There’s an old adage in photography that the best camera in the world is the one in your hand when the shot presents itself, but there’s no doubt that a better camera makes a difference to the quality of the final image. Among decent quality cameras the Leica rangefinder models have near cult-like status, but the problem is for would-be Leica owners that they carry eye-watering prices. [Cristian Băluță] approached this problem in s special way, by crafting a Leica-style body for a Panasonic Lumix camera. Given the technology relationship between the Japanese and German companies, we can see the appeal.

While the aesthetics of a Leica are an important consideration, the ergonomics such as the position of the lens on the body dictated the design choices. He was fortunate that the internal design of the Lumix gave plenty of scope for re-arrangement of parts, given that cameras are often extremely packed internally. Some rather bold surgery to the Lumix mainboard and a set of redesigned flex PCBs result in all the parts fitting in the CNC machined case, and the resulting camera certainly looks the part.

The write-up is in part a journey through discovering the process of getting parts manufactured, but it contains a lot of impressive work. Does the performance of the final result match up to its looks? We’ll leave you to be the judge of that. Meanwhile, take a look at another Leica clone.

hackaday.com/2026/01/08/its-no…

No matter the item on my list of childhood occupational dreams, one constant ran throughout: I saw myself using an old-fashioned punch clock with the longish time cards and everything. I now realize that I have some trouble with the daily transitions of life. In my childish wisdom, I somehow knew that doing this one thing would be enough to signify the beginning and end of work for the day, effectively putting me in the mood, and then pulling me back out of it.

But that day never came. Well, it sort of did this year. I realized a slightly newer dream of working at a thrift store, and they use something that I feel like I see everywhere now that I’ve left the place — a system called UKG that uses mag-stripe cards to handle punches. No it was not the same as a real punch clock, not that I have experience with a one. And now I just want to use one even more, to track my Hackaday work and other projects. At the moment, I’m torn between wanting to make one that uses mag-stripe cards or something, and just buying an old punch clock from eBay.

I keep calling it a ‘punch clock’, but it has a proper name, and that is the Bundy clock. I soon began to wonder how these things could both keep exact time mechanically, but also create a literal inked stamp of said time and date. I pictured a giant date stamper, not giant in all proportions, but generally larger than your average handheld one because of all the mechanisms that surely must be inside the Bundy clock. So, how do these things work? Let’s find out.

Bundy’s Wonder

Since the dawn of train transportation and the resulting surge of organized work during the industrial revolution, employers have had a need to track employees’ time. But it wasn’t until the late 1880s that timekeeping would become so automatic.
An early example of a Bundy clock that used cards, made by National Time Recorder Co. Ltd. Public domain via Wikipedia
Willard Le Grand Bundy was a jeweler in Auburn, New York who invented a timekeeping clock in 1888. A few years later, Willard and his brother Harlow formed a company to mass-produce the clocks.

By the early 20th century, Bundy clocks were in use all over the world to monitor attendance. The Bundy Manufacturing Company grew and grew, and through a series of mergers, became part of what would become IBM. They sold the time-keeping business to Simplex in 1958.

Looking at Willard Le Grand Bundy’s original clock, which appears to be a few feet tall and demonstrates the inner workings quite beautifully through a series of glass panels, it’s no wonder that it is capable of time-stamping magic.

Part of that magic is evident in the video below. Workers file by the (more modern) time clock and operate as if on autopilot, grabbing their card from one set of pockets, inserting it willy-nilly into the machine, and then tucking it in safely on the other side until lunch. This is the part that fascinates me the most — the willy-nilly insertion part. How on Earth does the clock handle this? Let’s take a look.

youtube.com/embed/kCpWF5UXfQ4?…

Okay, first of all, you probably noticed that the video doesn’t mention Willard Le Grand Bundy at all, just some guy named Daniel M. Cooper. So what gives? Well, they both invented time-recording machines, and just a few years apart.

The main difference is that Bundy’s clock wasn’t designed around cards, but around keys. Employees carried around a metal key with a number stamped on it. When it was time clock in or out, they inserted the key, and the machine stamped the time and the key number on a paper roll. Cooper’s machine was designed around cards, which I’ll discuss next. Although the operation of Bundy’s machine fell out of fashion, the name had stuck, and Bundy clocks evolved slightly to use cards.

Plotting Time

You would maybe think of time cards as important to the scheme, but a bit of an afterthought compared with the clock itself. That’s not at all the case with Cooper’s “Bundy”. It was designed around the card, which is a fixed size and has rows and columns corresponding to days of the week, with room for four punches per day.
An image from Bundy’s patent via Google Patents
Essentially, the card is mechanically indexed inside the machine. When the card is inserted in the top slot, it gets pulled straight down by gravity, and goes until it hits a fixed metal stop that defines vertical zero. No matter how haphazardly you insert the card, the Bundy clock takes card of things. Inside the slot are narrow guides that align the card and eliminate drift. Now the card is essentially locked inside a coordinate system.

