The howling winds are like nothing I’ve heard before as they beat against the windowpanes. The sky is an eerie gray — not from clouds, but smoke. A massive wildfire rages nearby. Disaster is imminent.
In our second-story apartment, my partner and I pack up our most essential belongings and a few treasured possessions. We tape our window seams to prevent smoke and ash from blowing inside and keep our eyes glued to a map of the fire’s spread.
The rising stress and deteriorating air quality are too much. We head 20 miles south to a hotel, where we stay until the fire is more contained. Even there, we see ash rain down from the sky.
I live in Pasadena, and my apartment was just outside the evacuation zone for the Eaton Fire, which took 19 lives and destroyed over 9,400 structures in January 2025. That month, the Eaton and Palisades fires raged simultaneously across Southern California, becoming the second- and third-most destructive wildfires in state history.
Advertisement
We were lucky, as the fire’s spread stopped five miles from our apartment. While many lost their homes, we were able to return to ours. Still, our taped-up windows did little to keep ash and smoke from seeping through cracks and coating everything in our apartment.
With unhealthy outdoor air quality, we couldn’t open windows for fresh air, so we relied on our air purifier. At the time, we had just one in our living room. We’ve since added another to our bedroom, along with two air quality monitors in each area.
The atmospheric dangers haven’t gone away: As I write this piece, smoke from a Boyle Heights warehouse fire is blowing toward us, making it once again ill-advised to open windows.
Fires are a significant contributor to poor air quality, but they aren’t the only one. Power plants burning fossil fuels spew pollutants, as does car exhaust from highways and city streets. There’s a reason why our phones’ weather apps report each day’s air quality index, or AQI. And although overall outdoor air quality in the US has improved over the decades, it hasn’t gotten better everywhere, especially in communities of color.
Advertisement
We face breathing dangers indoors as well, from gas-burning appliances and furnaces to myriad household chemicals and the off-gassing from furnishings and other goods. Outdoor air pollution slithers inside.
As a health and wellness writer for 12 years, I’ve often seen concerns about the health risks in the air we breathe 12 to 20 times per minute take a backseat to more tangible human needs, such as crystal-clear water and food free of contaminants. But there are simple steps we can take to improve the air quality in our homes.
Air purifiers can protect our airways from certain contaminants, as CNET Labs has found, but they aren’t the best or sole line of defense against poor air quality.
Are air purifiers the breath of fresh air we need?
Air purifiers look a lot like speakers — rectangular or cylindrical electronic appliances under 3 feet tall, with perforated metal or plastic casings. You’ll typically find them on the floor or a tabletop in high-traffic areas like the bedroom, living room or kitchen. Prices for air purifiers can range from $50 to $1,000.
Advertisement
I didn’t grow up in a home with air purifiers, but my mom now has two in her New York suburban home. She’d been relying on her HVAC system’s filter, but when COVID-19 cases spiked during the pandemic, she invested in air purifiers.
Experts from air care tech companies like Dyson, Blueair, Airthings, Coway and Oransi all tell me they’ve seen air purifier sales grow during events that spur concern about the impact of what’s in our air on our health. Think the COVID-19 pandemic, wildfires, smoggy days of urban pollution and allergy season.
My colleague Tara Brown, CNET social media manager, recently got her first air purifier. It wasn’t technology she grew up with, and at first it seemed like a luxury item.
“The way my mom dealt with a dusty house was to open up the windows when cleaning, and during pollen season we’d try to keep windows closed and take daily allergy pills,” Brown, who lives in the suburbs on the East Coast, says. “As I get older and now have my own money, I am interested in trying one out because I’m allergic to dust and pollen.”
Advertisement
Turns out, Brown’s mom was right to open her home’s windows. As I’ve learned, that’s the second step you should take when addressing poor air quality, even before turning on an air purifier.
The first two steps toward clearing the air
Your first line of defense is to focus on controlling the source of pollution.
“In cities, the largest source of volatile organic compounds used to be vehicles, but vehicles have gotten cleaner, and over time, now it seems that the largest source is actually the stuff we use in our residences,” Linsey Marr, a university distinguished professor in Virginia Tech’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, tells me.
This includes common goods like shampoo, lotion, hairspray, deodorant, cleaning products and paints.
Advertisement
If you’re looking for low- or no-cost methods to control VOCs, Brigit Hirsch, press secretary for the US Environmental Protection Agency, recommends carefully following product instructions to ensure that you don’t use more than is recommended and to determine the type of ventilation required. If you’re painting walls, for instance, you should keep your windows open.
As for gas and particle pollution released when you’re cooking on the stovetop or in the oven, turn on your range hood to exhaust it. If your range exhausts outdoors, avoid using it on days when outdoor air pollution is high. Instead, an air purifier near the stove can help trap those cooking particles and, if it has an activated carbon filter, some gases.
To remove particles on surfaces before they’re disturbed and end up in the air, regularly vacuum with a filtered vacuum cleaner and dust with a damp cloth. To dampen that cloth, use low-toxicity cleaners, like soap and water, that don’t contain ammonia or chlorine, which can worsen air quality.
“The most important thing to do about air pollution is source control, so let’s actually reduce the sources that are causing the pollution first and foremost,” Glory Dolphin Hammes, CEO of IQAir North America, tells me. IQAir is the world’s largest free, real-time air-quality monitoring platform and also sells air purifiers.
Advertisement
Once you’ve exhausted your options for source control, it’s time to ventilate. To prevent pollutants from building up inside, open your windows, turn on kitchen or bathroom fans that exhaust outdoors and use window or attic fans.
When ventilation isn’t an option because of high outdoor air pollution, such as during a wildfire or during rush hour if you live near a high-traffic road, you’ll want to focus on air purification.
HVAC vs. air purifier: Which is your air ally?
You may be surprised to learn, as I was, that your HVAC’s filters were originally designed to protect the system’s heating and cooling coils, not human health.
On top of that, Theresa Pistochini, co-director of engineering at the UC Davis Energy Efficiency Institute and Western Cooling Efficiency Center, tells me that to save energy, household HVAC systems usually only turn on when heating or cooling the air, so the fan doesn’t run constantly. That means it’s not filtering your air all the time, and even when it does, you might not have the highest-grade filter.
Advertisement
You’ll want to pay attention to MERV, which stands for minimum efficiency reporting value and is based on a test method developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. While most people buy cheaper MERV 8 filters for their HVAC systems, they should be getting MERV 13 to improve their air quality.
An HVAC filter’s MERV rating indicates how effectively it removes airborne particles of different sizes.
EPA/Zooey Liao/CNET/Getty Images
“In order to get a certain MERV value, you have to be able to remove a certain percentage of particles,” Pistochini says. “The higher the MERV rating, the higher the fraction of the particles that are removed.”
Advertisement
Even so, a HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filter, which is the highest-grade filter and what you should look for in an air purifier, is best because it removes at least 99.97% of particles that measure 0.30 microns and larger. However, a HEPA filter isn’t recommended for HVAC systems because its dense nature creates too much airflow resistance. That’s why a MERV 13 filter is used instead, and it removes at least 50% of particles sized from 0.30 to 1.0 microns, with the percentage increasing as particle size increases.
Note that neither removes gases – for that, many air purifiers have an activated carbon filter, which is just one step in the filtration process.
Since it’s more efficient to run a portable air purifier than it is to run an entire HVAC system through ductwork that’s prone to leakage and can contribute to energy losses, Pistochini says it’s better to use air purifiers right in the room — especially in the kitchen, where you cook, and in your bedroom, where you tend to spend extended periods of time.
But if you’re wondering whether you should upgrade your HVAC filter to MERV 13 or purchase an air purifier with a HEPA filter, Joseph G. Allen, director of Harvard’s Healthy Buildings Program and a professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, tells me that you should do both, as they’re not significant expenses. Plus, they come with important health benefits.
Advertisement
“Air purifiers solve a key problem, and that is the general low to nonexistent filtration in homes,” Allen says. “Most of the filters that are in a home are low-grade and are designed to protect the equipment. Air purifiers have filters that are designed to protect people. That’s a key distinction.”
The past, present and future of our air, inside and out
At the national level, a key element in achieving better air quality is the sweeping government regulation known as the Clean Air Act of 1970. A landmark achievement of the environmental movement, this law requires state, local, tribal and federal agencies to work together to clean our air.
As a result, “air quality in the US has improved tremendously over time, particularly in the last 20 years,” Hirsch says.
According to the EPA’s 2025 Our Nation’s Air report, since 1970, the combined emissions of benchmark or “criteria” pollutants have decreased by 79%. Using monitors across the US, the EPA measures six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide.
Advertisement
But while the Clean Air Act has improved our overall outdoor air quality, poor air quality remains an invisible guest in our own homes.
“Hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved [because of the Clean Air Act],” says Allen. “But that is solely about outdoor air pollution. Our indoor air pollution has continued to worsen. We do not have a Clean Indoor Air Act.”
Inside our homes, we’re exposed to volatile organic compounds emitted as gases from everyday items such as cleaning products, upholstered furniture and cosmetics. We’re enveloped by particulate matter from cooking and burning candles, along with biological contaminants such as pollen, mold spores, pet dander, viruses and bacteria. At the flick of a switch, gas stoves and unvented kerosene and gas space heaters release carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. Through windows and doors and hidden cracks in our homes, outdoor air pollution seeps inside.
At the same time, our buildings have become more airtight. On the positive side, this prevents energy losses; on the negative side, pollutants get trapped indoors once you shut your windows.
Advertisement
While data on indoor air quality is elusive, our outdoor air quality is something we can measure, track and easily view in our weather apps. And despite the Clean Air Act, we still can’t escape pollutants in the air we breathe once we step outside our homes, especially in specific neighborhoods.
“Just because air quality got better for a while overall doesn’t mean that the air in your community is better, especially if you have a highway, warehouse or power plant nearby,” Laura Kate Bender, the American Lung Association vice president of nationwide advocacy and public policy, tells me.
Since 2000, the ALA has released an annual State of the Air report. In its 2026 report, the ALA found that more than one in four Americans, 152.3 million people, live in locations with unhealthy air pollution levels. Perhaps even more alarming is that almost half of American children, 33.5 million people under the age of 18, live in counties with a failing grade for at least one air pollution measure.
A person of color is also more than twice as likely as a white person to live in a place with a failing grade for all three pollution measures. Hispanic people are more than three times as likely.
