Apple likes magnets. They started out with magnetic laptop chargers and then graduated to a system that magnetically holds the phone, charges it, and can facilitate communication between the phone and a charger or other device. Even if you are like me and have no Apple devices, you can retrofit other phones to use Magsafe accessories. In fact, with a little work, you can build your own devices. Regardless, the technology is a clever and simple hack, and we are just a little sorry we didn’t think of it.

Terms

Using a magnet to attach a phone isn’t a new idea. But, historically, the phone had either a metal back or an adhesive metal plate attached that would stick to the magnet. This wouldn’t necessarily help with charging, but was perfectly fine for holding the device. The problem is, it is hard to wirelessly charge the phone through the metal.

Magsafe can do several different things. Obviously, it can attach the phone magnetically. However, since it is a ring shape, you can still have a charging coil in the middle of the ring. Better still, the Magsafe system will align the phone and charger with a satisfying click when you put them together.

In addition, a Magsafe device can have an NFC communication point just below the ring. This can allow, for example, a phone and a charger to negotiate for current or communicate charge level. For the purposes of this post, I’m mostly thinking about the magnetic attachment. Assuming you have two charging coils and two NFC points aligned, it is easy to figure out how charging and communication take place.

The Magsafe Way

Wireless charging relies on the coils in the charger and the device being reasonably well aligned, otherwise the losses increase rapidly. A simple magnet and plate system would allow you to attach the phone in a variety of ways and that won’t assure that the charging coil will line up.

If you think about how to solve the magnet and charging problem, it might make sense to move the magnets into a circle, leaving the center free for charging. That still doesn’t help with alignment, though. Magsafe actually uses two magnetic rings. One presents a north magnetic pole, and the other presents a south magnetic pole. Obviously, the mating ring has the poles swapped.

Deep into an old Apple Video, you can find the adjacent image of how the whole system goes together, but it hides a lot of detail in the phrase “magnet array.”\

However, Apple has a public document that describes, among other things, all the requirements for working with Magsafe. We imagine there might be more details if you join their Mfi program, but that’s hardly necessary.

Section 37 of the document goes into plenty of detail, including the materials for the magnet, the dimensions, and the positioning. It even covers how to test the various parameters. It reveals that you can have a simple ring if you don’t care about orientation, or incorporate a ring and an alignment magnet to ensure the devices mate in a particular way.

The real key, though, is the cross-sectional views. These show how each ring is made of thin magnets. Keep in mind that this figure is just one part of the ring. There is an identical section across the center of the ring to the right.

If present, the orientation magnet also has multiple magnetic faces. This alignment is perfect for wireless charging since the coils will line up directly. In addition, the NFC connection allows the phone and a compatible charger to negotiate for a faster charge rate.

No Apple, No Problem

These days, you can find cases for many phones that will provide attachment rings. You can also just buy rings. Some rings are metallic, so they’ll stick but don’t necessarily align. For alignment, you need magnets on both sides. You’ll notice that some rings are thicker than others. In general, rings that will be close to their mating ring can be thinner than rings that are made to go inside, for example, a case.

The availability of rings means that you can craft your own accessories or even faux phones (e..g., a ring on your digital meter). If you want charging, you can also get “pucks” that have everything ready to go and insert them into a 3D print like [Alien Gaming] did in the video below.

There are plenty of commercial accessories to inspire you. (Or will they tempt you to buy instead of make?) You can get a notepad and pen, for example, that snaps to the back of your phone. There are camera grips, tripods, wallets, and probably more. [Michael Vance] rounds up some of the stranger ones in the video below.

What cool ideas can you dream up for either Magsafe accessories or hosts? You could probably make a very phone-specific attachment to put a telephoto lens in front of your camera, for example. Keep in mind that you could talk WiFi or Bluetooth to the phone, too, so a satellite phone back could work. Sure, some of these wouldn’t meet the Apple spec, but they could still be done.

If you miss the old-style laptop magnetic connectors, you can roll your own. If you haven’t looked at the Apple documentation, we’ve been impressed with it

In an ideal world, devoid of pesky details like contact resistance and manufacturing imperfections, you would be able to double the current that can be provided to a device by doubling the number of conductors without altering the device’s circuitry, as each conductor would carry the exact same amount of current as its neighbors. Since we do not actually live inside a simplified physics question’s scenario, multi-wire powering of devices comes with a range of headaches, succinctly summarized in the well-known rule that electricity always seeks the path of least resistance.

