the welding process suffices to create phosgene.
Used as a devastating chemical weapon during World War I, phosgene does not dissolve or otherwise noticeably reduce in potency after it enters the lungs. Instead it clings to surfaces where it attacks and destroys proteins and DNA until the affected person typically dies from disruption of the lung’s blood-air barrier and subsequent pulmonary edema. Effectively your lungs fill with liquid, your blood oxygen saturation drops and at some point your body calls it quits.
The video is based on a real case study, where in 1982 a previously healthy 23-year old man accidentally inhaled phosgene, was admitted to the ER before being rushed to the ICU. Over the course of six days he deteriorated, developed a fever and passed away after his heart stopped pumping properly due to ventricular fibrillation.
Basically, if you are off minding your own business and suddenly smell something like musty hay or freshly cut grass when nobody is mowing the lawn, there’s a chance you just inhaled phosgene. Unlike in the video, where the victim keeps welding and waits a long time before going to the ER, immediate treatment can at least give you a shot at recovery if the exposure was mild enough.
As with laser safety, prevention is the best way to stay healthy. In the case of welding it’s essential to fully cover up your skin as there is intense UV radiation from the work area, protect your eyes with a quality welding mask and ideally wear a respirator especially when welding indoors. Show your eyes, lungs and skin how much you love them by taking good care of them — and please don’t use brake cleaner to prep parts for welding.