Advertisement
Climate change has started showing up in the ALA’s reports, “and it’s undoing some of the progress that the country made in cleaning up those polluting sources,” Bender says.
A majority of the experts I spoke with mentioned wildfires, which are escalating because of climate change. NASA reports that wildfire activity has more than doubled worldwide over the last 21 years. Its satellites detect active wildfires twice per day.
Because of wildfires, there’s been an increase in particulate matter, says Priyanka deSouza, assistant professor in the University of Colorado Denver’s Department of Urban and Regional Planning. Research also suggests that levels of ozone, a highly reactive gas that’s both natural and manmade, will increase due to higher temperatures and wildfires.
“It isn’t looking great,” deSouza says.
Advertisement
In February 2022, the United Nations Environment Programme reported that extreme fires across the globe will increase by up to 14% by 2030, 30% by the end of 2050 and 50% by the end of the century.
A series of proposed and finalized rollbacks of air pollution limits on gas and coal power plants and cars by the Trump administration has undercut progress toward clean air. The EPA’s Hirsch says the agency is committed to clean air protections.
Breathless: The toll of air pollution on our health
Poor air quality has unmistakable immediate effects: difficulty breathing, coughing, irritation of the eyes, nose and throat. Some people may also experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue and chest pain.
Children are more susceptible to the health effects of poor air quality because their lungs haven’t fully developed, Srikanth (Sri) Nadadur, branch chief for the Exposure, Response and Technology Branch at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, tells me. The same goes for older adults, due to compromised lung function and the higher probability of them having a lung disease like asthma or COPD.
Those with hay fever, heart conditions and pulmonary fibrosis (scarring in the lungs) are also more likely to be affected as air quality in the home decreases, according to Dr. Brian W. Christman, an American Lung Association national spokesperson.
Airborne pollutants can cause health problems affecting different parts of the body, including the lungs and heart.
Zooey Liao/CNET/Getty Images
Because of their size, ultrafine particles can get deeper into the lungs and then release anything they’ve absorbed along the way, like VOCs. If these compounds get into the lungs’ fluid, they can enter the circulatory system, potentially affecting cardiovascular function.
“Of late, the literature is indicating this having effects on the brain and also on the reproductive system,” Nadadur says. “There is good evidence from multiple epidemiological cohorts for an increase in the incidence of lung cancer from long-term exposure to outdoor PM2.5 particles, but the association for other cancers is still not clearly well known.”
If you’re living in a place with poor air quality or have been affected by a wildfire, you should reach out to your doctor if you notice symptoms such as shortness of breath. If you have a lung disease like asthma or other health conditions that a wildfire could worsen, it’s important to plan for these events, especially as they become more common. Ensure you have your medication ready and know what to do if an evacuation is mandated.
Advertisement
As for poor indoor air quality, remember the three steps to address it: Source control, ventilation and air purification.
What your air purifier can (and can’t) do for you
An air purifier uses its fan to draw air inside it, where it passes through various filters to trap airborne pollutants. The freshly filtered air is then pushed out to circulate throughout the room.
Each filter is designed to capture different sizes and types of pollutants. Chloe Waller, Airthings chief commercial officer, explains that a well-designed air purifier filter system works in three stages.
Stage 1: The prefilter
Usually made of fabric and designed to extend the life of the other filters in the system, this outer filter is coarse to capture larger particles, such as pet hair, lint and visible dust. Certain units make this filter washable or vacuumable.
Advertisement
Stage 2: The HEPA filter
HEPA filters can capture microplastics and certain nanoplastics, dust, pollen, mold spores, some bacteria and viruses and PM2.5 particles, which can come from wildfire smoke, cooking, using a fireplace, vehicle exhaust and industrial pollution.
CNET’s 2025 lab tests conducted in a smoke chamber confirmed that air purifiers with a true HEPA filter can capture viruses that might cause illness, including influenza and the COVID-19-causing SARS-CoV-2.
Out of 12 models tested, CNET Labs found that on a low fan setting, the Shark HP232 air purifier performed the best at removing fine particles 2.5 microns and under, averaging 1 minute and 15 seconds. At high fan speed, the Coway Airmega 400S was the best at removing fine particles in an average of 34 seconds.
Stage 3: The activated carbon or charcoal filter
While HEPA captures particles, an activated carbon filter targets gases such as VOCs and odors from smoke, pets and cooking. Peter Mann, CEO of Oransi, creator of CNET’s “best for pet hair and dust” air purifier, added that activated carbon filters can also absorb gases such as ammonia, formaldehyde and hydrogen sulfide.
Advertisement
While activated carbon filters can remove ozone, the efficiency of this process depends on the amount of activated carbon in the filter. However, there is no performance rating system for filters designed to remove gases.
But there is a rating system for particles: clean air delivery rate. The higher the CADR, the larger the area an air purifier can filter.
“My rule of thumb is you want to have 300 CADR for every 500 square feet,” says Allen. “Depending on the exact size of your room, we’re trying to target four, five or six air changes per hour.”
Advertisement
Air purifiers can have multiple filtration layers that capture particles and gases.
Zooey Liao/CNET/Coway
While many air purifier manufacturers will put the room size on their packaging, they may not display the CADR. That means the air purifier might not be effective unless you’re using it in a room smaller than what’s noted on the product package.
After all, your air purifier can’t filter what it can’t catch, which is why you’ll want to make sure it’s correctly sized for your space. Harvard’s Healthy Buildings Program has a sizing tool for that.
“Most consumer purifiers are designed for rooms up to 500 to 600 square feet,” says Waller. “In larger open spaces, or when doors and windows are regularly opened during a smoke event, a single unit running on auto mode may not maintain clean air throughout the space.”
Advertisement
You’ll also want to ensure that your air purifier has a true HEPA filter, not one labeled HEPA-type or HEPA-like.
Changing both the HEPA and activated carbon filters is crucial. Collected pollutants build up and clog the filters, and dirty filters can actually release them back into your home, making air quality even worse than it was before you set up your air purifier.
What an air purifier can’t capture
Air purifiers capture airborne particles and some gases as air passes through the machine, which means anything they remove must first be suspended in the air and drawn into the purifier.
There are a few things they can’t fully address: “Dangerous gases like carbon monoxide and radon require dedicated detectors and professional remediation,” says Nedra Ogden, senior product manager at Blueair, maker of CNET’s top-recommended air purifier.
Advertisement
Radon is an invisible, naturally occurring radioactive gas that enters homes through cracks and gaps from the ground as radioactive metals break down in soil, rocks and groundwater. Carbon monoxide is also an invisible gas, and sources include gas stoves, leaking chimneys and unvented kerosene and gas space heaters.
Air purifiers can’t capture the carbon dioxide we exhale, either.
“When you don’t have appropriate ventilation, with lots of people breathing, carbon dioxide levels can increase, and it can lead to people getting migraines and headaches,” says deSouza.
Although activated carbon filters can absorb VOCs, there is a limit, especially if they become saturated and aren’t regularly replaced.
Advertisement
Air purifiers also can’t address temperature and humidity. While they can capture moisture-loving mold spores floating around in the air, Petra Oman, vice president of marketing at home and air care tech company SharkNinja, tells me that these products can’t remove mold growing on surfaces or fix a widespread mold problem in your home. For the latter, the EPA recommends a professional mold remediation service.
To determine whether your air purifier is effective, experts recommend investing in an air quality monitor. The one I have in my living room measures radon, PM2.5 particles, CO2, VOCs, air pressure, humidity and temperature.
Zooey Liao/CNET/Airthings
Some air purifiers have a built-in air quality monitor, so the purifier automatically adjusts its speed to match the level of certain pollutants. Yet, air purifiers may not display the pollutant numbers like a dedicated monitor, and will only show pollutants around the machine – not in the entire room.
“It’s a classic business maxim: What gets measured gets managed,” says Allen. “If we don’t know what the levels are out there, we don’t really know what we’re trying to manage.”
Advertisement
Are special features just hot air?
Beyond a true HEPA filter, you don’t need any fancy air purifier features.
Air purifiers that tout UV light filters or ozone- and ionic-producing technologies can do more harm than good because they produce ozone, a pollutant that can worsen airway inflammation and exacerbate asthma and hay fever.
Because of this, in 2008, the California Air Resources Board enacted an air cleaner regulation to limit ozone emissions from indoor air cleaners, requiring the board to certify all indoor air cleaners sold in the state.
“There is a lot of marketing spin with air purifiers,” Mann says. “I believe this is partly because consumers cannot see what an air purifier removes from the air.”
Advertisement
The pure potential of future air purifiers
Eventually, air purifiers may have more built-in sensors that adjust speed in real time to capture more pollutants, so a separate air quality monitor wouldn’t be necessary.
We could at some point see air purifiers connected to HVAC systems and other smart home and health devices, so that all technologies — cooling, heating, humidification, air quality, health — can work holistically to create a healthy environment. This would help connect indoor air quality to sleep, productivity, illness and other health vitals.
Air purifiers might even get built into walls, furniture and lighting rather than being standalone appliances, according to Gil Jung, director of Coway USA, maker of CNET’s favorite air purifier for the whole home.
“AI-driven predictive purification is also a possibility, so rather than reacting to pollution, systems will anticipate it,” says Waller. “Imagine a purifier that precharges to boost mode when it detects from external data sources (air quality forecasts, local wildfire tracking) that conditions are about to deteriorate.”
Advertisement
Your air purifier would turn on before you even smell smoke.
Stuart Thompson, senior design manager of environmental care at Dyson, tells me that we’ll see innovation in filtration systems, going beyond HEPA and activated carbon, with “multiple specialized layers to target an even broader range of pollutants.” They’ll be able to capture ultrafine particles, absorb more complex gases and break down certain pollutants at a molecular level.
Though true HEPA filters currently aren’t reusable, according to Hirsch, research points to reusable filtration systems being a future product development.
Once the air makes its way through these filters, motion sensors could direct purified air toward people based on where they are in a room. Thompson expects future air purifiers to project air farther and circulate it more effectively in larger spaces, so that every corner of the room gets clean air.
Advertisement
It would be great to see air purifiers that produce less noise, which might encourage more people to use them.
According to CNET Labs’ 2025 testing, on a low fan speed, the quietest air purifier was the BlueAir 311i at 34.84 dBA. At high fan speed, the quietest model that still effectively filtered particles measuring 0.30 microns was the 51.56-dBA Shark HP102. That compares with about 60 dBA for people speaking 3 feet away.
But while we await the air purifiers of the future, there’s still significant work that can be done to prevent future generations from having to worry about air pollution in the first place.