So, how does it find the correct row on the card? You might think that the card moves vertically, but it’s actually the punching mechanism itself that moves up and down on a rack-and-pinion system. This movement is driven by the timekeeping gears of the clock itself, which plot the times in the correct places as though the card were a piece of graph paper.

In essence, the time of day determined the punch location on the card, which wasn’t a punch in the hole punch sense, but a two-tone ink stamp from a type of bi-color ribbon you can still get online.

There’s a date wheel that selects the row for the given day, and a time cam to select the column. The early time clocks didn’t punch automatically — the worker had to pull a lever. When they did so, the mechanism would lock onto the current time, and the clock would fire a single punch at the card at the given coordinates.

Modern Time

Image via Comp-U-Charge
By the mid-century, time clocks had become somewhat simpler. No longer did the machine do the plotting for you. Now you put them in sideways, in the front, and use the indicator to get the punch in the right spot. It’s not hard to imagine why these gave way to more modern methods like fingerprint readers, or in my case, mag-stripe cards.

This is the type of time clock I intend to buy for myself, though I’m having trouble deciding between the manual model where you get to push a large button like this one, and the automatic version. I’d still like to build a time clock, too, for all the finesse and detail it could have by comparison. So honestly, I’ll probably end up doing both. Perhaps you’ll read about it on these pages one day.

hackaday.com/2026/01/08/the-ti…

The Wii U running Mario Kart with the Gamepad duplicating the main screen. (Credit: MattKC, YouTube)
How hard would it be to clone the Wii U gamepad, the quirky controller with its unique embedded screen? This is the question that [MattKC] faced as he noticed the complete lack of Wii U gamepad replacements from either Nintendo or third-parties, leading him down the rabbit hole of answering said question.

Although unloved and even despised in compared to the Nintendo Wii, the Wii U was a solid system in its own right. One of its interesting additions was the gamepad controller, whose screen games used for features like a private screen during multiplayer and 3DS-like map screens. Its main weakness is however that the Wii U gamepad was considered an irreplaceable part of the console, which is obviously not fun if your gamepad breaks and your console along with it.

The Wii U console and gamepad communicate via 5 GHz 802.11n WiFi, but in order to deter other parties from simply hopping onto the access point, Nintendo slightly obfuscated this WiFi standard. Specifically the WPA authentication was modified by a byte swap in the PTK, rendering every existing WiFi stack incompatible with the Wii U.

Vanilla Wii U running on Windows 10 with the network pipe in a Linux VM. (Credit: MattKC, YouTube)
Knowing this, the key is to use a platform that allows one to pre-break WPA in a similar fashion, such as is possible on e.g. Linux and BSD. Along with the use of the hilariously insecure WPS that is triggered when the gamepad’s sync button is pressed, this enables one to connect a modified Linux system to a Wii U console. After this the console starts sending h.264 (AVC) encoded video to the ‘gamepad’, and a binary packet can be sent back with the controller inputs.

Suffice it to say that this finding was immediately turned into a GitHub project called Vanilla Wii U, that enables a Steam Deck to be used as a gamepad, as well as any Linux – and presumably BSD – system with a compatible WiFi adapter. This latter point is key, as the non-standard authentication method has to be bypassed in software. This means for example that an un-modded Nintendo Switch cannot be used either.

The technical challenges combined with the systems relatively low popularity explain why third-party gamepads never appeared. However, now that the Wii U is a retro console, these efforts are essential for keeping these consoles working. We’d love to see the PlayStation Portal get modded into being a Wii U gamepad, since it’s basically a more limited clone of the same concept.

youtube.com/embed/jlbcKuDEBw8?…

hackaday.com/2026/01/08/the-is…

A talk, The Unreasonable Effectiveness of the Fourier Transform, was presented by [Joshua Wise] at Teardown 2025 in June last year. Click-through for the notes or check out the video below the break for the one hour talk itself.

The talk is about Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) which is the backbone for radio telecommunications these days. [Joshua] tries to take an intuitive view (rather than a mathematical view) of working in the frequency domain, and trying to figure out how to “get” what OFDM is (and why it’s so important). [Joshua] sent his talk in to us in the hope that it would be useful for all skill levels, both folks who are new to radio and signal processing, and folks who are well experienced in working in the frequency domain.

If you think you’ve seen “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of $TOPIC” before, that’s because hacker’s can’t help but riff on the original The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, wherein a scientist wonders why it is that mathematical methods work at all. They seem to, but how? Or why? Will they always continue to work? It’s a mystery.

Hidden away in the notes and at the end of his presentation, [Joshua] notes that every year he watches The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT): Most Ingenious Algorithm Ever? and every year he understands a little more.

If you’re interested in OFDM be sure to check out AI Listens To Radio.

youtube.com/embed/9k1Wu69Gw4w?…

hackaday.com/2026/01/07/the-un…

After previously putting carbon fiber-reinforced PLA filament under the (electron) microscope, the [I built a thing] bloke is back with a new video involving PLA-CF, this time involving co-extrusion rather than regular dispersed chopped CF. This features a continuous CF core that is enveloped by PLA, with a sample filament spool sent over by BIQU in the form of their CarbonCore25 filament.

