China develops new fibre-optic gyroscope that can withstand a range of temperatures
A team of Chinese scientists has reportedly developed a new fibre-optic gyroscope that is stable across a wide range of temperatures. The development could prove crucial for military, deep-sea, or space navigation, where satellite signals can be blocked or are unreliable. Gyroscopes are critical pieces of equipment used in navigation of planes, ships, submarines, and oil rigs.
A gyroscope measures orientation and rotation. Simply put, it tells you which way you're pointing, moving or how you're turning without the need for GPS or satellites. To this end, you can think of it like an extremely accurate internal compass and turn tracker.
Modern high-precision gyroscopes use solid optical fibers that bend light to measure movement. However, these fibers are easily affected by heat, radiation, and magnetic fields, especially in extreme environments.
Unlike traditional gyroscopes that use spinning mechanical parts, fibre-optic gyroscopes detect movement by tracking changes in how light travels through optical fibres.
One widely used type, the interferometric fibre-optic gyroscope (IFOG), offers a simple design with high precision, making it popular in military and civilian applications. However, progress on IFOGs has been limited due to the fibres' physical attributes.
To address the issue, a joint research team from Tianjin Navigation Instruments Research Institute and Jinan University in Guangzhou replaced the solid fibers with hollow air-core fibers, where light travels primarily through air instead of glass. According to the team, the switch to hollow optical fibers makes the gyroscope 10x less sensitive to temperature changes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRIM_uFwdOQ&pp=ygUlaW50ZXJmZXJvbWV0cmljIGZpYnJlLW9wdGljIGd5cm9zY29wZQ%3D%3D
According to the team, the new hollow fibre-optic gyroscope is also less susceptible to magnetic fields and radiation, making it better suited for harsh environments like space or deep-sea drilling.
"We present a groundbreaking navigation-grade interferometric air-core fibre-optic gyroscope," the researchers wrote in the study published last month. This is "the first instance of navigation-grade performance in air-core [fibre-optic gyroscopes]," the team added.
A report in the South China Morning Post (SCMP) cited the scientific team which claimed that the hollow-fiber gyroscope achieved a record accuracy. However, the instrument is not yet as precise as the best-performing traditional gyroscopes. Although it is getting close and has shown far better resistance to environmental issues.
"We have achieved the world record measurement accuracy in air-core fibre gyroscopes, entered the ranks of 'high-precision fibre gyroscopes', and pointed out the direction for further optimisation," said corresponding author Ding Wei, a professor at the Jinan University College of Physics and Optoelectronic Engineering, in an interview to SCMP.
Navigation systems that work without GPS are vital for military, aerospace, and underwater operations. This new tech could lead to smaller, cheaper, and more energy-efficient navigation systems that don't need bulky protective parts.
The team notes that the creation is a step closer to next-gen inertial navigation systems that can function in space, inside mountains, or deep under the sea—places GPS doesn't reach.
"These results represent a significant step towards long-standing promise of high-precision inertial navigation applications with superior environmental adaptability," the researchers stated in their paper.