Air awareness and action
While air purifiers can improve indoor air quality, there’s only so much we can expect from a device when it comes to addressing air pollution as a whole.
Advertisement
“Until we stop burning fossil and other harmful fuels for our energy, transportation and production, we’re essentially trying to make the health impacts as least bad as possible, but we’re not actually stopping them,” says Bender.
Education and awareness are key. Just like you monitor the weather, you should monitor your air quality, both inside and out. Not simply to know when you should remain indoors, avoid outdoor ventilation or turn on your air purifier, but also to see the problem firsthand, as I did during the Eaton Fire.
The air pollution problem goes beyond what any one household can address, meaning collective action is needed. This will require contacting policymakers, whether you’re reaching out to your school board, city council, state representatives, federal agencies or the White House to share your stories and thoughts about air pollution and climate change in an effort to push for change.
Just like you wouldn’t drink a glass of dirty water or eat food visibly covered in microplastics, you shouldn’t have to breathe polluted air. After all, breathing isn’t optional. Breathing clean air shouldn’t be, either.
Roughly half the world’s population is female, but the STEM fields don’t reflect that. The 2024 U.N. Global Education Monitoring Report on gender found that about 35 percent of STEM college graduates were women. The proportion hasn’t increased much in more than a decade.
When it comes to STEM careers, the percentage is even lower. Women made up about 28 percent of the global STEM workforce in 2024, according to the World Economic Forum.
There are myriad factors for the discrepancy, including a lack of family support, some teachers encouraging only boys to pursue STEM subjects, and a shortage of female role models.
But one force is at play long before college majors are ever considered: limited access to STEM-focused educational resources for preuniversity students. Especially for students in rural communities, the limited access curtails curiosity in STEM subjects before interest can take root. Although the lack of opportunity impacts boys and girls alike, when combined with other factors it can have an outsized effect on girls in some rural regions.
Advertisement
IEEE Fellow Rajiv Joshi is one of the creators of the Women in Science, Engineering project. He is a principal scientist and master inventor at the IBM Watson Research Center, in Yorktown Heights, N.Y.Rajiv Joshi
One such place is rural India. The challenges of pursuing a STEM education—or any education at all—increase sharply as rural Indian girls move into their teen years. Social barriers including early marriage, traditional gender roles, and familial expectations for financial support contribute to girls’ dropping out of school, according to the Mahadev Maitri Foundation, a nongovernment organization focused on childhood education in underdeveloped areas. Dropout rates for girls spike between the ages of 11 to 14, according to the foundation.
The trend is something IEEE Fellow Rajiv Joshi and IEEE Senior Member Rajesh Zele want to change. A shared passion to keep rural Indian girls from dropping out of school and on paths to STEM careers led them to launch the Women in Science, Engineering (WiSE) project.
“Talent is universal, but opportunity is not,” Joshi says. “WiSE is one way to expand opportunities.”
They presented their proposal for the three-year initiative to the society’s board of governors in 2022 and received a grant of US $80,000.
The framework
WiSE was a five-day, hands-on learning program held on the IIT-B campus. Starting in 2023, it ran for three years and was held during the last week of March. A new cohort of 160 to 200 girls from rural and tribal areas in the states of Maharashtra and Karnataka attended each year.
The event was divided into two parts: hands-on learning through Break-Make-Program (BMP) experiences and presentations by influential female Indian role models.
Zele, project manager Arti Auti, several IIT-B faculty members, and about 70 student volunteers from the institute oversaw the program.
Advertisement
Selecting the first cohort
With funding secured, Zele and his team on the ground in India got busy selecting attendees for the inaugural 2023 class. They reached out to administrators at 68 schools in Maharashtra and Karnataka. Although the two states are among the most urbanized in the country, each has vast rural areas where educating teen girls competes with early marriage and familial support pressure.
Teachers identified girls with high scores in mathematics and science, and community leaders recommended students who could benefit from the program.
Then outreach to their parents began. The adults were required to commit their own time, not just grant permission for their daughters to attend. They participated in quarterly online meetings that included the girls’ teachers, IIT-B student mentors, and other program volunteers after the week concluded. The check-ins held parents accountable for supporting their daughters’ continuing school attendance. The commitment to join the meetings was to last for at least four years after their daughter’s program participation ended.
Hands-on learning is key
Participants stayed in one of the institute’s dormitories for the week and attended sessions held Monday through Friday.
Advertisement
They worked together in small teams to build things rooted in STEM concepts. The teams were supervised by Arti, IIT-B faculty, and student volunteers.
“The idea behind BMP,” Joshi says, “was to give the girls an opportunity to take a gadget apart, then rebuild it, perfect it, or come up with a totally new idea.”
The build kits were created by students in Zele’s Advanced Integrated Circuits and Systems Lab. The girls and teachers were allowed to take the kits home to keep the learning going and spread STEM awareness.
Advertisement
“Many girls used those kits at different events to demonstrate their STEM skills to others,” Joshi says. One was Sushi Pawar, who built a drone during WiSE, then went on to demonstrate it to a national audience.
“I presented the drone project in 2024 to Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the Pariksha Pe Charcha,” Pawar says. That initiative is an annual event open for students in classes 6 to 12, their teachers, and parents. The focus is on helping students manage stress during exam time through fun and celebratory activities. The event is supported by the Indian Ministry of Education and hosted by the prime minister.
Each year, millions of students complete an online multiple-choice test to qualify to attend in person and meet the prime minister. In 2024 nearly 4,000 participants attended.
Inspiration as the foundation
WiSE was about more than hands-on learning. It also included daily presentations from “Winspirers”: Indian women who achieved success in their lives or had STEM careers. They included scientists, doctors, military officers, professors, and other women who overcame obstacles.
Advertisement
The first such speaker was Savita Dakle, a farmer from Maharashtra who dropped out of school after 10th grade, got married, and had two children.
Despite limited farming knowledge, she learned quickly and built a coalition of 400 female farmers from her village. She taught them how to use mobile phones and social media to share information and resources.
Today, that coalition has more than 1 million members in two online communities. They share tips on market pricing, growing crops, and more.
Zele says he views Dakle as the ideal Winspirer: someone who built a thriving business with few resources and no academic or professional credentials.
Advertisement
Dakle mirrors the challenges faced by many program participants, he says, noting that many girls face pressure to leave school early to marry or financially support their family. She is living proof, he says, that no girl’s circumstances define her possibilities.
The practical impact of WiSE
No empirical data yet exists to measure the project’s success, but feedback from participants shows the program has made a difference. Many from the 2023 cohort remained in school and are now pursuing higher education.
Participant Tejswini Manoj Patil credits the initiative with boosting her confidence in science and math.
“Before WiSE,” she says, “I was interested in STEM but felt intimidated by the complexity of the subjects. After participating, my interest shifted from passive curiosity to active confidence. The hands-on projects showed me that I am capable of solving real-world problems.”
Advertisement
Meeting female role models was important, attendee Ritu Ravindra Patil says, adding: “WiSE completely changed my perspective, and meeting the Winspirers inspired me to aim for higher education.”
The project opened career perspectives for some.
“Before WiSE, I wanted to be a doctor,” Pallavi Bharti says. “I believed engineering was very stressful and boring. When I joined the program and explored IIT-B, I was amazed. Everyone was so friendly and supportive, and the passion in students for their work motivated me. All those experiences gave me confidence to take math classes and become an engineer.”
What’s next?
The initiative ended last year, but the framework it built lives on. Groups with similar goals have adopted parts of the concept, Joshi says.
Advertisement
The IEEE CASS chapters in Bangalore and Kerala are likely to be among the first to advance the initiative’s ideas, he says.
Tanwani, chair of the Bangalore chapter, is a system-on-a-chip design engineering manager at Intel in Bengaluru. Dwivedi is a senior manager at Synopsys in Bengaluru. They are bringing STEM outreach to remote schools in Karnataka.
Joshi and Zele say they hope to see the concept expand beyond India.
“We want to spread this across other continents and see how we can integrate WiSE into new or existing initiatives in those places,” Joshi says. He says he has received requests from countries in Asia, Africa, and Europe for information on WiSE.
Both say awareness and outreach are key things that IEEE CASS chapters around the world are well positioned to support.
Advertisement
“We want to make a difference in young women’s lives,” Zele says. “It’s all about giving attendees the skills to stand on their own feet and have the information to make good decisions.”
Samsung hasn’t officially unveiled the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra yet. However, that hasn’t stopped luxury customisation company Caviar from putting its own version up for sale.
The bespoke handset pays tribute to football icon Lionel Messi. It wraps Samsung’s upcoming foldable in 24-karat gold and handcrafted artwork, with a price tag to match.
Caviar is charging $13,130 for the limited-edition device. This makes it more than six times as expensive as the Galaxy Z Fold 7’s $2,000 launch price. If Samsung’s next Ultra model lands in a similar range, the price difference will be significant.
The custom phone features a handcrafted cloisonné enamel portrait of Messi in Argentina’s national colours. Alongside this, it offers 24-karat gold accents, the Argentina Football Association crest, a commemorative 2022 FIFA World Cup badge, and Adidas branding. Buyers also receive a bespoke presentation box finished in royal blue with additional gold detailing. They get a custom Caviar key as well.
Advertisement
Exclusivity is clearly part of the appeal. Caviar says it will produce just 19 units of the Messi edition. As a result, it is one of the company’s rarest smartphone releases.
Advertisement
Beyond the lavish (and quite hideous) exterior, the listing also hints at a few details about Samsung’s next foldable before its official debut. It suggests the Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra will start with 256GB of storage. Additionally, 512GB and 1TB configurations will also be available.
Perhaps more notably, the listing reinforces rumours that Samsung is preparing to launch an Ultra-branded foldable alongside a standard Galaxy Z Fold 8. While the Caviar model closely resembles last year’s Fold 7 in overall shape, reports have suggested the regular Fold 8 could adopt a wider design. This would result in a more conventional aspect ratio for media consumption.
Advertisement
The listing doesn’t reveal any additional specifications. Therefore, details such as the processor, cameras and display upgrades will have to wait until Samsung’s next Galaxy Unpacked event.
Anyone hoping to secure one should also expect a wait. Caviar says production only begins after full payment has been received. Each handset is built to order due to the extensive gold plating and handcrafted enamel work.