In the previous video chopped CF in PLA turned out to be essentially a contaminant, creating voids and with no integration of the CF into the polymer matrix. Having the CF covered by PLA makes the filament less abrasive to print, which is a definitely advantage, but does it help with the final print’s properties? Of note is that this is still chopped CF, just with a longer fiber length (0.3-0.5 mm).

Samples of the BIQU filament were printed on a Bambu Lab H2D printer with AMS. In order to create a clean fracture surface, a sample was frozen in liquid nitrogen to make it easy to snap. After this it was coated with gold using a gold sputtering system to prepare it for the SEM.

Carbon fiber in PLA after FDM printing, showing clear voids. (Credit: I built a thing, YouTube)
Compared to the finer chopped CF PLA-CF, what is notable here is that CF is not present between the layers, which is a good thing as this degrades layer adhesion significantly. Less good is that the same lack of polymer matrix integration is visible here, with the PLA clearly detaching from the CF and leaving behind voids.

This shows that BIQU’s PLA-CF filament fails to address the fundamental problem with PLA-CF of extremely poor matrix integration. To verify this, an undisturbed sample was put into the Micro CT scanner.

Fascinating about the Micro CT findings was that there is carbon black in the filament, which is ironically highly abrasive.

Also in the images were again what looked like air bubbles, much like in the previous video’s results. These bubbles turned out to be always linked to a CF strand, which could be due to how the PLA-CF mixture cools with the mismatch between the solid CF inside the still liquid PLA.

After a series of mechanical tests on the printed samples, the conclusion is that the part is stiffer by about 15% and due to the CF contaminant not intruding between layers it’s also better than typical PLA-CF. Of course, regular PLA outperforms both types of PLA-CF in most tests by a considerable margin, so most people are probably still better off with regular PLA.

youtube.com/embed/m7JAOi4JnBs?…

hackaday.com/2026/01/07/co-ext…

You don’t see them much anymore, but there was a time when any hobbyist who dealt with RF probably had a grid dip meter. The idea was to have an oscillator and measure the grid current as it coupled to external circuits. At resonance, the grid current would go down or dip, hence the name. In the hands of someone who knew how to use it, the meter could measure inductance, capacitance, tuned circuits, antennas, and more. [Thomas] takes a peek inside a homebrew unit from the 1950s in a recent video you can see below.

These meters often have a few things in common. They usually have a plug-in coil near the top and a big tuning capacitor. Of course, there’s also a meter. You have to pick the right coil for the frequency of interest, which both sets the oscillator frequency range and couples to the circuit under test.

The device has an odd case for a homebrew instrument. Whoever made it was an excellent metalworker. Inside was a neatly built circuit with an EC-81 triode and a unique selenium rectifier.

It would be nice to know who the unknown builder was, but with a bit of coaxing, the device still worked just fine. Of course, these days, you have many better options, but it is amazing what all this relatively simple device could do.

We’ve covered how these meters work before, including some pictures from our own benches.

youtube.com/embed/IXj_BxmdY2E?…

hackaday.com/2026/01/07/diy-gr…

WELCOME BACK TO THE MONTHLY free editionof Digital Politics.I'm Mark Scott, and Happy New Year!

As I plan for the year ahead, I'm looking to arrange more in-person events — mostly because it's great to connect with people in real life. If that sounds something you'd be interested in, please fill out this survey to help my planning.

Just as the last newsletterlooked back over what happened in 2025, this first edition of the new year focuses on how global tech policy will evolve over the next 12 months. I've skipped the clichés — 'AI will consume everything,' 'Washington and Brussels won't get along' — to highlight macro trends that, imo, will underpin what will likely be a bumpy road ahead.

Some of my predictions will be wrong. That's OK — no one's perfect.

What follows is my best guess at the topics which will dominate 2026 at a time when geopolitics, technology and economic competitiveness have become intertwined like never before.

Let's get started:

The end of US digital leadership?

AS THE LAST WEEK HAS SHOWN, we're living through a very different reality for the United States' standing in the world compared to any time since the 19th century. Donald Trump's administration has blown hot and cold on digital policy, often preferring the analogue geopolitics of traditional Great Powers over the wonkery associated with artificial intelligence governance and digital public infrastructure.

Yet Washington will assert itself in global digital policymaking circles in three ways during 2026. How the rest of the (democratic) world responds will determine if the US can still hold onto the claim of leading the free world. Or, in a once-in-a–generation shift, will other countries will start to form different, non-US alliances that will increasingly sideline the Trump administration and other US lawmakers/officials?

I'm still not sure how this will play out. But I'm increasingly coming to terms that as much as non-US officials/politicians want to maintain close ties with the world's largest economy, the last 12 months has cemented many people's view that the US no longer holds a leadership position on tech policy (if, frankly, it ever did.)

But I'm skipping steps.

Thanks for reading the free monthly version of Digital Politics. Paid subscribers receive at least one newsletter a week. If that sounds like your jam, please sign up here.