As recently shown by NVidia with their newly released RTX 50-series graphics cards, failure to provide current balancing between said different conductors will quickly turn it into a practical physics demonstration of this rule. Initially pinned down as an issue with the new-ish 12VHPWR connector that was supposed to replace the 6-pin and 8-pin PCIe power connectors, it turns out that a lack of current balancing is plaguing NVidia GPUs, with predictably melty results when combined with low safety margins.

So what exactly changed that caused what seems to be a new problem, and why do you want multi-wire, multi-phase current balancing in your life when pumping hundreds of watts through copper wiring inside your PC?

Resistance Is Not Futile

In the absence of cheap room-temperature superconducting wires, we have to treat each conductor as a combination of a resistor, inductor and capacitor. These parameters set limitations on properties such as how much current a conductor can carry without changing phase from solid to gaseous. The contact resistance between the conductors of both sides in a connector adds another variable here, especially when a connector wears out or the contacts become corroded.

In the case of the 6-pin and 8-pin PCIe power connector, these are based on the Molex Mini-Fit series, with the commonly used Mini-Fit Plus HCS (high current system) rated for 100 mating cycles in tin plating or 250 cycles in gold, and a current rating of 8.5 A to 10 A per pin depending on whether 18 AWG or 16 AWG wire is used. The much smaller connector of the 12-pin 12VHPWR, and equivalent 12V-2×6, standard is rated for only 30 mating cycles, and 9.5 A per pin. It is based on the Molex Micro-Fit+ connector.

The smaller pin size and lower endurance increases the possibility of poor contact, as first demonstrated with the 12VHPWR connector back in 2022 when NVidia RTX 40-series cards experienced run-away thermal events where this power connector on the GPU side melted. Subsequent research by the team at Gamers Nexus showed this to be due to poor contact within the connector with resulting high resistance and thus a massive thermal hot spot. Following this event, the 12V-2×6 update to 12VHPWR increased the length of the power pins and decreased that of the four sense pins.

The idea behind this change is that by extending the length of the power and ground pins by 0.25 mm and shortening the sense pins by 1.5 mm there’s a higher chance of there being an actual good contact on the ground and power pins when the sense lines signal the GPU that it can start drawing hundreds of watts.

This change did only affect the male side of the connector, and not the cable itself. This made it very surprising to some when after the much higher wattage RTX 5090 GPUs were released and suddenly cables began burning up,with clear melting visible on the GPU and power supply side. What was going on here?

Multi-Phase Balance

Shortly after the first melting cable event involving an RTX 5090 Founders Edition (FE) GPU popped up on the internet, Roman [Der8auer] Hartung reached out to this lucky person and – since both live quite close – borrowed the damaged GPU, PSU and cable for an investigative video. Involved were not only an RTX 5090 FE GPU, but also the PSU with its 12VHPWR connector. On each side the plastic around one pin was completely melted, with the cable having to be forcibly removed.

During Roman’s testing with another RTX 9050 FE and 12VHPWR cable he found that two of the six 12V wires were significantly warmer than the rest, courtesy of these carrying over 22 A versus around 2 A for the others while the PSU-side connector side hit a blistering 150 °C. This result was replicated by some and seems to be fully due to how the NVidia RTX 9050 FE card handles the incoming power, by tying all incoming power lines together. This is a practice that began with the RTX 4090, but the RTX 5090 is the first to pull close to the rated 600 watts of the 12VHPWR/12V-2×6 connector. This was explained quite comprehensively in a comparison video by Buildzoid.

Because with the RTX 4090 and 5090 FE GPUs – as well as some GPUs by third-party manufacturers – these 12V lines are treated as a singular line, it is essential that the resistance on these lines is matched quite closely. If this is not the case, then physics does what it’s supposed to and the wires with the lowest resistance carry the most current. Because the 12V-2×6 connector on the GPU side sees only happy sense pins, it assumes that everything is fine and will pull 575 watts, or more, through a single 16 AWG wire if need be.

Meanwhile the Asus RTX 5090 Astral GPU does have individual shunt resistors to measure the current on the individual 12V lines, but no features to balance current or throttle/shutdown the GPU to prevent damage. This is actually a feature that used to be quite common, as demonstrated by this EVGA RTX 3090 Ti GPU:

On the top right the triple sense resistors (shunts) are visible, each of which is followed by its own filter coil and feeding its own set of power phases, marked in either red, green or blue. The yellow phases are for the RAM, and are fed from the PCIe slot’s 75 Watt. The bottom right controller controls the phases and based on the measured currents can balance the current per channel by shifting the load between parts of the phases.