The study has been published in the journal Nature Communications.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Major US airport announces partnership with Chinese brand that could transform travel experience: 'Showcases a forward-thinking approach'
Global electric vehicle champion BYD is introducing battery-electric shuttle buses to Oakland International Airport in Alameda, California. As the fourth-largest airport in the state, serving around 11 million passengers annually, OAK's incorporation of EVs is sure to make an impact. It is introducing five new K9MD shuttles, each of which seats 42, for passengers and employees. Powered by long-lasting lithium-ion phosphate batteries, these climate-friendly buses release zero tailpipe pollution and are thus a step up from conventional airport shuttles. "This step paves the way for the eventual electrification of the airport's remaining shuttle buses, which are currently powered by renewable natural gas," the airport reported in a May news release. "Fleet electrification will continue over the next decade until OAK reaches a 100% zero-emission shuttle bus fleet." OAK is no stranger to taking eco-conscious initiatives. Both RNG-based vehicles and electric vehicles have significantly less planet-warming impact than those powered by traditional fuels; RNG vehicles achieve this by capturing methane from waste, and EVs do so by cutting reliance on combustion altogether. The electric shuttles align with OAK's mission of long-term sustainability as well as the airport's commitment to smooth, quiet, and comfortable rides for its passengers, per Electrek. By setting a goal of reaching zero emissions sometime in the future, OAK is cutting down on its carbon pollution and the reverberations of the overheating planet, from intensified weather events to global food and public health insecurities. With this latest order, it looks like the Chinese brand BYD — responsible for these new electric shuttles as well as other automobiles worldwide — will soon find itself among leading EV developers in California. "Another lost opportunity for EV makers here in the U.S.," one user commented on Electrek. "This ambitious project showcases a forward-thinking approach to environmental stewardship without compromising on efficiency," the airport noted. Would you buy an EV if it only took 5 minutes to charge? Sign me up No way Depends on the cost Depends how much range it has Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Science Badly Needs Defending Right Now. It Doesn't Need Your Belief.
American science appears to be in free fall. Donald Trump is eviscerating research funding, persecuting the universities on whose contributions countless scientific fields depend, and vastly complicating immigration for foreign scholars, even going so far as to 'aggressively revoke' the visas of Chinese students. His administration has threatened to withdraw Columbia University's accreditation and moved to ban Harvard University from enrolling international students. If the United States was once among the best places on earth to do scientific research—home to some of the strongest universities, robust government investment, a spirit of innovation, and an openness to collaboration—scientists are now fleeing our shores in droves for China, Germany, or just about anywhere else. Many who had dreamed of spending at least part of their careers here are choosing not to come. The institutions—from universities to the relevant government agencies—are in disarray. It may take decades for them to recover. Some of this was predictable. Trump has made no secret of his hatred of immigrants, and certain areas of research—from climate change to racial disparities in health care to vaccines—have been stigmatized as 'woke' in MAGA quarters. But it's stunning that priorities like diabetes and pediatric cancer—hardly culture-war land mines—have been equally crushed by Republicans' cost-cutting rampage. How did we get here? 'Trump' is the correct one-word answer, but it's also true that over the last decade and a half, liberal exhortations to 'believe in science' have not helped. The implication is that if you don't believe in it, you're stupid. Trust the experts. Trust Harvard. It should surprise no one that this was not a winning line of 2016, Hillary Clinton declared, 'I believe in science,' when she accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. Of course—ominous narrator voice—we all know the outcome of that election. Nevertheless, the slogan caught fire among liberals, and there quickly followed the 2017 and 2018 Marches for Science, inspired by Trump's attacks on climate policy and climate research. The rallies were well attended and well intended, but, as some scientists feared, to many they came across as 'another attack from a condescending elite' and 'a justification for the idea that science is somehow biased.' But the worst was yet to come. During the pandemic, as many Americans, some conservative, some just politically adrift, grew increasingly and often dangerously suspicious of public health recommendations like vaccination, the liberal shrillness on behalf of science reached unprecedented decibels. Reviving Clinton's smug proclamation of 2016, the even more grating 'We believe in science' often appeared on a sign preceded by the scolding reproach 'In this house.' To this day, you can buy pins, T-shirts, mugs, and keychains asserting the belief. And even more cringe variants exist: for example, a T-shirt that says, 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.' More an attitude than an argument, this 'belief in science' claim was snide. It