Here's what paid subscribers read in December:
— How the child online safety battle is a proxy for a wider battle around digital platforms; The European Union is not shifting its stance on tech because of the United States; Here's the price of what your personal data is worth. More here.
— Exclusive polling from YouGov on what Europeans think about tech policy; What the White House's National Security Strategy means for US tech policy; How Washington linked digital to a spate of new trade/tariff deals. More here.
— How Australia's social media ban is a response to policymakers' lack of understanding about how social media works; The international implications of the White House's proposed moratorium on AI oversight; The latest rankings of AI models, based on transparency indicators. More here.
— The five lessons about global digital policymaking that I learned in 2025. More here.

First, Washington will likely take a vocal position in promoting the US "AI Stack" to the rest of the world. That includes connecting future tariff/trade deals with pledges from third-party countries to not pass comprehensive (or any?) AI regulation or legislation. It will also see US industry work hand-in-glove with the Trump administration, via the US Commerce Department, to offer financing support so that other governments can buy the latest wares from Nvidia, Microsoft and OpenAI. Those companies don't exactly need state-backed financing to make such deals.

This combination will stand in stark contrast to what Europe and China are similarly doing to promote their own AI stacks, at home and abroad. It will also likely force countries to pick a side — either accept the current US approach of no regulation and US infrastructure, or be perceived as a potential enemy to American "AI dominance."

Second, expect a more vocal pushback against non-US competition rules (aka: the European Union's Digital Markets Act) and any form of online safety legislation (aka: the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act.)

As I explained in the last newsletter, non-US digital antitrust enforcement is a bigger issue than the "Culture Wars" dog whistling associated with unproven claims that online safety rules are akin to free speech censorship. But as other countries like Brazil and Australia push aggressively ahead with checks on social media's power, as well as the ongoing enforcement of the EU's DMA and the UK's Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, Washington will likely call out these countries in ways that force local officials to choose a side.

Many will not want to be put in that position. But just as we saw with US officials' sabre-rattling when the EU fined X $130 million under its Digital Services Act, upcoming enforcement actions (via online safety and digital competition legislation) will lead to similarly vocal rebuttals from Washington. At that point, non-US policymakers need to make a choice: either implement local laws or kow-tow to Washington's demands.

Third, the US will almost certainly connect the EU's digital rulebook, including the soon to be pared-back AI Act, with the simmering transatlanic trade war. It's hard to see how that makes much sense, given the US' trade surplus, in services, with the 27-country bloc. But Washington has already voiced concerns that the EU's digital legislation equates to so-called non-tariff trade measures. This year will see such talk turn into action, potentially via increased tariffs on Europe's non-digital goods (where the bloc runs a trade surplus with the US).

If/when that happens, EU officials will again be put in a tough spot. They will have to choose to shift gears on digital rulemaking — all in the name of saving French cheese makers or German auto parts manufacturers from hefty tariff hikes — or live with the consequences of bringing the so-called "Brussels Effect" into reality.

The rise of China as the internet governor

I WILL ADMIT I'M NO CHINA EXPERT. But even with my non-China focus, it's hard not to see Beijing taking an ever increasing leadership position on internet governance in 2026.

Even for me, this may sound geeky. Bear with me.

Internet governance (and all the global standards that come with it) is the backbone of how the current digital world works. For decades, it was the US that led, globally, to shape those conversations around an open, interoperable internet which has become the game-changing technology that we all know and love.

Yet over the last decade, China has positioned itself as an increasingly important player. It has reshaped the conversation so that governments — and not other stakeholders like industry and civil society — are the key decisionmakers in how the next stage of internet governance protocols are negotiated.

This year will be when Beijing's steady rise as the go-to internet standards provider comes into its own.

In part, that's down to the significant pullback from Washington and a failure by other democratic countries to fill the breach left by the Trump administration's decision to turn its back on such multistakeholder negotiations. It also has a lot to do with China's clever diplomacy which has seen the world's second largest economy align itself with many Global Majority countries to create a coalition of the willing behind Beijing's authoritarian approach to internet governance.

Much of this year will be about framing China's state-first approach ahead of the upcoming World Radiocommunication Conference next year in Shanghai. This four-year event is about finalizing an international treaty for how global radio airwaves (central to mobile telecommunication) are divvied up between countries. For a much more in-depth understanding of why this matters, read this.

That set-piece event will be preceded, in 2026, with a full-court press from Beijing — especially within United Nations agencies where tech policy has taken on increased importance — to cement a state-first approach to internet governance. Without Washington to hold the line (and other democratic countries stepping into that position), Beijing will have much of the chessboard to itself.

This closed-doors diplomacy will define how much of the internet over the next decade will be created. Mostly in China's image.

The AI slop cometh for elections

TWO YEARS AGO, I WROTE A SERIES OF STORIESthat asked everyone to calm down about the impact of artificial intelligence on the election-palazoo that was 2024.

Now I come with a different rallying cry: it's time to freak out.

I still find it hard to suggest AI will unfairly skew the outcome of any election this year. That doesn't give people enough credit for the complex decisions that we all go through in deciding who to vote for. Just because you see some form of election-related AI slop on social media doesn't mean, in general, that you'll change the way that you'll vote for a candidate.