This is a design that is completely omitted in the RTX 5090 FE design, which – as Igor Wallossek at Igor’s Lab describes it – has been minimized to the point where crucial parts have begun to be omitted. He also covers an MSI RTX 3090 Ti Suprim card which does a similar kind of phase balancing before the RTX 4090 and RTX 5090 versions of MSI’s GPUs begin to shed such features as well. It would seem that even as power demands by GPUs have increased, crucial safety features such as current balancing have been sacrificed. As it turns out, safety margins have also been sacrificed along with these features.

Safety Margins

The ugly truth about the switch from 8-pin PCIe connectors to 12-pin 12VHPWR connectors is that while the former is rated officially for 150 watts, this power level would be hit easily even by the cheapest implementation using crummy 18 AWG wiring. With the HCS connectors and 16 AWG wiring, you are looking at 10 A × 12 V × 3 = 360 watts, or a safety margin of 2.4. With cheaper connectors and a maximum of 7 A per wire it would still be a safety margin of 1.68.

Meanwhile, the 12VHPWR/12V-2×6 with the required 16 AWG wiring is rated for 9.5 A × 12 V × 6 = 684 watts, or a safety margin of 1.14. In a situation where one or more wires suddenly decide to become higher-resistance paths this means that the remaining wires have to pick up the slack, which in the case of a 575 watt RTX 5090 GPU means overloading these wires.

Meanwhile a 8-pin PCIe connector would be somewhat unhappy in this case and show elevated temperatures, but worst case even a single wire could carry 150 watts and be happier than the case demonstrated by [Der8auer] where two 12V-2×6 connector wires were forced to carry 260 watts each for the exact same wire gauge.

This is also the reason why [Der8auer]’s Corsair PSU 12V-2×6 cable is provided with two 8-pin PCIe-style connectors on the PSU side. Each of these is rated at 300 watts by Corsair, with Corsair PSU designer Jon Gerow, of JonnyGuru PSU review fame, going over the details on his personal site for the HCS connectors. As it turns out, two 8-pin PCIe connectors are an easy match for a ‘600 watt’ 12VHPWR connector, with over 680 watt available within margins.

There’s a good chance that this was the reason why [Der8auer]’s PSU and cable did not melt, even though it clearly really wanted to do so.

Balance Is Everything

Although it is doubtful that we have seen the last of this GPU power connector saga, it is telling that so far only GPUs with NVidia chips have gone full-in on the 12VHPWR/12V-2×6 connectors, no doubt also because the reference boards provided to board partners come with these connectors. Over in the Intel and AMD GPU camps there’s not even a tepid push for a change from PCIe power connectors, with so far just one still-to-be-released AMD GPU featuring the connector.

That said, the connector itself is not terrible by itself, with Jon Gerow making the case here quite clearly too. It’s simply a very fiddly and somewhat fragile connector that’s being pushed far beyond its specifications by PCI-SIG. Along the way it has also made it painfully clear that current balancing features which used to exist on GPUs have been quietly dropped for a few years now.

Obviously, adding multiple shunts and associated monitoring and phase balancing is not the easiest task, and will eat up a chunk of board real-estate while boosting BOM size. But as we can see, it can also prevent a lot of bad publicity and melting parts. Even if things should work fine without it – and they usually will – eating into safety margins and cutting components tends to be one of those things that will absolutely backfire in a spectacular fashion that should surprise absolutely nobody.

Featured image: [ivan6953]’s burnt cables.

We get it. We also watched Star Trek and thought how cool it would be to talk to our computer. From Kirk setting a self-destruct sequence, to Scotty talking into a mouse, or Picard ordering Earl Grey, we intuitively know that talking to a computer is better than typing, right? Well, computers talking back and forth to us is no longer science fiction, and maybe we aren’t as happy about it as we thought we’d be.

We weren’t able to pinpoint the first talking computer in fiction. Asimov and van Vogt had talking computers in the 1940s. “I, Robot” by Eando Binder, and not the more famous Asimov story, had a fully speaking robot in 1939. You could argue that “The Machine” in E. M. Forster’s “The Machine Stops” was probably speaking — the text is a little vague — and that was in 1909. The robot from Metropolis (1927) spoke after transforming, but you could argue that doesn’t count.

Meanwhile, In Real Life

In real life, computers weren’t as quick to speak. Before the middle of the twentieth century, machine-generated speech was an oddity. In 1779, a mechanical contrivance by Wolfgang von Kempelen, famous for the mechanical Turk chess-playing automaton, could form simple words. By 1939, Bell Labs could do even better speech synthesis electronically but with a human operator. It didn’t sound very good, as you can see in the video below, but it was certainly expressive.