For most buyers, the standard Galaxy Z Fold 8 Ultra will almost certainly be the more realistic option. But if a regular foldable isn’t exclusive enough, and you’ve got more than $13,000 to spare, Caviar’s Messi edition is about as extravagant as smartphone launches get.
Anduril Industries revealed Thunder today at the Farnborough Airshow, a Group 5 autonomous attack rotorcraft developed jointly with Archer Aviation. The platform is designed from the start to fly alongside current and next-generation crewed attack and assault helicopters, multiplying their firepower while keeping human crews farther from the most dangerous parts of the fight.
Development began in 2024, thanks to a collaboration between the two companies. Archer offered their work on electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and rotor technologies, while Anduril contributed their knowledge in Lattice mission autonomous software and defensive systems. They designed a tiltrotor from scratch that can take off and land vertically before converting to a smooth and efficient cruising flight. The key to all of this is a series hybrid-electric powertrain, as well as some clever tiltrotors that can change RPMs based on flight phase, all of which help to reduce power consumption, fuel burn in cruising mode, and noise profile while flying low.
Due to platform compatibility issue, the DJI Fly app has been removed from Google Play. DJI Neo must be activated in the DJI Fly App, to ensure a…
Lightweight and Regulation Friendly – At just 135g, this drone with camera for adults 4K may be even lighter than your phone and does not require FAA…
Palm Takeoff & Landing, Go Controller-Free [1] – Neo takes off from your hand with just a push of a button. The safe and easy operation of this drone…
Thunder may be packed into a conventional shipping container and transported by road, rail, air, or sea, and it can also self-deploy over great distances. The main body and nose contain modular payload bays that may hold a variety of items, including ten air-to-ground missiles such as Hellfire, JAGM, and Anduril’s Barracuda-100M. Perhaps you’d prefer to carry sixteen air-launched effects like the Altius-600, or seventy-six 70 mm rockets. The nose bay can even contain a dozen counter-drone bombs, while electronics, sensors, and cargo may all be put into the same modular bays.
Advertisement
Thunder is designed to have the same range and speed of the Army’s next-generation Cheyenne II while carrying a payload comparable to that of an AH-64 Apache. Several test sorties have already been conducted on a full-scale prototype to iron out some of the major systems. The actual Thunder airframe is scheduled to fly in 2027.
Anduril’s autonomous capabilities are also controlled by its Lattice software. Thunder can operate alongside crewed helicopters, then safely separate from them, share a common tactical picture, and perform mission-critical duties with only high-level direction from a commander, removing the need for constant pilot control. And by attaching three of them to an Apache, you can increase the number of useful weapons without endangering more aircrew. Its design was influenced by lessons learnt in Ukraine about the vulnerability of low-flying helicopters to drones, air defenses, and other threats.
Thunder was designed to be more than just an attack aircraft. It can also execute long-range fire support, intelligence collection, maritime patrol or search for missing people, and perhaps anti-submarine operations. Archer plans to announce some commercial customers for the dual-purpose vehicle later this week, with an emphasis on freight and remote logistical operations that require the same vertical takeoff, range, and payload.
We don’t know how much Thunder will cost, but Anduril says it’ll be a fraction of the cost of a crewed attack helicopter and cheap enough that commanders will be ready to take some more risk if a drone is shot down. However, production will be based on commercial supply chains and manufacturing techniques designed expressly for eVTOL aircraft, which should help keep costs low and numbers high.
Drones like this were tracked using 5G network signals during a demonstration at AT&T Stadium.
Jeff Carlson/CNET
On a balcony not far from World Cup venue AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, a dot suddenly popped up on a large screen, representing an unwelcome drone snaking toward a rectangular no-fly zone. Within a few seconds, a “friendly” drone zipped past the balcony to intercept and encourage the unwelcome aircraft to turn back.
The wayward drone wasn’t identified using standard methods such as radar, however. Instead, its flight path was tracked by 5G cellular radios just like the ones you see on towers and buildings.
This proof-of-concept demo was put on by AT&T and Ericsson to show off their Integrated Sensing and Communication technology, timed to coincide with one of the world’s largest sporting events. Drones were the focus that day, but the same technology could be applied to track other subjects like vehicles or people within range of the 5G network.
Ericsson representatives Kristen Cone and Rahul Patel demonstrated ISAC, a tracking technology for identifying objects such as drones using 5G signals.
Jeff Carlson/CNET
Although it was a small-scale demo, it comes amid a growing proliferation of drones operating in areas they’re not supposed to fly. According to Reuters, the FBI said more than 700 drones were confiscated by US agencies during the World Cup, some of them piloted by operators who didn’t realize they were in no-fly zones that had been extended for the matches.
Advertisement
But as we’ve seen in Ukraine and Russia, tiny drones can be highly elusive and destructive — a nightmare scenario for planners of events like the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles or even small public gatherings.
Real-time data from a trio of towers
For this demonstration, the companies created a “multistatic sensing configuration” using three cell towers, each containing the same kind of Ericsson Massive MIMO, or multiple-input multiple-output, radios found on other nearby cell sites, with a sensing capability enabled. They were spaced about 1.6 miles away from the demo area.
In this demonstration, tracking software identified a potentially threatening drone (the blue dot) and tracked it before it crossed into the no-fly zone (in red).
AT&T/Ericsson
When the rogue object was sensed by the network, well outside the no-fly zone, the system’s software classified it, using signal processing and AI algorithms, as a drone flying about 11 mph. If the drone had been a real threat, other agencies, such as law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security, would have received the same live data to determine what action to take.
Although only two drones were tracked during the demo, AT&T says the system can track swarms of them.
Advertisement
Why use the 5G network for this type of tracking?
Identifying flying objects isn’t new: Radar installations around the world continuously scan the skies to track aircraft and detect potential threats. But they tend to scan at high altitudes and require dedicated hardware to operate.
A cellular network, by contrast, already has an established footprint of towers and cell sites that provide continuous phone coverage across much of the US. The demonstration tracked drones flying at around 300 to 400 feet, but the range of detection can be up to 6 kilometers.
A pilot controls a “friendly” drone during a demonstration of technology that can track and identify unwanted drones using 5G network signals.
Jeff Carlson/CNET
Robert Soni, vice president of Radio Access Network technology at AT&T, pointed to the company’s 75,000 sites across North America.
“This is a significant number that is difficult to replicate by building a purposeful radar,” Soni said during a briefing after the demo. “We’re also closer to the ground, and because of our angle of elevation, we can go down to a lower altitude than you could with traditional airborne-based radar. We’re able to see more of the nation.”
Advertisement
Akhil Gokul, vice president and head of technology for the Americas at Ericsson, explained that the density of towers enabled for sensing leads to greater accuracy “because you’re getting reflections [of radio frequency waves] from multiple towers,” he said. “You can get a much richer set of data that can be fed to our models.”
This approach also makes a 5G-based tracking system more resilient, with no single point of failure; cell networks already have the ability to automatically compensate when a tower goes offline for maintenance or during extreme weather events.
Demonstrating new uses for existing hardware is also a big part of the appeal of something like ISAC, because adding components to towers is expensive and time-consuming.
“I think the industry is always looking for what else the wireless network can do,” said Yigal Elbaz, senior vice president and network chief technology officer at AT&T. “Like anything else, you always want to drive to see what you can already do with your existing infrastructure.”
Advertisement
The drone demonstration used a standard Ericsson Massive MIMO radio like the one shown here mounted on the metal frame.
Jeff Carlson/CNET
Pushing for 6G technologies today
The sensing technology that was demonstrated is expected to be part of the eventual 6G standards, but the AT&T and Ericsson people I talked to didn’t want to wait to get started on testing.
“From a technology point of view, this was viewed as a 6G capability, and this is something that’s actually being developed in the standards,” said Gokul. “What we’re doing in collaboration with AT&T is accelerating that much earlier.”
Disrupting the old process shifts the timelines for technologies that are needed in the next couple of years. Soni doesn’t want to wait for 2030 to start that cycle, around when 6G may start rolling out.
“[Previously,] standards have to get done first, proof of concepts happen second, trials happen later and then finally we see technology at home,” Soni said. “We’re trying to break that cycle … of the Gs themselves by introducing this early.”
Advertisement
The drone demonstration in Texas involved just two drones on the outskirts of an empty stadium, but it showed that the technology can track and identify objects in real time using existing 5G hardware. Real-world uses, from potential threats to assisting autonomous vehicles, aren’t going to wait for standards to mature, and neither are AT&T and Ericsson.
Jeff Carlson writes about mobile technology for CNET. He is also the author of dozens of how-to books covering a wide spectrum ranging from Apple devices and cameras to photo editing software and PalmPilots. He drinks a lot of coffee in Seattle.
See full bio
There was once a race to put out cameras with ever higher numbers of megapixels to snare customers eager to take the highest quality digital photos. These days, we know that things like optics, processing, and finer qualities of an image sensor are all very important beyond pure resolution. But, for a time, companies behaved as if megapixels mattered over all else.
But what if you could go farther—shooting not millions, but billions of pixels in a single image? That’s precisely what [Yannick Richter] came to Hackaday Europe to talk about, covering his Project Gigapixel build.
More Pixels
When it comes to building a consumer camera with higher resolution, manufacturers achieve this by creating an image sensor with a greater number of sensing elements. This, of course, can get expensive and difficult the farther you want to scale, particularly if you’re trying to fit more sensing elements into a given standard sensor size.
Advertisement
A scanner sensor has great linear resolution. Pan one behind a high-quality lens, and you can capture images in super high resolution… just hope that nothing moves while you’re capturing a shot!
However, there are other ways to capture images in greater resolution that don’t require a larger image sensor. Namely, you can actually use quite a simple image sensor of limited resolution, and simply move it to various positions, capturing light all the while. Then, all you need to do is stitch the output together and you have a remarkably high resolution image. It might sound complicated, but as [Yannick] explains, it’s a perfectly cromulent way to build a gigapixel image.
[Yannick’s] project began with an old Epson flatbed scanner. This made the perfect donor for such a project, as it came with a linear image sensor with quite good resolution for scanning photographs and documents. The only problem is that it needs to move in a straight path in order to capture a full image. The goal was to build it into a scanner-style camera that was truly portable, which required some reverse engineering and creative design to make it into a practical tool for real-world photography. [Yannick] didn’t want to just stuff the existing scanner in a bodged-together camera body, either. He wanted to interface the sensor directly and build a custom linear-scanning camera from the ground up, with the high-resolution linear sensor mounted behind a nice medium-format Pentax lens.