Where I am concerned, however, is the level of sophistication that such AI-generated now represents. It's not just the fact people can upload their images to OpenAI's Sora 2 and go crazy. It's also that digital tricksters (or opposing candidates) can bombard social media with such convincing fakery that some voters will start to question everything that they read/see/listen to online.

Here's a stat for you. In 2025, more than 150 YouTube channels accumulated 5.3 million followers and created roughly 56,000 videos, with combined total views of almost 1.2 billion, that attacked British prime minister Keir Starmer with AI-generated fakery, according to a report from Reset Tech, an advocacy group. That, unfortunately, is not a unique event after politicians from Ireland to the Netherlands to the US and Pakistan also were targeted via AI slop to undermine their campaigns.

Fast-forward to later this year, and the 2026 US mid-terms look set to be defined as the AI slop election cycle, mostly due to the lack of legal checks on how such AI fakery can spread across social media within the US (despite a series of voluntary corporate pledges to combat this threat.)

Many of these posts will be so outlandish as to be called out, almost immediately. But it's the slow drip of AI slop into our collective election mindset that worries me. As with all types of disinformation, it's not a singular piece of content that you need to debunk. It's the cavalcade of ongoing and repeated attempts to undermine people's trust in electoral processes — this time, via AI slop — that has me freaking out.

One AI-generated falsehood about a candidate is one thing. But if you do that at scale (and now, almost at zero cost), as well as use AI tools to generate legitimate electoral material, then the dividing line between real and fake becomes so blurry as to not matter anymore.

Unfortunately, this year will be the turning point into such mass election-related AI slop.

The protection of kids online get real

WE'RE LESS THAN A MONTH INTO Australia's effort to keep anyone under 16 years of age off (most) social media. It's still too early to gauge the impact. But from such bans popping up from Virginia to Malaysia to countries enacting separate legislation to determine the age of people accessing some online services, 2026 marks when policymakers' attempts to keep kids safe online become real.

Personally, I would prefer to embed 'safety by design' principles across all of these services so that everyone, and not just children, are protected online.

But officials and lawmakers have decided that kids should receive enhanced protection, and that will have both positive and negative consequences over the next 12 months. Either way, those who have promoted such checks will have to grapple with such policymaking efforts that will inevitably lead to unexpected outcomes.

One thing is clear: the age of anonymity online is over.

Sign up for Digital Politics

Thanks for getting this far. Enjoyed what you've read? Why not receive weekly updates on how the worlds of technology and politics are colliding like never before. The first two weeks of any paid subscription are free.

Subscribe
Email sent! Check your inbox to complete your signup.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Expect to be asked, repeatedly, to prove your age when attempting to sign into popular digital services (if you haven't already done so.) Many of these requests will come via privacy-conscious mechanisms that will involve you providing some form of ID — or allowing your device to take a photo of your image — that will be quickly deleted once it has been verified by a third-party provider.

That, in theory, is how it is supposed to work. But technology has a sneaky way of not working how it is supposed to. And when it comes to people's personal data, such sensitive information is likely to be misused/mishandled in ways that endangers people's privacy online. I don't know exactly how that will play out. But if history has taught us anything, it's that sensitive data has a tendency of leaking out in ways that people don't expect. The quick rush to prove people's age online is unlikely to be any different.

That's the downside. Now the upside.

By narrowing the scope of online safety protections, lawmakers worldwide are about to provide us a live testbed to determine which privacy-by-design principles work — and which ones don't.

Does the banning of teenagers' data from serving up targeted ads make a difference? We're going to find out. Does it make sense to keep teenagers off TikTok until they can drive (in the US, at least)? Countries will give us that answer. Do facial recognition technologies provide accuracy when determining someone's age? We'll know pretty soon.

I still remain massively skeptical that such kid-focused online safety efforts will make the overall internet a better place to be. Nor do I think children will overly benefit from such well-meaning policymaking. But by throwing the kitchen sink at the problem in 2026, at least policymakers will provide some level of quantifiable evidence to hopefully tweak existing, and future, rules aimed at protecting children from the worst abuse online.

What I'm reading

— Several US tech giants altered their terms of service over the holiday period in ways that potentially cemented their power over the digital world, argues Dion Wiggins.

— So-called 'data poisoning', or where large language model's training data is manipulated to affect its behavior, is becoming an increasing risk, based on a report from The Alan Turing Institute.

— After the US administration imposes visa restrictions on 5 European researchers and ex-officials, one of those individuals, Imran Ahmed, sued to stay in the country. This is his legal appeal.

— AI systems ability to accurately fact-check live events remains poor and can lead to harmful outcomes, according to this first-person account from a US official.

— Europe must pursue a dual strategy of promoting local technology providers while also maintaining close ties to non-EU tech companies are part of its digital sovereignty agenda, claim two German national security officials in Atlantik-Brücke

digitalpolitics.co/newsletter0…

Nitrous oxide’s high-speed abilities don’t end with racing cars, as it’s a powerful enough oxidizer to be a practical component of rocket propellant. Since [Markus Bindhammer] is building a hybrid rocket engine, in his most recent video he built and tested a convenient nitrous oxide dispenser.