Speech recognition would wait until 1952, when Bell Labs showed a system that required training to understand someone speaking numbers. IBM could recognize 16 different utterances in 1961 with “Shoebox,” and, of course, that same year, they made an IBM 704 sing “Daisy Bell,” which would later inspire HAL 9000 to do the same.

Recent advances in neural network systems and other AI techniques mean that now computers can generate and understand speech at a level even most fiction didn’t anticipate. These days, it is trivially easy to interact with your phone or your PC by using your voice. Of course, we sometimes question if every device needs AI smarts and a voice. We can maybe do without a smart toaster, for instance.

So What’s the Problem?

Patrick Blower’s famous cartoon about Amazon buying Whole Foods is both funny and tragically possible. In it, Jeff Bezos says, “Alexa, buy me something from Whole Foods.” To which Alexa replies, “Sure, Jeff. Buying Whole Foods.” Misunderstandings are one of the problems with voice input.

Every night, I say exactly the same phrase right before I go to sleep: “Hey, Google. Play my playlist sleep list.” About seven times out of ten, I get my playlist going. Two times out of ten, I get children’s lullabies or something even stranger. Occasionally, for variety, I get “Something went wrong. Try again later.” You can, of course, make excuses for this. The technology is new. Maybe my bedroom is noisy or has lousy acoustics. But still.

That’s not the only problem. Science fiction often predicts the future and, generally, newer science fiction is closer than older science fiction. But Star Trek sometimes turns that on its head. Picard had an office. Kirk worked out of his quarters at a time when working from home was almost unheard of. Offices are a forgotten luxury for many people, and if you are working from home, that’s fine. But if you are in a call center, a bullpen, or the bridge of the Enterprise, all this yakking back and forth with your computer will drive everyone crazy. Even if you train the computer to only recognize the user’s voice, it will still annoy you to have to hear everyone else’s notifications, messages, and alerts.

Today, humans are still better at understanding people than computers are. We all have a friend who consistently mispronounces “Arduino,” but we still know what he means. Or the colleague with a very thick accent, like Checkov trying to enter authorization code “wictor wictor two” in the recent movie. You knew what he meant, too.

Some of the problems are social. I can’t tell you the number of times I’m in the middle of dictating an e-mail, and someone just comes up and starts talking to me, which then shows up in the middle of my sentence. Granted, that’s not a computer issue. But it is another example of why voice input systems are not always as delightful as you’d think.

Solutions?

Sure, maybe you could build a cone of silence over each station, but that has its own problems. Then again, Spock and Uhura sometimes wore the biggest Bluetooth Earbud ever, so maybe that’s half of the answer. The other half could be subvocalization, but that’s mostly science fiction, although not entirely.

What do you think? Even telepathy probably has some downsides. You’d have to be careful what you think, right? What is the ideal human-computer interface? Or will future Star Fleet officers be typing on molecular keyboards? Or will it wind up all in our brains? Tell us what you think in the comments.

If you’ve been waiting for news from our upcoming Hackaday Europe event in March, wait no longer. We’re excited to announce the first slice of our wonderful speakers lineup! Get your tickets now,

Hackaday Europe is going down again in Berlin this year on March 15th and 16th at MotionLab. It’s Hackaday, but in real life, and it’s too much fun.  The badge is off-the-scale cool, powered by the incredible creativity of our community who entered the Supercon SAO contest last fall, and we’re absolutely stoked to be tossing the four winning entries into your schwag bag in Europe.

If you already know you’ll be attending and would like to give a seven-minute Lightning Talk on Sunday, we’re also opening up the call for talks there. Tell us now what you’d like to talk about so we can all hear it on Sunday morning.

We’re looking forward to the talks and to seeing you all there! We’re getting the last few speakers ironed out, have a keynote talk to announce, and, of course, will open up workshop signups. So stay tuned!

We like drinking out of glass. In many ways, it’s an ideal material for the job. It’s hard-wearing, and inert in most respects. It doesn’t interact with the beverages you put in it, and it’s easy to clean. The only problem is that it’s rather easy to break. Despite its major weakness, glass still reigns supreme over plastic and metal alternatives.

But what if you could make glassware that didn’t break? Surely, that would be a supreme product that would quickly take over the entire market. As it turns out, an East German glassworks developed just that. Only, the product didn’t survive, and we lumber on with easily-shattered glasses to this day. This is the story of Superfest.

Harder, Better, Glasser, Stronger

It all started in the German Democratic Republic in the 1970s; you might know it better as East Germany. The government’s Council of Ministers deemed it important to develop higher-strength glass. Techniques for the chemical strengthening of glass were already known by the 1960s, and work on developing the technology further began in earnest.