suggested that those on the other side believed in what, witchcraft? Worse, the 'belief' was nearly as impervious to empiricism as its opposition. Few of its loudest adherents would acknowledge nuance or apologize for error, even as it turned out that the disbelieving dummies had at times been correct on some pandemic matters: It was probably never necessary to wear a mask outdoors, schools probably were closed for too long, Covid vaccines may indeed pose some heart risks to young men. These polarized discussions fueled the manifestly unfortunate rise of RFK Jr. and spawned the Make America Healthy Again movement, which has attracted yoga moms and fitness bros alike. Like those who dissented from liberal nostrums during the pandemic, MAHA has been right about some things (microplastics are terrible, our children's mental health is in peril, fluoride in our drinking water has risks as well as benefits) and horribly wrong about others (not vaccinating kids, deliberately allowing bird flu to spread). But the worst thing about 'I believe in science' is its cocky assumption that 'science' can be detached from opinions, interpretations, and, especially, values and politics. That attitude has helped fuel a culture war and left the majority struggling to defend science from the current crew of right-wing wreckers in the White House, who may be wrong about most things but understand that science takes place in an ideological rather than a theological attack on scientists and their institutions is philosophically consistent with his other positions. MAGA hates public goods and collective obligations, as well as foreigners and international cooperation. Without public goods and internationalism, 'science' becomes impossible. The values that MAGA objects to—the grounds on which science is under attack—are precisely the values we must defend. Science requires public money to succeed at scale and is undertaken primarily for the public good. Sure, private companies also do scientific research, but not at the scale that the federal government funds it, and if a private company does something important for society—as Moderna did when it developed Covid vaccines—it's federal government subsidies that make it possible. This system assumes rightly that science benefits all of us. Anyone could need a cure for cancer someday, desire to live in a thriving natural environment, or feel curious about what's going on in outer space. That sense of the public interest is anathema to this White House, which sees little value in the public sector. Trump's worldview is like Margaret Thatcher's—the U.K. prime minister famously said, 'There is no such thing as society'—but his individualism is more extreme because there is no subject more interesting to him, no interest group more pressing, than himself. What good is science to Trump personally? The right also hates science because it requires cooperation across borders. To most effectively advance knowledge and research, individuals from different countries must put their heads together, co-author studies, accept each other's postdoctoral students, visit, immigrate, speak. This sort of exchange makes no sense to MAGA. The assumption of the Trump White House is that people from other countries have nothing to offer us and are, in fact, dangerous to our national security. There's a third, more complicated ideological pillar to Trump's attack on science, and this is anti-elitism. Some science—though hardly the majority—takes place at Ivy League institutions like Harvard. This White House hates such places, not, as it claims, because of 'antisemitism'—MAGA doesn't mind antisemitism and bigotry in other contexts—but because the anti-elitism of attacking the Ivy League always plays well. Selective admissions breed resentment, since most people can't get in. Worse, the Ivies are overwhelmingly dominated by the rich, as extensive studies by The New York Times, Thomas Piketty, and others have found. While the research done by Ivy League scholars is a critical public good, it is also a scandal that institutions more exclusive than most country clubs are allowed to enjoy tax-exempt status and government funding. Those of us to the left of Trump need to welcome a more honest conversation about these institutions. Should they even enjoy nonprofit status? To keep their public funding and tax exemptions, should they have to do more public service? Serve more low-income students, turn their real estate holdings into affordable housing, institute open admissions? Or should they simply be nationalized and run as public institutions? But as usual, the Ivy League is a distraction. Most universities aren't highly selective, many are already public, and most bring substantial economic benefits to their communities. Scientific research is essential to the prosperity of many American cities and towns, where the university is the main employer. College-centered towns are some of the fastest-growing in the United States, and in many places higher education has replaced manufacturing as the industry that brings jobs, money, and vitality. You might say that before this year, science was making America great again. Trump's necrotic attack on all human inquiry imperils all that. What is needed in defense of science is not patronizing assertions of belief but, instead, clear arguments about why we need it. It's odd that the economic rationale is getting short shrift when so many communities depend on STEM and universities. We must also acknowledge that some of the reasons the right hates science are exactly the reasons to defend it. People who don't believe in public goods will