The most commercially available form of nitrous oxide is as a propellant for whipped cream, for which it is sold as “cream chargers,” basically small cartridges of nitrous oxide which fit into cream dispensers. Each cartridge holds about eight grams of gas, or four liters at standard temperature and pressure. To use these, [Markus] bought a cream dispenser and disassembled it for the cartridge fittings, made an aluminium adapter from those fittings to a quarter-inch pipe, and installed a valve. As a quick test, he fitted a canister in, attached it to a hose, lit some paraffin firelighter, and directed a stream of nitrous oxide at it, upon which it burned much more brightly and aggressively.

It’s not its most well-known attribute in popular culture, but nitrous oxide’s oxidizing potential is behind most of its use by hackers, whether in racing or in rocketry. [Markus] is no stranger to working with nitrogen oxides, including the much more aggressively oxidizing nitrogen dioxide.

youtube.com/embed/x2kbrF5kHxI?…

hackaday.com/2026/01/07/testin…

Many projects on these pages do clever things with video. Whether it’s digital or analogue, it’s certain our community can push a humble microcontroller to the limit of its capability. But sometimes the terminology is a little casually applied, and in particular with video there’s an obvious example. We say “PAL”, or “NTSC” to refer to any composite video signal, and perhaps it’s time to delve beyond that into the colour systems those letters convey.

Know Your Sub-carriers From Your Sync Pulses

A close-up on a single line of composite video from a Raspberry Pi.

A video system of the type we’re used to is dot-sequential. It splits an image into pixels and transmits them sequentially, pixel by pixel and line by line. This is the same for an analogue video system as it is for many digital bitmap formats. In the case of a fully analogue TV system there is no individual pixel counting, instead the camera scans across each line in a continuous movement to generate an analogue waveform representing the intensity of light. If you add in a synchronisation pulse at the end of each line and another at the end of each frame you have a video signal.

But crucially it’s not a composite video signal, because it contains only luminance information. It’s a black-and-white image. The first broadcast TV systems as for example the British 405 line and American 525 line systems worked in exactly this way, with the addition of a separate carrier for their accompanying sound.

The story of the NTSC colour TV standard’s gestation in the late 1940s is well known, and the scale of their achievement remains impressive today. NTSC, and PAL after it, are both compatible standards, which means they transmit the colour information alongside that black-and-white video, such that it doesn’t interfere with the experience of a viewer watching on a black-and-white receiver. They do this by adding a sub-carrier modulated with the colour information, at a frequency high enough to minimise its visibility on-screen. for NTSC this is 3.578MHz, while for PAL it’s 4.433MHz. These frequencies are chosen to fall between harmonics of the line frequency. It’s this combined signal which can justifiably be called composite video, and in the past we’ve descended into some of the complexities of its waveform.

It’s Your SDR’s I and Q, But Sixty Years Earlier

Block diagram of an NTSC colour decoder as found in a typical 1960s American TV set. Color TV Servicing, Buchsbaum, Walter H, 1968.

An analogue colour TV camera produces three video signals, one for each of the red, green, and blue components of the picture. Should you combine all three you arrive at that black-and-white video waveform, referred to as the luminance, or as Y. The colour information is then reduced to two further signals by computing the difference between the red and the luminance, or R-Y, and the blue and the luminance, or B-Y. These are then phase modulated as I-Q vectors onto the colour sub-carrier in the same way as happens in a software-defined radio.

At the receiver end, the decoder isolates the sub-carrier, I-Q demodulates it, and then rebuilds the R, G, and B, with a summing matrix. To successfully I-Q demodulate the sub-carrier it’s necessary to have a phase synchronised crystal oscillator, this synchronisation is achieved by sending out a short burst of the colour sub-carrier on its own at the start of the line. The decoder has a phase-locked-loop in order to perform the synchronisation.

So, Why The PAL Delay Line?

A PAL decoder module from a 1970s ITT TV. The blue component in the middle is the delay line. Mister rf, CC BY-SA 4.0.

There in a few paragraphs, is the essence of NTSC colour television. How is PAL different? In essence, PAL is NTSC, with some improvements to correct phase errors in the resulting picture. PAL stands for Phase Alternate Line, and means that the phase of those I and Q modulated signals swaps every line. The decoder is similar to an NTSC one and indeed an NTSC decoder set to that 4.433MHz sub-carrier could do a job of decoding it, but a fully-kitted out PAL decoder includes a one-line delay line to cancel out phase differences between adjacent lines. Nowadays the whole thing is done in the digital domain in an integrated circuit that probably also decodes other standards such as the French SECAM, but back in the day a PAL decoder was a foot-square analogue board covered in juicy parts highly prized by the teenage me. Since it was under a Telefunken patent there were manufacturers, in particular those from Japan, who would try to make decoders that didn’t infringe on that IP. Their usual approach was to create two NTSC decoders, one for each phase-swapped line.