These efforts came to fruition in the form of a patent filed on the 8th of August, 1977. It was entitled Verfahren und Vorrichtung Zur Verfestigung Von Glaserzeugnissen Durch Ioenenaustausch—or, translated to English—Process and Apparatus for Strengthening Glassware By Ion Exchange. The patent regarded an industry-ready process, which was intended for use in the production of hollow glass vessels—specifically, drinking glassware.

The researchers understood that glasses typically broke in part due to microscopic cracks in the material, which are introduced in the production process. These microcracks could be mitigated by replacing the sodium ions in the surface of the glass with larger potassium ions. The larger ions thus cause a state of compression in the surface layer. Glass is far more capable of resisting compression rather than tension. The high compressive stresses baked into the material help resist tension forces that occur during impact events, thus making the material far more resistant to breakage.

The process of exchanging sodium ions in the glass with potassium ions was simple enough. The patent outlined a process for raining down a molten potassium salt solution onto the glassware, which would harden the outside surface significantly. This process was chosen for multiple reasons. It was desired to avoid immersing glassware into a huge bath of molten potassium salt, as the large bath of hot material would present safety hazards. There were also concerns that excessive time spent at high temperatures following immersion would lead to a relaxation of the crucial compressive stresses that built up in the glass from the ion exchange. Interior surfaces of the glassware could also be hardened by rotating the glasses on a horizontal axis under the “salt rain” so they were also exposed to the potassium salt to enable the ion exchange.

Recognizing the value of this patent, the Council of Ministers fast-tracked the technology into commerical production at the Sachsenglas Schwepnitz factory. The glassware was originally named CEVERIT, which was a portmanteau of the German words chemisch verfestigt—meaning “chemically solidified.” It also wore the name CV-Glas for the same reason. Production began in earnest in 1980, primarily centered around making beer glasses for hospitality businesses in East German—bars, restaurants, and the like. The glass instantly lived up to its promise, proving far more durable in commercial use. While not completely indestructible, the glasses were lasting ten to fifteen times longer than traditional commercial glassware.

Despite the political environment of the time, there were hopes to expand sales to the West. On the urging of sales representative Eberhard Pook, the glasses were referred to by the name Superfest. The aim was to avoid negative connotations of “chemicals” in the name when it came to drinking glasses. Despite efforts made at multiple trade fairs, however, international interest in the tough glassware was minimal. Speaking to ZEITMagazin in 2020, Pook noted the flat response from potential customers. “We built a wall where we stacked the glasses… Look at it, it’s unbreakable!” says Pook, translated from the original German. “No reaction.” He was told that the material’s strength was also a great weakness from a sales perspective. “At Coca Cola, for example, they said, why should we use a glass that doesn’t break, we make money with our glasses,” he explained. “The dealers understandably said, who would cut off the branch they’re sitting on?”

Production nevertheless continued apace, with 120 million glasses made for the domestic market. Hardened glassware was manufactured in all shapes and sizes, covering everything from vases to tea cups and every size of beer glass. Stock eventually began piling up at the factory, as restaurants and bars simply weren’t ordering more glassware. Their chemically-strengthened glasses were doing exactly what they were supposed to do, and replacements weren’t often necessary.

Regardless, the future was unkind to Superfest. Urban legend says that the reunification of Germany was the beginning of the end, but it’s not entirely true. As covered by ZEITMagazin, the production of Superfest glassware was ended in July 1990 because it simply wasn’t profitable for the company. Production of other glassware continued, but the chemically-hardened line was no more. The patent for the process was allowed to lapse in 1992, and pursued no more.

The question remains why we don’t have chemically-hardened glassware today. The techniques behind Superfest are scarcely different to those used in Gorilla Glass or other chemically-strengthened glasses. The manufacturing process is well-documented, and the world is full of factories that ignore any concept of intellectual property if there was even an issue to begin with. Indeed, a German crowdfunding effort even attempted to replicate the material—only to fall into insolvency this year.

It seems that either nobody can make stronger drinking glasses, or nobody wants to—perhaps because, as Superfest seemed to indicate—there simply isn’t any money in it in the long term. It’s a shame, because the world demands nice things—and that includes beer glasses that last seemingly forever.

Featured image: “Superfest glasses in five sizes” by Michael Ernst

In all likelihood, asteroid 2024 YR4 will slip silently past the Earth. Based on the data we have so far, there’s an estimated chance of only 2.1% to 2.3% that it will collide with the planet on December 22nd, 2032. Under normal circumstances, if somebody told you there was a roughly 98% chance of something not happening, you probably wouldn’t give it a second thought. There’s certainly a case to be made that you should feel that way in regards to this particular event — frankly, it’s a lot more likely that some other terrible thing is going to happen to you in the next eight years than it is an asteroid is going to ruin your Christmas party.