[Yannick] lashed up a Raspberry Pi to read from the sensor.
The key was that the scanner in question—an Epson V370—used a Sony CCD scanning element, rather than a cheaper CIS element. A proper CCD sensor is more expensive, but produces better output, and is more suitable for the sort of imaging [Yannick] was trying to do with this build. Namely, by running the scanning element behind a medium format lens to capture incredibly high-resolution images at up to 40800 x 80000 pixels, or 3.2 gigapixels if you multiply it out.
The talk covers all the work that [Yannick] did to make this a fully functional camera. That included doing a deep dive into Epson documentation to figure out how to interface the sensor at all. Thankfully, service manuals provided enough detail on how the 12-line RGB sensor works to get the project over the line. Interfacing the sensor was achieved via reusing the ADC and timing generation hardware from the scanner itself, hooked up to a Raspberry Pi 5 and a RP2350.
Plenty of work was required to figure out how to properly offset all the R, G, and B pixels to line up properly into a coherent color image. [Yannick] also dives into the mechanical design, regarding how the sensor was assembled on a 100-millimeter linear drive to scan it behind the lens assembly to capture images. There were also issues generating a live preview that you’d get on any other digital camera, which is not exactly practical to generate from a scanning image sensor. Instead, a standard Raspberry Pi camera was included in the build for live preview to help with lining up a shot.
The camera is capable of taking incredibly high resolution images with rich detail. Of course, image sizes are hefty in turn.
Perhaps the best part of the talk is when [Yannick] shows off the final results. The simple fact is that 3.2 gigapixel images capture a ton of detail when they’re taken well and focused correctly. A simple shot of some benchtop instruments doesn’t look like anything special, until [Yannick] shows that cropping in will let you read the codes off a 0603 SMD resistor. Obviously, the camera is limited when it comes to speed and it can’t really capture moving objects well. However, when it comes to grabbing very high resolution shots of still scenes, it’s a great performer. If taking gorgeously detailed landscapes or stunning architectural shots is your thing, you might find such a build an appealing proposition for your own needs.
We spend hours testing every product or service we review, so you can be sure you’re buying the best. Find out more about how we test.
Sony PS-LX3BT: Two-minute review
The Sony PS-LX3BT is one of the first new turntables to leave Sony’s R&D department in years. It comes some time after the launch of the Sony PS-LX310BT, one of what TechRadar rightfully deems to be the best turntables for beginners — and has big shoes to fill, accordingly.
And fill them it sort-of does, at least in the most literal of senses. It shares a lot of physical attributes, aims for the same sleek aesthetic, and seeks to corner the same, well, corner of the market with user-friendly interfaces and a no-nonsense approach to playing records. It’s a shame it doesn’t quite stick the landing.
Advertisement
Price is the major sticking point for me — its launch price far overshot similarly specced, and better-featured, turntables in the same market. This was the backdrop against which certain bugbears became serious missteps — from a stylus that Sony insists you need to replace through them, to a cheap-feeling body that feels like it’s come from a device a third of the price.
Latest Videos From
These things overshadow the PS-LX3BT’s capable performance with audio, via its decent on-board preamp and its star-of-the-show press-and-play Bluetooth connectivity. It could be good — it is good, by some metrics — but not for where it’s asking to sit.
(Image credit: Future / James Grimshaw)
Sony PS-LX3BT review: Price & release date
Unveiled February 2, 2026
Priced $399.99 / £299 / AU$469
The Sony PS-LX3BT is a fully automatic, Bluetooth-enabled plug-and-play turntable, with an eye cocked squarely at the upper limits of the entry level. At its launch price of $399 / £299 / AU$469, it’s not what I would call cheap; in fact, it’s undercut by a fair few near-equivalent competitors — most compelling of which is the Audio-Technica AT-LP70XBT.
Then, there’s this turntable’s own sibling (they actually launched together), the Sony PS-LX5BT which is pricier but adds a more delicate stylus pressure of 2.0g ± 0.5g, a thicker and more premium rubber mat, a tweaked circuit design engineered to suppress unwanted vibration, a dedicated gold-plated audio jack out port (something not present here) with a cable in the box, plus a slightly more high-end, all-black finish.
Advertisement
Most other competitors in the market, though, do not have ‘Sony’ tastefully emblazoned on the chassis. Sony is a tried-and-tested household brand for AV tech, be it TVs, games consoles, CD players or integrated hi-fi systems.
Sign up for breaking news, reviews, opinion, top tech deals, and more.
Hence, the brand is likely better-trusted by new or returning vinyl enthusiasts to deliver something intuitive, fuss-free and of a minimum quality. Is this trust well-founded? The 2019 Sony PS-LX310BT was a huge success, but it was also a lot cheaper (depending on where you lived), having launched at $199 / £200 / AU$399. So, you can see the issue…
(Image credit: Future / James Grimshaw)
Advertisement
Sony PS-LX3BT review: Specs
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Dimensions
430 mm x 117 mm x 366 mm
Motor
Belt drive
Advertisement
Platter
Die-cast aluminum
Phono preamp
Yes
Advertisement
USB
No
Bluetooth
4.2
Advertisement
Speeds
33 1/3, 45 RPM
Stylus
Moving magnet
Advertisement
Extras
USB-C power adapter, 45 adapter
(Image credit: Future / James Grimshaw)
Sony PS-LX3BT review: Features
Fully automatic operation
AptX Adaptive Bluetooth output
Built-in phono preamp and gain control
The Sony PS-LX3BT is an automatic turntable; this means it can be operated entirely by the array of buttons and switches adorning its anthracite-hued surface. Simply select the size and speed of your record, then use the buttons at the front to control the placement or removal of the tonearm. The platter’s rotation is triggered by moving the tonearm past a certain point, so even if you want to use the PS-LX3BT manually (by virtue of the silver finger-rest protruding from where the headshell would be) you literally only have to lift a finger to play a record.
Automatic turntable mechanisms are not so new, and this mechanical design doesn’t sound especially new either, with some familiar clunks and whirrs I know from my old Rotel system. What is, at least slightly newer, though, is Bluetooth connectivity, which the PS-LX3BT quite proudly has. More specifically, there’s aptX Adaptive Bluetooth transmission, for low-latency, high-resolution streaming from the turntable to your Bluetooth receiver of choice and accessed via a suavely flush button in the front-left corner of the chassis face.
Advertisement
On top of this Bluetooth connectivity, the LX3BT has connections the old-fashioned way, via a hard-wired stereo RCA cable out from the back. It’s an odd choice to use a permanently attached cable instead of a port – and at that, given the audience for this thing, I’m surprised there isn’t a 3.5mm Aux out either.
Still, that RCA cable feeds a built-in and switchable phono preamp, which means you can plug your turntable in most any amplifier without needing an extra gain stage. On top of that, there’s a gain switch that lets you boost or attenuate your turntable’s output by 4dB. Surprising in a different way; thoughtful, even.
The LX3BT has, like many other entry-level turntables of its ilk, a completely built-in cartridge arrangement with a replaceable stylus element. The stylus part here looks strikingly like one of Audio-Technica’s AT-3600 series, but is “designed specifically for this turntable”, according to Sony’s website FAQ. With a bit of sleuthing, the stylus does appear to be Audio-Technica’s AT3600LAX, a conical stylus with a carbon-fiber cantilever – though Sony’s specs point to a slightly heftier 3.5g tracking force. (Incidentally, my own tracking-force measurements of the tonearm put its exertion at a, for me, troublingly high 3.7g.)
Crucially, this thin layer of proprietariness creates an uneasy route to self-replacement, or indeed upgrade. Sony would prefer you go through its dealers or customer service department for a like-for-like stylus replacement, indicating that “other styluses are not supported”. Built-in cartridges and replaceable styli can be clever entry-level phenomena, and can be executed transparently well, but here, in this manner, it trends a little too close to being anti-consumer for my liking. Minus thoughtfulness points.
Advertisement
(Image credit: Future / James Grimshaw)
Sony PS-LX3BT review: Sound quality
Warm, clear sound from stylus
Faultless Bluetooth transmission
Clean, clear built-in preamp
For all the grumblings I’ve leveled at the Sony PS-LX3BT thus far, I will contend that it actually does sound good. That definitely-not-an-AT-3600L-in-a-moustache cartridge presents a perfectly reasonable quality of sound — great, even, for its place in the market.
True to the marketing copy, the LX3BT sounds warm, the general color of its cartridge being a little on the soft side with some noticeable roll-off towards the upper reaches. Future Islands’ As Long As You Are sounds no less rich for this character, all big, warbly synths and croon-adjacent missives throughout. It’s an enjoyable listen.
Testing the 7-inch functionality of the automatic mechanism, I chucked on early-80s groover Emergency (Dial 999) by Loose Ends (a DJ-set staple, and an undeniable bop besides — fight me). It ended up being a great conduit by which to recognize the strengths of the PS-LX3BT’s built-in phono preamp. Often in budget turntables, these can be brittle or a little saturating; this one is clear and full, rendering those snappy standout snares and breakout vocal refrains in gratifying detail.
The whole outfit seems to benefit guitars and vocals over anything, though everything sounds, to some extent, present and fulsome; Ryuichi Sakamoto’s Risky, featuring Iggy Pop, is a sparse arrangement benefited by Iggy’s game attempt at a Let’s Dance-era Bowie impression — his voice is a raspy little joy all the time, but rendered to some good effect here.
Advertisement
Unobtrusively good sound quality notwithstanding, the aptX Adaptive Bluetooth connectivity is arguably the star of the show. It’s fast to connect to, and, with regards to fidelity, sounds indistinguishable from its analog alternative. I had a whale of a time in the kitchen listening to Mitski’s Nothing’s About To Happen To Me, in all its full and heartbreaking glory, fuss-free.
Sound quality score: 4 / 5
(Image credit: Future / James Grimshaw)
Sony PS-LX3BT review: Design
Cheap-feeling construction
Easy to set up
One-touch Bluetooth
Pulling the PS-LX3BT out of the box, I found the chassis to be quite light. Surprisingly light, even. Putting it together, it became clear that almost every element was some form of plastic — besides occasional aspects, and the die-cast aluminum platter. It’s not a reassuring weight, though the turntable is undeniably stable on its feet.
I’m more disappointed by the perceivable cheapness of the construction on display here. A series of design decisions were made that preferred cost to user experience, leading to a pretty nasty-feeling finish on the chassis shell, a flimsy tonearm rest clasp that doesn’t actually clasp, and a spring-assisted tonearm that inspires little confidence.