not believe in science, but everyone else should. Science saves lives by advancing medicine; millions of Americans know someone whose life or health has been saved by an advance in medical research funded by the federal government. The internationalism of science should also be defended: Bringing the best minds together from around the world is not only crucial for science, it functions as citizen diplomacy, fostering the international understanding and cooperation that is much needed in a world of strife. Harvard University has a P.R. campaign, in defense of itself, making some of these arguments, especially for medical science, but I'm not sure it helps to hear these claims from institutions with so much elitist baggage. Better to hear from Penn State, or the United Auto Workers—full disclosure: my union—which represents not only autoworkers but thousands of scientists, and has been rallying in defense of scientists and science as a good benefiting—and belonging to—the working class. When we fight for science, it's worth going back to the foundations of the value system we are defending. Next month will be the eightieth anniversary of 'Science: The Endless Frontier,' a report made to Franklin Delano Roosevelt by his director for scientific research and development, Vannevar Bush, outlining the critical role that the government should have in the scientific project, and why. In asking for the 1945 report, FDR wrote: 'New frontiers of the mind are before us, and if they are pioneered with the same vision, boldness and drive with which we have waged this war we can create a fuller and more fruitful employment and a fuller and more fruitful life.' That's the kind of energy we need right now.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Wuhan scientist arrested for smuggling toxic parasites into US
A Chinese scientist has been charged with smuggling toxic parasites into the United States. Chengxuan Han, a doctoral student at a university in Wuhan, China, is accused of shipping four separate packages of 'concealed biological material' to individuals associated with the University of Michigan in 2024 and 2025, according to the US attorney's office. Han is the third Chinese national to be arrested for smuggling potentially hazardous material into the university in the last week. She was stopped on June 8 after landing in Detroit, where she was questioned by border patrol officers. She initially lied to the officers about the packages, claiming that they contained plastic cups instead of petri dishes, but eventually she admitted to making 'false statements' and said the packages contained 'biological material related to roundworms', according to the US attorney's office. Roundworms are a type of parasite that can cause a number of illnesses in humans, including diarrhoea and nerve problems. The border officers also found that the contents of her electronic devices had been deleted three days before she arrived in the country. 'The FBI has zero tolerance for those who violate federal law and remains unwavering in our mission to protect the American people,' said Cheyvoryea Gibson, a special agent in charge of the FBI Detroit field office. 'The alleged smuggling of biological materials by Chengxuan Han is a direct threat to public safety and national security, and it severely compromises the integrity of our nation's research institutions.' Han is just the latest Chinese scientist to be accused of serious crimes related to smuggling biological material. On June 3, Yunqing Jian, a scientist at the University of Michigan, and Zunyong Liu, her boyfriend, were both charged with smuggling a toxic fungus for potential agroterrorism uses into the US. The FBI found that both Jian and Liu had done previous work on the same pathogen in China, and Jian had received money directly from the Chinese government for this research. There is so far no indication that Han is connected to the couple, but the common destination of the material does raise questions about the university. While the university has a top life science program, it has also been at the centre of previous controversies involving China. In 2023, five Chinese nationals, who were all undergraduate students at the university, were arrested for allegedly spying on military equipment at Camp Grayling, the US military training centre. The students were part of a joint program with China's Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and following the incident, the University of Michigan announced that it would be ending the partnership. The five were not arrested for espionage but were charged with lying and attempting to cover their tracks. Camp Grayling, the largest National Guard training facility in the US, is one of a few places known to be training Taiwanese troops. China claims Taiwan as its own territory, which the government in Taipei rejects, and has threatened to invade the island on multiple occasions. It is unclear why Jian, Liu, and now Han selected the University of Michigan, but according to court documents, Han had reportedly tried to enter the US on two separate occasions before her arrest, and she was denied entry both times. It has been reported that Han was initially refused a visa to the US in March, largely because she struggled to conduct her interview in English. She was unable to answer basic questions about herself or her research field, the MailOnline reported . Han applied again two weeks later and during her second interview 'spoke credibly about her educational background, current studies, and postgraduate plans', the website claimed. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