That being said, when you consider the scale of the cosmos, a 2+% chance of getting hit is enough to raise some eyebrows. After all, it’s the highest likelihood of an asteroid impact that we’re currently aware of. It’s also troubling that the number has only gone up as further observations of 2024 YR4’s orbit have been made; a few weeks ago, the impact probability was just 1%. Accordingly, NASA has recently announced they’ll be making time in the James Webb Space Telescope’s busy scientific schedule to observe the asteroid next month.

So keeping in mind that we’re still talking about an event that’s statistically unlikely to actually occur, let’s take a look at what we know about 2024 YR4, and how further study and analysis can give us a better idea of what kind of threat we’re dealing with.

An Unexpected Visitor

Officially, 2024 YR4 was discovered on December 27th, 2024 by the Asteroid Terrestrial-impact Last Alert System (ATLAS), but by that time we had already dodged a potential impact. It turns out that the asteroid had come within 828,800 kilometers (515,000 miles), or around two times the distance from the Earth to the Moon, on December 25th without anyone realizing.

All of the observations of the asteroid made since its discovery have therefore been made while the object is moving away from the planet and back into deep space. This is a less than ideal situation when you consider that the asteroid is estimated to be between 40 to 90 meters (130 to 300 ft) in diameter.

With each passing day, it becomes more difficult to track and resolve 2024 YR4, and it’s currently estimated that observing it with ground-based telescopes will no longer be possible beyond April.

That is, until 2028. As you might have put together by now, 2024 YR4 is in such an orbit that it comes within close proximity of Earth every four years. If current orbital projections hold true, during the summer of 2028, the asteroid will be close enough again that we can observe it on the way towards us.

That will include a fly-by of Earth in early December before it swings back out of range. Hopefully by that time we’ll have collected enough data to know whether or not we’ll need to brace for impact the next time it swings by our neighborhood.

Deflect, or Evacuate?

As far as potentially dangerous Near Earth Objects (NEOs) go, 2024 YR4 is about as ideal as they get. While it did sneak up on us in 2024, now we know it’s on a fairly predictable schedule and there’s enough time that we could actually do something about it if the chance of impact gets high enough to take it more seriously. In 2028, we’ve even got a chance to deflect it as it zooms past Earth.

That would have been science fiction a few years ago, but after NASA’s successful DART demonstration mission, we now know it’s possible to significantly alter the orbit of an asteroid simply by ramming a spacecraft into it at high velocity. The target asteroid in that test was much larger than 2024 YR4, with a diameter of 177 meters (581 ft). Yet the head-on impact of the 500 kg (1,100 lb) DART spacecraft was able to slow it down enough to make a noticeable change in its orbit.

Given how close 2024 YR4 would be passing by Earth, it’s not hard to imagine that a spacecraft with several times the mass of DART could be put on a collision course with the asteroid in 2028. Even if such an impact would not be enough to entirely prevent a collision with 2024 YR4, if applied carefully, it could certainly be sufficient to move the calculated point of impact.

But would such a mission even be necessary? Current estimates put around half of the potential impact points for 2024 YR4 over the ocean. Even where the path of the asteroid does cross over land, most of it is sparsely populated. The biggest risks to human life would be in Nigeria and India, but the chances of a direct hit over either area is particularly remote, especially given the estimated blast radius of 50 km (31 miles).

Unless updated orbital data for 2024 YR4 indicates that it’s going to directly impact one of these densely populated areas, the most cost effective approach may be to simply move as many people out of the impact area as possible. While an evacuation of this scale would still be a monumental task, we’d at least have several years to implement the plan.

Bringing Out the Big Guns

While the chances are still excellent that 2024 YR4 will zip harmlessly past our Blue Marble in 2032, it’s not outside the realm of possibility that some big decisions might need to be made in the next few years. So how do we figure out how large of a threat this asteroid really is before it’s too late?

That’s where advanced space-bound observatories like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) come in. While our instruments on Earth soon won’t be able to see 2024 YR4, the JWST will not only be able to keep its gaze on the asteroid for longer, but the infrared observatory is uniquely suited for capturing critical data about its size and shape.

Up to this point, the size of 2024 YR4 has been estimated based on its visible appearance, but that can be misleading. It could be that only part of the asteroid is reflective, which would give the impression that its smaller than it actually is. But the JWST doesn’t rely on visible light, and instead can use its IR instruments to detect the heat being given off by the asteroid’s rocky surface.