At least the LX3BT is an easy thing to set up — as easy as seating the platter belt, plugging in a power adapter and delivering the hardwired stereo RCA cable to your amp or speaker of choice. It couldn’t be more plug-and-play, nor more foolproof to use via its clearly labeled buttons and knobs.
Advertisement
Again, the best bit of the Sony PS-LX3BT seems to be its Bluetooth. Where many other devices struggle unduly with one-touch connectivity, connecting this turntable to my portable speaker was the easiest time of my life; a single button press, a modicum of patient waiting with speaker held (camply) in-hand, and it was paired.
This aptX Adaptive connectivity can be utilized simultaneously to the PS-LX3BT’s analog outputs, too. This means dual-zone listening; I got to enjoy hi-res Mitski in the kitchen while my wife bopped along in the living room, too. And, again, it sounded great! A positive side-effect design decision, that pitches the Sony LX3BT well for casual home listening.
(Image credit: Future / James Grimshaw)
Sony PS-LX3BT review: Value
Great-sounding entry-level turntable…
…that’s fundamentally overpriced
And doesn’t allow self-replacement of stylus
To be completely frank, I find it difficult to square the price of this against its own quality, let alone the standards set by other turntable brands. It’s the top end of the entry level, and yet it has the same unfriendly design principles as the cheap-and-cheerful, ten-a-penny budget turntables it’s meant to outclass.
The caveat is that it does, ultimately, deliver on its core purposes. It’s an automatic turntable, and it does indeed automate much of the turntable-playing process — for the most part successfully, too. It’s a Bluetooth-enabled turntable, and its Bluetooth just works, which is something you can’t say for some other devices. And through it all, it sounds pretty darn decent.
Advertisement
But these are all things that turntables a third cheaper can offer. You deserve so much more for $400 / £300 than a brand logo; if you let it, that same amount of investment could buy you a solid turntable that delivers better quality sound, and gives you the keys to the kingdom vis-a-vis calibration and repairs too.
Here, it is worth my acknowledging that, in the intervening weeks since the LX3BT’s launch, there seems to have been a post-launch price-adjustment of sorts; many outlets are offering it at $348 / £250, or even slightly less. This makes the turntable a much more palatable prospect investment-wise, but I do think my criticisms stand — and that other turntables have met the moment a little better.
(Image credit: Future / James Grimshaw)
Should I buy the Sony PS-LX3BT?
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Sony PS-LX3BT scorecard
Attribute
Advertisement
Notes
Score
Features
AptX Adaptive Bluetooth and a fully automatic mechanism let down by an opaque approach to stylus and stylus replacement
Advertisement
3 / 5
Sound quality
Warm, full sound; a clear preamp and unobtrusive Bluetooth connection make for clear and easy listening
4 / 5
Advertisement
Design
A quintessential Sony design, sleek and minimal — but cheap in-hand, in a number of places
3 / 5
Value
Advertisement
A hard turntable to recommend at its launch price — cheaper and better-specced competitors exist
2.5 / 5
Buy it if…
Advertisement
Don’t buy it if…
Sony PS-LX3BT review: Also consider
Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell – Column 0
Sony PS-LX3BT
Audio-Technica AT-LP70XBT
FiiO TT13
Advertisement
Dimensions
430 x 117 x 366 mm
110 x 400 x 330mm
114 x 450 x 350mm
Advertisement
Motor
Belt drive
Belt drive
Belt drive
Advertisement
Platter
Die-cast aluminum
Die-cast aluminum
Die-cast aluminum
Advertisement
Phono preamp
Yes, switchable
Yes, switchable
Yes
Advertisement
USB
No
No
No
Advertisement
Bluetooth
SBC / aptX / aptX Adaptive
SBC / aptX / aptX Adaptive
SBC / aptX / aptX LL / aptX HD
Advertisement
Speeds
33 1/3, 45 RPM
33 1/3, 45 RPM
33 1/3, 45 RPM
Advertisement
Stylus
Moving magnet
Audio-Technica AT-VM95C
Audio-Technica AT3600LA
Advertisement
Extras
Dust cover, 45 adapter
Dust cover, felt mat, 45 adapter, 1m RCA cable
Dust cover, remote control, RCA cable
Advertisement
How I tested the Sony PS-LX3BT
Tested for 4 weeks
Used as a part of a living-room hi-fi system
Tested with a Cambridge hi-fi amplifier and Dali Sonik 1 bookshelf speakers
The Sony PS-LX3BT spent a month or so atop my living-room hi-fi stack, as my primary means of listening to records. As such, its output was treated by a Cambridge Audio A2 integrated amplifier, which itself fed a pair of Dali Sonik 1 bookshelf speakers.
Bluetooth connectivity was tested with my trusty kitchen speaker, a Soundcore Motion 300. For testing, I listened to a wide variety of favored records across genres, to get a comprehensive feel for the LX3BT’s performance.
Apple TV is to screen director Sian Heder’s follow-up to the Oscar-winning “CODA,” a biopic about the life of a woman who got the government to take action over the rights of disabled people.
In 2022, Sian Heder directed and co-wrote “CODA,” which earned Apple TV the first-ever Best Picture Oscar for a streaming service. Apple immediately announced that it was backing Heder to direct a dramatization of Judy Heumann’s bestselling memoir, and the finished film is now heading for theaters and Apple TV.
Co-written by Heder and Rebekah Taussig, “Being Heumann” stars Ruth Madeley as Heumann. Best known for “Doctor Who” and Russell T. Davies’s “Years and Years,” Madeley has spina bifida and is wheelchair-bound.
Heumann contracted polio in the late 1940s aged 18 months and spent most of her life in wheelchairs. According to Entertainment Weekly, Heder was shown a documentary about her and cold-emailed Heumann about making a film of her life.
Advertisement
“She was so forceful and hilarious and blunt and empathetic and all of these contradictions,” says Heder. “And I thought, ‘I do need to tell this story, and I’d love to meet this woman.’”
Heumann became known as the mother of the Disability Rights Movement, chiefly because of her 1977 sit-in. Aiming to persuade President Carter to enact the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Heumann led sit-ins that occupied federal buildings including Washington, D.C., and New York City.
The protests were known as the 504 Sit-ins, after section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which states that no otherwise qualified handicapped individual could be excluded from programs that receive federal funding. Heumann helped with the recognition of disabled rights and section 504 was finally enacted..
Heumann died unexpectedly in March 2023, aged 75. She had one Zoom call with actor Madeley before then. “I was completely in awe. I was so desperate for her to like me,” Ruth Madeley says. “I feel really privileged that she knew my name.”
Advertisement
“Her grit, her joy, and her complexities all make her so much fun to play,” she continued. “Also, to have Sian at the helm was a huge pull for me.”
Judy Heumann headed the 1970s sit-ins that led to greater disability rights – image credit: Apple TV
The film is based on the book “Being Heumann: An Unrepentant Memoir of a Disability Rights Activist” by Judy Heumann. Co-writer Rebekah Taussig is also the author of the 2020 memoir “Sitting Pretty: The View from My Ordinary Resilient Disabled Body.”
“Being Heumann” is to open the 2026 Toronto International Film Festival, which runs from September 10, 2026, to September 20. It will then get a theatrical run from November 6, 2026, before streaming on Apple TV from November 13.
Advertisement
Whether or not “Being Heumann” has any chance at repeating Heder and Apple’s Oscar success depends on exactly how the film’s theatrical window is managed. Directly following Apple’s win, the Academy Awards introduced new rules which limit what films can qualify for the Oscars.
To be eligible for consideration, the initial one-week release of “Being Heumann” in theaters will have to include one of six US metro areas including Los Angeles County, New York, Chicago, the Bay Area, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Atlanta. It will then have to be followed by another week-long run in 10 of the top 50 US Markets, no later than 45 days after that initial release.
There are more rules, and they vary for different Oscar categories. But overall the rules have effectively made it harder for streamers to win the Best Picture Oscar.
Knockoff is an extension that shows you which brands on Amazon are fake.
Ordinary Systems
Amazon’s search engine has become flooded with gibberish-named knockoff brands in recent years. To make your shopping experience a bit less phony, developer Josh Pigford built Knockoff, a free extension that will clean up your feed by automatically hiding or dimming listings from all those sketchy, mass-produced brands.
Knockoff is available for Firefox, Chrome and all Chromium-based web browsers such as Microsoft Edge, Opera and Brave. It’s also available as a Safari extension.
Pigford launched the tool earlier this month, and it’s since gone viral, with tens of thousands of downloads. A few days before the launch, Pigford posted on X, “Built a little chrome extension that lets you dim (or hide!) all the crap, mass-produced, fake brands on Amazon.” The post garnered 22,000 likes.
Knockoff is now live!
Filter out the knockoff crap brands on Amazon.
Advertisement
Sorry to brands like WNPETHOME, EHEYCIGA, YXYL, LU&MN, JOYIN, TOMY, GODONLIF, YOOJEE, LINGTENG, LANEIGE, VISCOO, BIODANCE, COOFANDY, BALENNZ, TOSY and LUENX.https://t.co/9mLk0EAsfGhttps://t.co/K07lMkepOW
It works pretty simply. Once installed, any products from fake brands, dropshippers or otherwise suspicious vendors are marked and grayed out, highlighting the more reputable brands you might actually know. There’s also an option to automatically hide the fake brands so you don’t even have to see them at all.
In an interview with 404 Media, Pigford says that Knockoff is built on prior extensions that aim to do this, such as AmazonBrandFilter and Amazon Brand Detector. The extension, which runs locally, doesn’t require an account, doesn’t send data to any company servers and doesn’t cost anything. It’s also open-source (as of version 0.7.2), and you can find the source code on GitHub.
Advertisement
The extension’s functions are pretty simple to understand. If it’s grayed out, it’s likely a fake brand, but the extension does need some fine-tuning.
Joe Hindy/CNET
So, how well does Knockoff work?
Anything sounds good on paper, but the proof is in the pudding. I took Knockoff for a test drive to see how well it filtered the mass-produced junk.
My trial wasn’t terribly complicated. I searched for a variety of products across several categories using Knockoff’s stock settings to see how well the extension would filter out the knockoff brands without any additional tuning.
The short answer is that it did quite well. While searching for vacuum cleaners, it left most of the listings intact since they were from known brands, including Shark, Bissell and Dyson. Only a few listings were grayed out, mostly because no brand name was listed in the product description.