So if you use “NTSC” to mean “525-line” and “PAL” to mean “625-line”, then everyone will understand what you mean. But make sure you’re including that colour sub-carrier, or you might be misleading someone.

hackaday.com/2026/01/07/how-do…

Once upon a time, a car phone was a great way to signal to the world that you were better than everybody else. It was a clear sign that you had money to burn, and implied that other people might actually consider it valuable to talk to you from time to time.

There was, however, a way to look even more important than the boastful car phone user. You just had to rock up to the parking lot with your very own in-car fax machine.

Dial It Up

Today, the fax machine is an arcane thing only popular in backwards doctor’s offices and much of Japan. We rely on email for sending documents from person A to person B, or fill out forms via dedicated online submission systems that put our details directly in to the necessary databases automatically. The idea of printing out a document, feeding it into a fax machine, and then having it replicated as a paper version at some remote location? It’s positively anachronistic, and far more work than simply using modern digital methods instead.

In 1990, Mercedes-Benz offered a fully-stocked mobile office in the S-Class. You got a phone, fax, and computer, all ready to be deployed from the back seat. Credit: Mercedes-Benz

Back in the early 90s though, the communications landscape looked very different. If you had a company executive out on the road, the one way you might reach them would be via their cell or car phone. That was all well and good if you wanted to talk, but if you needed some documents looked over or signed, you were out of luck.

Even if your company had jumped on the e-mail bandwagon, they weren’t going to be able to get online from a random truck stop carpark for another 20 years or so. Unless… they had a fax in the car! Then, you could simply send them a document via the regular old cellular phone network, their in-car fax would spit it out, and they could go over it and get it back to you as needed.

Of course, such a communications setup was considered pretty high end, with a price tag to match. You could get car phones on a wide range of models from the 1980s onwards, but faxes came along a little later, and were reserved for the very top-of-the-line machines.

Mercedes-Benz was one of the first automakers to offer a remote fax option in 1990, but you needed to be able to afford an S-Class to get it. With that said, you got quite the setup if you invested in the Büro-Kommunikationssystem package. It worked via Germany’s C-Netz analog cellular system, and combined both a car phone and an AEG Roadfax fax machine. The phone was installed in the backrest of one of the front seats, while the fax sat in the fold-down armrest in the rear. The assumption was that if you were important enough to have a fax in the car, you were also important enough to have someone else driving for you. You also got an AEG Olyport 40/20 laptop integrated into the back of the front seats, and it could even print to the fax machine or send data via the C-Netz connection.

BMW would go on to offer faxes in high-end 7 Series and limousine models. Credit: BMW

Not to be left out, BMW would also offer fax machines on certain premium 7 Series and L7 limousine models, though availability was very market-dependent. Some would stash a fax machine in the glove box, others would integrate it into the back rest of one of the front seats. Toyota was also keen to offer such facilities in its high-end models for the Japanese market. In the mid-90s, you could purchase a Toyota Celsior or Century with a fax machine secreted in the glove box. It even came with Toyota branding!

Ultimately, the in-car fax would be a relatively short-lived option in the luxury vehicle space, for several reasons. For one thing, it only became practical to offer an in-car fax in the mid-80s, when cellular networks started rolling out across major cities around the world.

By the mid-2000s, digital cell networks were taking over, and by the end of that decade, mobile internet access was trivial. It would thus become far more practical to use e-mail rather than a paper-based fax machine jammed into a car. Beyond the march of technology, the in-car fax was never going to be a particularly common selection on the options list. Only a handful of people ever really had a real need to fax documents on the go. Compared to the car phone, which was widely useful to almost anyone, it had a much smaller install base. Fax options were never widely taken up by the market, and had all but disappeared by 2010.

youtube.com/embed/0vbvu7EiWNA?…

The Toyota Celsior offered a nice healthy-sized fax machine in the 1990s, but it did take up the entire glove box.

These days, you could easily recreate a car-based fax-type experience. All you’d need would be a small printer and scanner, ideally combined into a single device, and a single-board computer with a cellular data connection. This would allow you to send and receive paper documents to just about anyone with an Internet connection. However, we’ve never seen such a build in the wild, because the world simply doesn’t run on paper anymore. The in-car fax was thus a technological curio, destined only to survive for maybe a decade or so in which it had any real utility whatsoever. Such is life!

Have an old Android device collecting dust somewhere that you’d like to put to better use? [Electronoobs] shows us how to make a Masked Stereolithography Apparatus (MSLA) printer for cheap using screens salvaged from old Android phones or tablets.

[Electronoobs] wanted to revisit his earlier printer with all the benefits of hindsight, and this is the result. The tricky bit, which is covered in depth in the video below the break, is slicing up the model into graphics for each layer, so that these layers can be rendered by the LCD for each layer during the print.

The next tricky bit, once your layer graphics are in hand, is getting them to the device. This build does that by installing a custom Android app which connects to a web app hosted on the ESP32 microcontroller controlling the print, and the app has a backchannel via a USB OTG adapter installed in the device. [Electronoobs] notes that there are different and potentially better ways by which this full-duplex communication can be achieved, but he is happy to have something that works.