With definitive data about the asteroid’s size, shape, and rotation, astronomers will be able to better model how 2024 YR4 is moving through space. That’s going to be key to figuring out whether or not that 2.3% chance of impact is going to go up or down — and if it does go up, will help narrow down exactly where the asteroid is likely to hit.

Perhaps one of the clearest indications of the Anthropocene may be the presence of plastic. Starting with the commercialization of Bakelite in 1907 by Leo Baekeland, plastics have taken the world by storm. Courtesy of being easy to mold into any imaginable shape along with a wide range of properties that depend on the exact polymer used, it’s hard to imagine modern-day society without plastics.

Yet as the saying goes, there never is a free lunch. In the case of plastics it would appear that the exact same properties that make them so desirable also risk them becoming a hazard to not just our environment, but also to ourselves. With plastics degrading mostly into ever smaller pieces once released into the environment, they eventually become small enough to hitch a ride from our food into our bloodstream and from there into our organs, including our brain as evidenced by a recent study.

Multiple studies have indicated that this bioaccumulation of plastics might be harmful, raising the question about how to mitigate and prevent both the ingestion of microplastics as well as producing them in the first place.

Polymer Trouble

Plastics are effectively synthetic or semi-synthetic polymers. This means that the final shape, whether it’s an enclosure, a bag, rope or something else entirely consists of many monomers that polymerized in a specific shape. This offers many benefits over traditional materials like wood, glass and metals, all of which cannot be used for the same wide range of applications, including food packaging and modern electronics.

Unlike a composite organic polymer like wood, however, plastics do not noticeably biodegrade. When exposed to wear and tear, they mostly break down into polymer fragments that remain in the environment and are likely to fragment further. When these fragments are less than 5 mm in length, they are called ‘microplastics’, which are further subdivided into a nanoplastics group once they reach a length of less than 1 micrometer. Collectively these are called MNPs.

The process of polymer degradation can have many causes. In the case of e.g. wood fibers, various microorganisms as well as chemicals will readily degrade these. For plastics the primary processes are oxidation and chain scission, which in the environment occurs through UV-radiation, oxygen, water, etc. Some plastics (e.g. with a carbon backbone) are susceptible to hydrolysis, while others degrade mostly through the interaction of UV-radiation with oxygen (photo-oxidation). The purpose of stabilizers added to plastics is to retard the effect of these processes, with antioxidants, UV absorbers, etc. added. These only slow down the polymer degradation, naturally.

In short, although plastics that end up in the environment seem to vanish, they mostly break down in ever smaller polymer fragments that end up basically everywhere.

Body-Plastic Ratio

In a recent review article, Dr. Eric Topol covers contemporary studies on the topic of MNPs, with a particular focus on the new findings about MNPs found in the (human) brain, but also from a cardiovascular perspective. The latter references a March 2024 study by Raffaele Marfella et al. as published in The New England Journal of Medicine. In this study the excised plaque from carotid arteries in patients undergoing endarterectomy (arterial blockage removal) was examined for the presence of MNPs prior to the patients being followed to see whether the presence of MNPs affected their health.

What they found was that of the 257 patients who completed the full study duration 58.4% had polyethylene (PE) in these plaques, while 12.1% also had polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in them. The PE and PVC MNPs were concentrated in macrophages, alongside active inflammation markers. During the follow-up period during the study, of the patients without MNPs 8 of 107 (7.5%) suffered either a nonfatal myocardial infarction, a nonfatal stroke or death. This contrasted with 30 of 150 (20%) in the group with MNP detected, suggesting that the presence of MNP in one’s cardiovascular system puts one at significantly higher risk of these adverse events.

The presence of MNPs has not only been confirmed in arteries, but effectively in every other organ and tissue of the body as well. Recently the impact on the human brain has been investigated as well, with a study in Nature Medicine by Alexander J. Nihart et al. investigating MNP levels in decedent human brains as well the liver and kidneys. They found mostly PE, but also other plastic polymers, with the brain tissue having the highest PE proportion.

Interestingly, the more recently deceased had more MNP in their organs, and the brains of those with known dementia diagnosis had higher MNP levels than those without. This raises the question of whether the presence of MNPs in the brain can affect or even induce dementia and other disorders of the brain.

Using mouse models, Haipeng Huang et al. investigated the effects of MNPs on the brain, demonstrating that nanoplastics can pass through the blood-brain barrier, after which phagocytes consume these particles. These then go on to form blockages within the capillaries of the brain’s cortex, providing a mechanism through which MNPs are neurotoxic.