Solar lights fared much worse. Knockoff actively blocked dozens of listings for lack of brand names and also blocked listings from Jkimk, Technet, Tonulax and other unrecognized brands (most of which are stylized in all capital letters), while keeping listings for established brands, such as Brightown, a real company based in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Advertisement
Some product categories did better than others. Solar lights were awash in fake brands, but vacuums only had a few.
Joe Hindy/CNET
Phone cases are where things start to get trickier. The extension blocked brands such as Supfine, Dumkery, Hiearcool and several others. However, it initially also blocked Torras, a well-known case brand with in-store stock at Best Buy, which holds thousands of global patents for many of its products. It doesn’t get much more real than Torras, but the company’s products were flagged because its name is stylized in all caps, which the extension checks. Torras was added as a trusted brand in subsequent updates.
Knockoff listed some lesser-known but still legitimate earbuds brands, such as Tozo and Linsoul, as real companies, while it properly flagged phony hand tool brands, including Wgge and Horusdy. Brands that aren’t recognized by the extension often appear highlighted, but on the product page, the extension flags them as suspected fakes or entirely unrecognized.
It helps that Knockoff has a system for reporting brands that are incorrectly labeled as legitimate (or wrongly marked as fake). If the extension flags a product as fake when it’s legit, you can click the badge and “report as a real brand.” Likewise, if the extension flags a product as legit when it’s really fake, you can click the badge and “report as junk” when you click on a badge over a brand that the extension recognizes. You may have to turn on badges for good brands in the settings to do this.
Knockoff lets you report brands that are good or bad to help make the extension more accurate over time. All reports are handled by hand.
Joe Hindy/CNET
Since Knockoff’s launch, Pigford has released an update that addresses user responses, including a method to directly send feedback if you want to report a brand. The latest versions need a few extra permissions, but they’re mostly for enabling new features.
Advertisement
Knockoff is a good start for filtering junk
Overall, Knockoff is a useful extension in a digital marketplace dominated by AI-generated assets and unverified third-party products.
When you’re shopping, the biggest benefit is avoiding low-quality off-brands. Even if you’re not actively shopping for anything, it’s fun (and terrifying) to see how many grayed-out product listings you can find in any given product category. We recommend turning on badges for known brands, but otherwise, the stock settings performed the best.
At the same time, Knockoff shows you brands likely to be fake on Amazon, but it doesn’t tell you which products are actually good or bad. Fake brands often come with fake or bot-written reviews more often than legitimate brands.
Still, it all depends on what you’re shopping for. If all you need is a pack of zip ties for light cable management or to attach a tomato plant to a garden trellis, the ones sold by dropshippers will work just fine and save you a couple of bucks.
Advertisement
And while Knockoff certainly makes it easier to shop for quality items, the extension still needs some fine-tuning and human analysis. Updates to the extension seem to be doing exactly that, so if you’re just now discovering the tool, it’s likely the extension has gotten even better over time.
Knockoff certainly makes it easier, but it’s still good to know how to spot these yourself so when your package arrives, you’re happier.
Amazon
Avoid fake brands without the extension
An eagle-eyed shopper can spot a knock-off brand from a mile away if they know where and how to look at product listings.
The first step, according to Russell Holly, director of commerce content at CNET, is to look for the brand outside of Amazon.com. “If it seems like a string of random characters and that brand name isn’t selling elsewhere, there’s a good chance the seller is not the manufacturer,” said Holly.
Holly also says to pay closer attention to negative reviews, since brands often fake only positive reviews. Negative reviews can be a better indicator of quality problems that may help explain why a product is cheaper than others in the same category.
Advertisement
Similarly, you can also look for a brand’s product support. If the only way to report a problem is directly to Amazon, Holly says you’re most likely dealing with a dropshipper that doesn’t offer product support if something breaks.
Another way to spot a fake brand is to find the same product sold under multiple brands. An example is a Broserengy alarm clock, Bluetooth speaker, phone charger combo. It is nearly identical to this product from Fansbe, including the RGB lights at the bottom, the placement (and labeling) of the buttons and the auxiliary USB port around the back for charging an accessory. These are two subtly different versions of the same product.
Not too long ago, the entire car industry felt a massive shift toward electrification. At the time, it seemed like the days of the internal combustion engine were numbered, with EVs and hybrids poised to take over. That belief had backing: the European Union set a target for zero CO2 emissions from all new cars and vans sold from 2035 onward, effectively banning the sale of new gas and diesel cars by that date.
Still, the EV transition didn’t play out the way the EU hoped, and the bloc has since walked that promise back. The European Commission now wants to scale the requirement down to a 90% emissions reduction rather than a full 100% cut — a softening automakers lobbied hard for and environmental groups have sharply criticized, saying it undermines climate goals.
Either way, the push toward an all-electric future has made automakers adjust course. Mercedes-AMG, for one, swapped the C63’s V8 for a turbocharged four-cylinder plug-in hybrid, and the new car ended up roughly 882 pounds (400 kilograms) heavier than its predecessor, all while lacking the V8 character that made the C63’s name.
Advertisement
When talking to Motor1, one Mercedes-AMG representative admitted the new powertrain “failed to resonate with our traditional customers.” It’s just one example, but it captures a broader mood: enthusiasts want their power the old-fashioned way, and some automakers are listening.
Advertisement
Mercedes AMG and luxury sedan V8
DiPres/Shutterstock
When we looked at whether Mercedes is bringing back the V8 last year, it seemed like the CLE63 would be first in line, debuting before the end of 2025 and then spreading to the E-Class lineup and a future G-Class. That timeline didn’t hold. The V8’s actual debut is going to the S-Class instead, with a flat-plane-crank M177 arriving in the 2027 S580.
The old S580 used a cross-plane version of the same 4.0-liter twin-turbo V8, and the switch is meant to sharpen throttle response and push the redline higher. In the mild-hybrid S580, it produces 573 horsepower and 553 lb-ft of torque, and the CLE63 is expected to be one of the first AMG models to receive it after that.
The bigger signal came directly from Mercedes-Benz. In a February 2025 investor and strategy press release, the company confirmed that Mercedes-AMG’s future lineup will include “a next-generation, high-tech electrified V8” alongside dedicated high-performance EVs. Mercedes-Benz also confirmed in that release it already has a full slate of “future-proof EU-7 ready engines and transmissions,” ranging up to eight cylinders. Mercedes even said it will continue offering V12s in certain markets.
However, there’s no indication the C63 itself is getting the V8 back — instead, it’s set to be replaced entirely by a six-cylinder C53. The C53 will rely on the same 443-hp turbocharged inline-six found in the CLE 53. In simpler terms, the six-cylinder CLE53 is now getting a more powerful V8 CLE63 treatment, while the four-cylinder C63 is now becoming a six-cylinder C53.
Advertisement
Ram V8 renaissance
Ram pulled the 5.7-liter HEMI from its 1500 lineup back in 2024, replacing it with the twin-turbo 3.0-liter Hurricane inline-six, offered in a 420-hp tune and a 540-hp high-output version. The backlash was immediate enough that Ram confirmed the HEMI V8 would return for the 2026 Ram 1500, just one model year later.
Motor1 covered Ram brand CEO Tim Kuniskis commenting on the reversal, stating that “Ram screwed up when we dropped the HEMI.” The returning 5.7-liter HEMI produces 395 hp and 410 lb-ft of torque, paired with Ram’s eTorque 48-volt mild-hybrid system. Notably, Ram isn’t ditching the six-cylinder — the Hurricane stays in the lineup as the standard engine.
Advertisement
The brand is now pitching it alongside the V8 as a matter of buyer choice, rather than a straight replacement. Orders for the 2026 Ram 1500 opened this year, with deliveries beginning this summer. It’s a similar case to AMG, where the automaker publicly admits it misjudged things, but Ram reversed course quite a bit faster.
Ram is going even further at the top of the range: the 2027 Ram 1500 TRX SRT is returning with a 6.2-liter supercharged HEMI V8 making 777 hp and 680 lb-ft of torque, a 75-horsepower jump over the previous TRX generation. This should do it to fully cure the “no V8” Ram disease.
Advertisement
Jeep Wrangler HEMI V8 comeback
Jonathan Weiss/Shutterstock
Jeep’s 6.4-liter HEMI V8 has looked finished more than once. The engine was slated to end after the 2024 model year, then got a “Final Edition” farewell for 2025 — and it was pulled from Canadian Wrangler order books before the 2025 model year even began. However, now it seems the 6.4 is going nowhere.
Besides the aforementioned Ram 1500, the Wrangler Moab 392 is also one of 2026’s car models getting a Hemi engine. This one is rated at 470 hp and 470 lb-ft of torque, and priced over $20,000 below the outgoing 2025 Rubicon 392. Jeep CEO Bob Broderdorf didn’t dress up the reversal. Mopar Insiders covered him saying “Our community made their voices heard, and we listened.”
The Moab 392 kicks off Jeep’s “Twelve 4 Twelve” campaign, which will see a special-edition Wrangler released on the 12th of every month through 2026 to mark the brand’s 85th anniversary — and it wasn’t the last V8 edition, either. Jeep followed with the Wrangler Willys 392, pushing the price of a V8-powered Wrangler down under $70,000.
However, not every Jeep model is getting the same treatment. The V8 hasn’t returned to the Grand Cherokee, and the Wagoneer and Grand Wagoneer are sticking with the twin-turbo Hurricane six instead. For now, the HEMI’s comeback is a Wrangler story specifically, not a brand-wide one.
Advertisement
GM goes all out on the V8
JHVEPhoto/Shutterstock
Unlike the other brands on this list, GM never actually killed the V8, but it came close. In 2021, the company set a target of selling only zero-emission light-duty vehicles by 2035, leaving no room for gas-powered trucks or SUVs past that date. That shifted in May 2025, when GM announced an $888 million investment in its Tonawanda Propulsion plant, where GM is set to build its new V8. This is the single largest sum GM has ever put into one engine facility, to put things in perspective.
The sixth-generation small-block family is already rolling out, too. The Corvette got a related 6.7-liter LS6 version, and the 2027 Chevrolet Silverado redesign carries two more variants, a 5.7-liter and a larger 6.6-liter, both naturally aspirated.
Advertisement
A turbocharged four-cylinder and a diesel inline-six round out the rest of the lineup. The same underlying architecture powers the GMC Sierra, Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, GMC Yukon, and Cadillac Escalade, so the new engine’s reach extends well past one truck. GM’s timing wasn’t subtle.