If you’re interested in resin printer tech, be sure to check out Continuous Printing On LCD Resin Printer: No More Wasted Time On Peeling? Is It Possible? and Resin Printer Temperature Mods And Continuous IPA Filtration.

youtube.com/embed/fu2NBy5zDxI?…

hackaday.com/2026/01/07/build-…

Over on [Ken Shirriff]’s blog is a tricky Commodore PET repair: tracking down 6 1/2 bad chips. WARNING: contains 8-bit assembly code.

The Trinity of 1977 which started the personal computer revolution were the Apple II, the Commodore PET, and the TRS-80. In this project it’s a failing Commodore PET which is being restored.

In the video below the break you can see [Ken Shirriff] and [CuriousMarc] team up to crack this tough nut. Resolving the various issues required a whole heap of software and equipment. Most notably a Keysight DSOX3104T oscilloscope, a Retro Chip Tester Pro, an old Agilent 1670G logic analyzer (this thing is rocking a 3.5″ floppy disk drive!), an old Agilent 54622A oscilloscope (also rocking a floppy drive!), a Data I/O 29B Universal Programmer With UniPak 2 insert, and the disassembly software Ghidra.

In the end there were 6 (and a half) bad chips which needed to be discovered and then replaced. This project is a reminder that it’s nice to have the right tools for the job!

If you’re interested in the Commodore PET you might like to read A Tricky Commodore PET Repair And A Lesson About Assumptions or Tracking Satellites With A Commodore PET.

youtube.com/embed/nxilekpLp6g?…

hackaday.com/2026/01/06/this-8…

If you’ve ever heard the sound of an aircraft passing overhead and looked at an online plane tracker to try and figure out what it was, then you’ve interacted with ADS-B. It’s a protocol designed to enable easier aircraft monitoring, and it just so happens you can decode it yourself with the right hardware and software — which is how [John McNelly] came to develop ADSBee, an open source ADS-B receiver based around an RP2040.

ADS-B uses on–off keying (OOK) at 1 Mbps, and operates at 1090 MHz. This might seem like a rather difficult protocol to decode on a microcontroller, but the RP2040’s PIO is up to the task. All it takes is a bit of optimization, and a some basic RF components to amplify and digitize the signals.

However, not all aircraft utilize the 1090 MHz ADS-B implementation, and instead use a related protocol called UAT. Operating at 978 MHz, a second receiver is needed for decoding UAT traffic data, which is where the CC1312 comes into play. ADSBee may even be the first open source implementation of a UAT decoder!

What’s quite impressive is the various form factors the module is available in. Ranging from small solder-down modules to weatherproof outdoor base stations, nearly every potential need for an ADS-B receiver is covered. With POE or ESP32 S3 options available, there is no shortage of networking options either!

ADSBees have been placed in numerous locations, ranging from base stations to drones. One user even built out a tiny flight display cluster complete with traffic indicators into an FPV drone.

This isn’t the first time we have seen ADS-B receivers used by drone enthusiasts, but this is certainly the most feature rich and complete receiver we have come across.

hackaday.com/2026/01/07/an-rp2…

There’s a lot of laboratory equipment out there that the casual hobbyist will never need to use, but that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t snap it up if the price is right. That’s what happened when [Tom Verbeure] saw a 1980s digital delay generator at a flea market for $40. Not only is it an excellent way to learn something about these devices, but it also provides a fascinating opportunity to troubleshoot and hopefully fix it. Such was also the case with this Stanford Research Systems (SRS) DG535 that turned out to be not only broken, but even features an apparently previously triggered self-destruct feature.

These devices are pretty basic, with this specimen incorporating a Z80 MPU in addition to digital and analog components to provide a programmable delay with 12.5 nanosecond resolution on its output channels after the input trigger is sensed. For that reason it was little surprise that the problem with the device was with its supply rails, of which a few were dead or out of spec, along with a burned-out trace.

Where the self-destruct feature comes into play is with the use of current boosting resistors around its linear regulators. Although these provide a current boost over what the regulator can provide, their disadvantages include a tendency towards destruction whenever the load on the supply rail decreases. This could for example occur when you’re debugging an issue and leave some of the PCBs disconnected.

Unsurprisingly, this issue caused the same charred trace to reignite during [Tom]’s first repair attempt, but after working up the courage over the subsequent 18 months the second repair attempt went much better, also helped by the presence of the mostly correct original board schematics.

Ultimately the fixes were relatively modest, involving replacing a discrete diode bridge with an integrated one, fixing the -9 V rail with a bodge wire, and replacing the LCD with its busted AC-powered backlight with a modern one with a LED backlight. Fortunately running the 5 V rail at 7 V for a while seemed to have caused no readily observable damage, nor did flipping connectors because of SRS’ inconsistent ‘standards’ for its connector orientations.

Sadly, when [Tom] emailed SRS to inquire about obtaining an updated schematic for this unit — which is currently still being sold new for $4,495 — he merely got told to send his unit in for repair.

hackaday.com/2026/01/07/repair…