Readit NewsA similar optical pickup made of optical components from newport or thorlabs would run you a few thousand dollars, whereas these dvd optical pickups can be had for $10-20.
Here is another great paper (and accompanying youtube video) that shows optical trapping, atomic force microscopy, and even imaging with a dvd optical pickup.
Also, it helps significantly to be in Antarctica, where the relative movement is much slower than it is at lower latitudes — and to have multiple telescopes - and low noise CCDs, in a cold, dry environment.
Sadly, most of us don’t have those luxuries.
https://siril.readthedocs.io/en/stable/processing/deconvolut...
I've used Word professionally since the mid-1990s. I do know how to use it properly, and it still sucks.
"Writing" isn't meant to be done in a word processor, which was developed as a business tool, not a creative tool. Writing should be done in whatever tool one wants to write in.
Word is, be design, both a desktop publishing app and a secretarial tool. For book-length writing, it works poorly with long files, the file format is subject to corruption. The docx format is also proprietary and subject to Microsoft's whim; any conversion scheme is a hack (though Pandoc and many others do work adequately). Unless you learn the ins and outs of Word's style scheme (and sometimes even if you do) and follow it slavishly, formatting is often inconsistent and there's no certainty that the styles you apply to make your document to make it look a certain way ensure it looks that way on someone else's machine.
There's no doubt, though, that a Word-compatible word processor needs to be in every writers' toolkit, since it is the standard in the publishing world.
[0] https://www.sfwriter.com/wordstar.htm, scroll down or search for THE LONG-HAND PAGE METAPHOR.
this paper came out a few years ago using super resolution fluorescence and dna origami to track unwinding of dna by single helicase enzymes! its not an easy technique but it is doable with the right equipment (the 2014 Nobel Prize in chemistry was for super resolution microscopy)
From a systems standpoint, the use of mechanical support usually makes sense in the context of being a bridge to somewhere that is not in-hospital, even in the event of non-recovery. At least where I practice, we want to be able to offer a durable device, or transplantation, if you don't recover. If you live in a place where the health system would not offer transplantation (e.g., because of some risk factor like advanced age), then offering ECMO makes less sense because it is not a bridge to anywhere, particularly for VA ECMO.
For VV ECMO, I think there has long been a recognition that people can do OK for an extended period of time (in contrast to VA ECMO, where the risks are higher and there are also destination therapies like ventricular assist devices). And if you're waiting for a lung transplant vs recovery, you may be waiting for quite awhile. To this end, there are special catheters for VV ECMO that facilitate mobility so you can retain some degree of strength and mobility while on ECMO (e.g., https://www.getinge.com/int/product-catalog/avalon-elite-bi-... ).
I'm closer to VA ECMO than to VV ECMO (but do neither); still, your comments ring more true for me about VV ECMO (which again I think is the subject of this article), whereas I think that patient risk + superior bridging/destination strategies really do dominate the VA ECMO discussion.
VV ECMO, on the other hand, is used purely for gas exchange (O2 and CO2) due to respiratory failure. Much of the debate in the critical care community is centered around which circumstances and patients derive the most benefit from initiation of VV ECMO. The best studied use case, is in the setting of acute respiratory distress syndrome, which is defined by very specific criteria (bilateral noncardiogenic pulmonary edema with ratio of arterial oxygenation partial pressure to fraction of inspired oxygen less than 300 mmHg). The EOLIA trial published in NEJM in 2018 looked at early initiation of VV ECMO in patients with severe ARDS [1]. It demonstrated no mortality benefit of ECMO, however many say that the study was not appropriately powered as the assumptions used to design the study were from 2008 when mortality from ARDS was much higher. Re-analysis of the data from the EOLIA trial using bayesian methods suggests that there might actually some benefit to early initiation of ECMO [2]
1. https://www.wikijournalclub.org/wiki/EOLIA
2. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2709620
I found a project that started the reverse engineering process on a popular bluray drive [1] but it really looks like an uphill slog against undocumented CPUs and motor control chips among other obstacles. Anyone know of any other resources for reusing the existing hardware but modifying the control software?
https://hackaday.io/project/9205-blubeam-a-scanning-laser-mi...
https://hackaday.com/2019/11/12/tearing-down-a-ps3-blu-ray-d...
The equivalent, if you were clever and building things from components, would cost many thousands of dollars and engineering time and never be as reliable.
I'm still looking for a replacement for conventional motorized microscope stages (like https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=30... but for $150 instead of $1500).
Heres a decent open source? stage that i adapted for one of my projects in the past. Resolution is 1 micron laterally. If i remember correctly they address several issues including stepper motor backlash and micro-stepping. Cost can be well below the $1000 they quote depending on the parts you choose, or e.g. if you do only two axis (xy) stage instead of three (xyz)
Using an FFT we could get that phase lag at 40 kHz and back out the % oxygen in exhaled breath! Typical oxygen sensors at the time were not anywhere near fast enough to do that.