As Caleb Jacobs over at the The Drive pointed out, the investment landed just as Ram was working to win back the customers it lost by cutting the HEMI. Where Ram, Jeep, and Mercedes-AMG all had to walk back a decision they’d already made, GM’s approach was to just not make it in the first place — and to spend nearly $900 million making sure it wouldn’t have to.
Advertisement
Porsche doubles down on the SUV V8
Sjoerd Van Der Wal/Getty Images
Porsche’s flagship SUV was supposed to prove the brand could go all-electric at the top of its range. However, when we looked at the 2026 Porsche Cayenne Electric, we noted its lack of character and difficult-to-justify price. Now, the brand’s newest flagship is changing course.
The upcoming Porsche K1, a three-row SUV slated to sit above the Cayenne, was set to be Porsche’s first EV-only nameplate, built on Volkswagen Group’s dedicated electric architecture. Instead, the K1 is switching to VW Group’s Premium Platform Combustion architecture, the same platform underpinning the upcoming Audi Q9, and gas power is now the plan at launch: a twin-turbo eight-cylinder and a six-cylinder, each available with plug-in hybrid assistance.
This shift happened for a couple primary reasons: the platform’s software wasn’t ready in time, and EV interest is cooling across the market. Porsche hasn’t abandoned the electric version entirely — it’s still planned for a later date — but the combustion K1 is now set to arrive first, roughly a year after the Q9. Porsche has been consistent about why gas power still matters to the brand.
Speaking with Edmunds, SUV drive systems manager Timo Henn said a V8 option “is maybe important to some customers,” pointing to the more mechanical feel some buyers still want from the drivetrain. It’s a quieter reversal than Ram or Jeep, but the direction is the same: an automaker that planned to leave the V8 behind, choosing instead to build its newest flagship around one.
Advertisement
How we made the list
JustPhotos22/Shutterstock
These brands aren’t the only automakers bringing V8s back — Porsche’s rivals at BMW never abandoned it, and Toyota and Nissan are still holding out on their own reversals. We picked these five because they represent the clearest and most publicly documented cases: a brand cutting the V8, facing real backlash, and reversing course on the record, whether through a CEO’s own words or a formal engineering announcement.
It’s also worth remembering that none of this is permanent. Emissions targets shift constantly — the EU’s own 90% proposal could change again before it’s finalized — and hybridization is only going to get more common as automakers try to keep V8s alive under tightening rules. The V8 clearly isn’t dead yet, but nobody, including the automakers themselves, seems to know exactly how long it will last.
Advertisement
To keep this list grounded in verified reporting rather than speculation, we relied on primary sources — official statements and press releases from Mercedes-Benz, Ram/Stellantis, Jeep, GM, Chevrolet, and Porsche — wherever possible, along with reporting from publications like Autocar, Motor1, Car and Driver, Hagerty, The Drive, Mopar Insiders, Edmunds, Auto123, and Autoblog, as well as the European Parliament’s own documentation on emissions policy.
Since the first V2 rocket sailed above the Kármán line back in 1944 and right up until the modern era, the trajectory of most space-bound rockets was more or less the same: after expending their propellants they would either crash into some desolate steppe or plunge into the ocean. In either event, the rocket was disposable. The important bit up top might go on to explore the stars or send a human crew off on their mission, but the booster rocket that lifted the spacecraft out of the atmosphere was always going to be sacrificed for the cause.
But in the 1970s NASA had a wild idea: what if we didn’t smash a brand-new rocket valued at millions of dollars into the ocean every time we wanted to put something in orbit? Instead, they would build a hybrid space vehicle that blended the vertical takeoff and raw power of a rocket with the capabilities of an airplane, allowing it and whatever it was carrying to make a gentle runway landing at the end of its mission. As such, the Space Shuttle was born.
With the benefit of hindsight, we now know the Shuttle wasn’t quite the spaceflight revolution that NASA had hoped for. The age of reusable rockets didn’t truly begin until 2015, when SpaceX landed the first stage of their Falcon 9. To date they’ve repeated the feat nearly 600 times, all the while increasing the reliability and speed of their operations. Today the Falcon 9 is the most prolific launch vehicle in history, and nearly every other rocket in active development is being designed to include some element of reusability.
Most recently, China demonstrated that they could recover their Long March 10B rocket by gently bringing it down into what amounts to a giant butterfly net. While it might seem a bit quaint compared to rockets that land on their tails like something out of a 1950s sci-fi movie, the idea offers considerable promise.
There and Back Again
But why did it take 70+ years before we were able to regularly refly orbital-class rockets? It’s not that there’s anything inherently complex about reusing a spent rocket. Sure, there’s a case to be made that material science improvements have made the engines robust enough for repeated use. But even if you had to rebuild the engines after each flight it would still be better than slamming the whole vehicle into the ocean. Similarly, there’s nothing particularly unique about the structure of the Falcon 9 that enables it to fly multiple times — it’s a big metal tube with tanks inside of it, just like essentially every rocket that has flown before it.
Advertisement
The revolutionary technology demonstrated by SpaceX in 2015 didn’t have anything to do with making their rocket go up, it was that they were able to safely bring it back without damaging or physically altering it. The Falcon 9 first stage that came back to Earth was in the same condition it was when it left the launch pad eight minutes or so earlier, albeit with empty propellant tanks and a layer of soot on the outside.
As such, most of the variability we see when comparing the reuse of past, present, and future rockets comes not from how the vehicle ascends, but how it ultimately comes to rest back down on Earth.
Splashdown is Easy, But Rough
Without question, the easiest way to recover a rocket intact is to simply slow it down before it hits the surface of the ocean using parachutes This is how all American crewed capsules, and more applicably the Space Shuttle’s Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), have been recovered after their flights.
Once pumped out, the hollow SRBs could be towed to shore.
But even when descending under multiple huge parachutes, splashdown isn’t exactly a gentle event. It could probably best be described as “survivable”, in that the vehicle and crew will come through the experience in one piece, but neither is likely to be terribly happy about it.
The situation of course ends up being even worse for the rocket, as its structure is going to be subjected to the brunt of the impact force. Additionally, a complex aerospace vehicle getting partially submerged in salt water is a recipe for corrosion and electrical issues, to say nothing of the thermal shock the hot engines will experience when getting dunked.
Advertisement
One could argue that the only reason this method of recovery worked for the Shuttle SRBs is because of their relative simplicity when compared to a liquid-fueled rocket capable of independent flight. At the risk of oversimplifying the structure of the SRB, at splashdown it was effectively a hollow tube with minimal avionics and thrust vector control (TVC) hardware that could simply be replaced before the next flight.
Still, the NASA document Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) Refurbishment Practices goes over the considerable work required to bring each booster back to flight status after coming down in the ocean. Given the challenges of refurbishing the boosters, it’s perhaps unsurprising that NASA elected to forgo their reuse on the Space Launch System despite its SRBs being largely identical to their Shuttle predecessors.
Teaching Rockets New Tricks
In the very early days, while they were still trying to reach orbit with the Falcon 1, SpaceX had actually considered a Shuttle SRB-style recovery procedure. But in the end they decided to outfit the Falcon 9 with deployable landing legs and the rest, as they say, is history.
The DC-X demonstrated propulsive landing in 1993, but couldn’t reach orbit.
Landing legs allow a rocket to come down on effectively any flat surface, be it a concrete pad next to the launch facility or a floating platform. But there are some fairly serious drawbacks to this approach. For one thing, the requirement for precise terminal guidance means parachutes are out of the question. The rocket needs fins, attitude thrusters, or other control surfaces to come down on the center of the pad.
It also means the rocket needs to perform a propulsive landing. That is, use its own primary engines to bring its velocity on touchdown to as close to zero as possible. This in turn requires engines that can not only restart in flight — a capability that has not traditionally been required by first stage boosters — but are able to throttle down low enough to control the rocket’s descent without simply pushing it back upwards. It’s difficult to overstate how unnatural a state of operation this is for a rocket. Indeed, it’s the antithesis of how nearly every rocket has operated since the Song Dynasty started experimenting with gunpowder in the 10th century.
Advertisement
Even if you can accomplish all that, the true cost of landing a rocket is in the extra mass. Although the legs will be stowed away and unused for 99.8% of the rocket’s flight time, it still has to lug all that weight uphill. If that wasn’t bad enough, there’s also the extra weight of whatever control mechanism is in place to guide the rocket’s descent trajectory as well as the propellant that needs to be kept in reserve for the landing burn.
All told, landing a rocket on legs comes with a massive payload penalty. In the case of the Falcon 9, the rocket’s maximum capacity to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) in its expendable configuration is approximately 22,800 kg (50,300 lb). But when outfitted with the hardware necessary to land, that number is reduced by nearly 25% to 17,500 kg (38,600 lb).
Dropping the Dead Weight
There was a time, not so very long ago, when critics doubted the financial viability of recovering and reusing rockets like the Falcon 9. But today, reuse has gone from theoretical to standard operating procedure. Outside of a few Old Space holdouts, it’s top of mind for every launch provider and critical for remaining competitive in a fast-moving commercial market. In November, Blue Origin even managed to land their New Glenn heavy-lift rocket on only its second flight.
So at this point the question isn’t whether or not future rockets will be reusable, but rather, what is the most efficient way to achieve that reusability?
Advertisement
The first stage of Starship after being caught in mid-air.
With that in mind, it’s easy to see the appeal of China’s net recovery. While the rocket must still perform a propulsive descent — although in theory the necessary positional accuracy, and therefore the technical challenge, is somewhat reduced — it doesn’t need to have landing legs installed. This mass savings increases the vehicle’s useful payload capacity, which in turn makes it more profitable to operate. Achieving the same end goal while being easier and cheaper is an improvement in anyone’s book.
Admittedly, having the rocket come down in a huge net adds a certain amount of whimsy to the whole endeavor, but the overall logic is sound enough. It should also be said that SpaceX, for all the success they’ve had with landing their Falcon 9 on a set of deployable legs, are themselves planning on catching both the first and second stages of their next-generation Starship vehicle. Instead of a net, their goal is to pluck the rocket out of the air with a huge robotic pincer mechanism.
One is reminded of the old joke about how the Americans and Russians approached the problem of writing in space: NASA spent millions of dollars developing a pen that would work in microgravity, while their Russian counterparts simply used pencils. If China can demonstrate the ability to reuse a rocket they snagged in their net, the more elaborate methods of recovery employed by American rockets may one day look like a similarly overengineered solution.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login