Prevention

Clearly the presence of MNPs in our bodies does not appear to be a good thing, and the only thing that we can realistically do about it at this point is to prevent ingesting (and inhaling) it, while preventing more plastics from ending up in the environment where it’ll inevitably start its gradual degradation into MNPs. To accomplish this, there are things that can be done, ranging from a personal level to national and international projects.

On a personal level, wearing a respirator while being in dusty environments, while working with plastics, etc. is helpful, while avoiding e.g. bottled water. According to a recent study by Naixin Qian et al. from the University of California they found on average 240,000 particles of MNPs in a liter of bottled water, with 90% of these being nanoplastics. As noted in a related article, bottled water can be fairly safe, but has to be stored correctly (i.e. not exposed to the sun). Certain water filters (e.g. Brita) filter particles o.5 – 1 micrometer in size and should filter out most MNPs as well from tap water.

Another source of MNPs are plastic containers, with old and damaged plastic containers more likely to contaminate food stored in them. If a container begins to look degraded (i.e. faded colors), it’s probably a good time to stop using it for food.

That said, as some exposure to MNPs is hard to avoid, the best one can do here is to limited said exposure.

Environmental Pollution

Bluntly put, if there wasn’t environmental contamination with plastic fragments such personal precautions would not be necessary. This leads us to the three Rs:

• Reduce
• Reuse
• Recycle

Simply put, the less plastic we use, the less plastic pollution there will be. If we reuse plastic items more often (with advanced stabilizers to reduce degradation), fewer plastic items would need to be produced, and once plastic items have no more use, they should be recycled. This is basically where all the problems begin.

Using less plastic is extremely hard for today’s societies, as these synthetic polymers are basically everywhere, and some economical sectors essentially exist because of single-use plastic packaging. Just try to imagine a supermarket or food takeout (including fast food) without plastics. A potential option is to replace plastics with an alternative (glass, etc.), but the viability here remains low, beyond replacing effectively single use plastic shopping bags with multi-use non-plastic bags.

Some sources of microplastics like from make-up and beauty products have been (partially) addressed already, but it’d be best if plastic could be easily recycled, and if microorganisms developed a taste for these polymers.

Dismal Recycling

Currently only about 10-15% of the plastic we produce is recycled, with the remainder incinerated, buried in landfills or discarded as litter into the environment as noted in this recent article by Mark Peplow. A big issue is that the waste stream features every imaginable type of plastic mixed along with other (organic) contaminants, making it extremely hard to even begin to sort the plastic types.

The solution suggested in the article is to reduce the waste stream back to its original (oil-derived) components as much as possible using high temperatures and pressures. If this new hydrothermal liquefaction approach which is currently being trialed by Mura Technology works well enough, it could replace mechanical recycling and the compromises which this entails, especially inferior quality compared to virgin plastic, and an inability to deal with mixed plastics.

If a method like this can increase the recycling rate of plastics, it could significantly reduce the amount of landfill and litter plastic, and thus with it the production of MNPs.

Microorganism Solutions

As mentioned earlier, a nice thing about natural polymers like those in wood is that there are many organisms who specialize in breaking these down. This is the reason why plant matter and even entire trees will decay and effectively vanish, with its fundamental elements being repurposed by other organisms and those that prey on these. Wouldn’t it be amazing if plastics could vanish in a similar manner rather than hang around for a few hundred years?

As it turns out, life does indeed find a way, and researchers have discovered multiple species of bacteria, fungi and microalgae which are reported to biodegrade PET (polyethylene terephthalate), which accounts for 6.2% of plastics produced. Perhaps it’s not so surprising that microorganisms would adapt to thrive on plastics, since we are absolutely swamping the oceans with it, giving the rapid evolutionary cycle of bacteria and similar a strong nudge to prefer breaking down plastics over driftwood and other detritus in the oceans.

Naturally, PET is just one of many types of plastics, and generally plastics are not an attractive target for microbes, as Zeming Cai et al. note in a 2023 review article in Microorganisms. Also noted is that there are some fungal strains that degrade HDPE and LDPE, two of the most common types of plastics. These organisms are however not quite at the level where they can cope with the massive influx of new plastic waste, even before taking into account additives to plastics that are toxic to organisms.

Ultimately it would seem that evolution will probably fix the plastic waste issue if given a few thousand years, but before that, we smart human monkeys would do best to not create a problem where it doesn’t need to exist. At least if we don’t want to all become part of a mass-experiment on the effects of high-dose MNP exposure.