Design of interfering mobile device in the band Wi-Fi with magnetron

The aim of this article is to design an interfering mobile device with a magnetron for the interference in Wi-fi signal in the band 2.4-2.5GHz. Propulsion of the interfering mobile device will be implemented using system of the stepper motor, which will be controlled with the help of the microcontroller ATmega 16. In order to deal with the interfering part, it is necessary to design an inverter 12V/4000V and 50-60Hz. The inverter is a supply of the high-powered vacuum tube that generates microwaves; magnetron. Magnetron is used as a source of electromagnetic interference high-frequency acting on targets, which operates in the band of Wi-Fi signal. For example, waves of high-frequency radio damage on-board electronic devices of the UAV, and by the way, we can disable fly of UAV in demarcated areas. The interfering mobile device will be used as a preparation interference and measurement electromagnetic compatibility of electronic military equipment

The Study of Aviation Safe Incapacitating Device Based on LED Technology with a Smart-Illumination Sensor Unit

This paper deals with a design and implementation of optical defensive device for protection of aviation personnel. The design is built on the basic characteristics of human eyesight, illumination sensing of the environment, and microcontroller implementation for adaptation over sensed power, flash duration, and person distance. The aviation safe LED-based optical dazzler equipment (ASLODE) utilizes light emitting diode (LED) technology implemented with constant current regulators to control several modes of effects based on situational sensing. The temporarily incapacitating device can be extended by means of real-time illumination sensing to improve power efficiency and reach the highest level of safety. The smart pulse sets the flashing frequency from 8Hz for high-level light intensities and up to 20 Hz in low-level lighting conditions. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the ASLODE device over numerous experiments with controlled onboard aircraft scenarios that adapt the energy, flash rate, and processing to the sensed environmental illumination to meet aviation hygienic standards for people without eyesight defects

Battery Management System for Unmanned Electric Vehicles with CAN BUS and Internet of Things

In recent decades, the trend of using zero-emission vehicles has been constantly evolving. This trend brings about not only the pressure to develop electric vehicles (EVs) or hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) but also the demand for further developments in battery technologies and safe use of battery systems. Concerning the safe usage of battery systems, Battery Management Systems (BMS) play one of the most important roles. A BMS is used to monitor operating temperature and State of Charge (SoC), as well as protect the battery system against cell imbalance. The paper aims to present hardware and software designs of a BMS for unmanned EVs, which use Lithium multi-cell battery packs. For higher modularity, the designed BMS uses a distributed topology and contains a master module with more slave modules. Each slave module is in charge of monitoring and protecting a multi-cell battery pack. All information about the state of each battery pack is sent to the master module which saves and sends all data to the control station if required. Controlled Area Network (CAN) bus and Internet of Things technologies are designed for requirements from different applications for communications between slave modules and the master module, and between the master module and control station

Comparative Analysis of Energy Storage and Buffer Units for Electric Military Vehicle: Survey of Experimental Results

This paper deals with the analyses of batteries used in current military systems to power the electric drives of military vehicles. The article focuses on battery analyses based on operational data obtained from measurements rather than analyses of the chemical composition of the tested batteries. The authors of the article used their experience from the development test-laboratory of military technology. This article presents a comparative analysis of existing and promising technologies in the field of energy storage and buffering for military electric vehicles. The overview of these technologies, including the design, operating principles, advantages, and disadvantages, are briefly presented to produce theoretical comparative analyses. However, this article mainly focuses on the experimental verification of operational ability in varied conditions, as well as the comparison and analysis of these results. The main part of the article provides more experimental studies on technologies of energy storage and buffering using the results of several experiments conducted to demonstrate the behavior of each technology in different working conditions. The output parameters, as well as the state of charge of each technology’s samples, were surveyed in various temperatures and loading characteristics. The results presented in this paper are expected to be useful for optimizing the selection of energy storage and buffering solutions for military electric vehicles in different applications and functional environments

Nausea and Vomiting following Balanced Xenon Anesthesia Compared to Sevoflurane: A Post-Hoc Explorative Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

<div><p>Objective</p><p>Like other inhalational anesthetics xenon seems to be associated with post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV). We assessed nausea incidence following balanced xenon anesthesia compared to sevoflurane, and dexamethasone for its prophylaxis in a randomized controlled trial with post-hoc explorative analysis.</p><p>Methods</p><p>220 subjects with elevated PONV risk (Apfel score ≥2) undergoing elective abdominal surgery were randomized to receive xenon or sevoflurane anesthesia and dexamethasone or placebo after written informed consent. 93 subjects in the xenon group and 94 subjects in the sevoflurane group completed the trial. General anesthesia was maintained with 60% xenon or 2.0% sevoflurane. Dexamethasone 4mg or placebo was administered in the first hour. Subjects were analyzed for nausea and vomiting in predefined intervals during a 24h post-anesthesia follow-up.</p><p>Results</p><p>Logistic regression, controlled for dexamethasone and anesthesia/dexamethasone interaction, showed a significant risk to develop nausea following xenon anesthesia (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.02–5.19, p = 0.044). Early-onset nausea incidence was 46% after xenon and 35% after sevoflurane anesthesia (p = 0.138). After xenon, nausea occurred significantly earlier (p = 0.014), was more frequent and rated worse in the beginning. Dexamethasone did not markedly reduce nausea occurrence in both groups. Late-onset nausea showed no considerable difference between the groups.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>In our study setting, xenon anesthesia was associated with an elevated risk to develop nausea in sensitive subjects. Dexamethasone 4mg was not effective preventing nausea in our study. Group size or dosage might have been too small, and change of statistical analysis parameters in the post-hoc evaluation might have further contributed to a limitation of our results. Further trials will be needed to address prophylaxis of xenon-induced nausea.</p><p>Trial Registration</p><p>EU Clinical Trials <a href="https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2008-004132-20" target="_blank">EudraCT-2008-004132-20</a></p><p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00793663?term=NCT+00793663" target="_blank">NCT00793663</a></p></div

Subgroup analysis of dexamethasone prophylaxis on nausea and vomiting following xenon or sevoflurane anesthesia.

<p>Subgroup analysis of dexamethasone prophylaxis on nausea and vomiting following xenon or sevoflurane anesthesia.</p

Study procedure.

<p>A simplified sketch of the study procedure is shown in Fig 1. After obtaining written informed consent and baseline examination, patients were first randomized to receive xenon or sevoflurane anesthesia for their individually scheduled surgery, then randomized to receive dexamethasone or placebo for prophylaxis of post-operative nausea. Within the first hour of anesthesia, the randomized prophylactic treatment was applied. Patients were monitored for 24h following anesthesia in fixed intervals (during PACU stay at 0, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 105, 120 min until discharge as well as 2h, 6h, and 24h post anesthesia). The study-specific survey was completed 24h post anesthesia.</p

Baseline patient characteristics.

<p>Baseline patient characteristics.</p

Consort flow chart.

<p>A detailed flow chart depicts all patients enrolled in the trial including the reasons for study drop-out. 220 patients in total were randomized after written informed consent into one of the same-sized study groups. Pre-interventional drop out in the xenon group occurred in fifteen cases (¶): Five patients withdrew their consent; five were excluded after randomization for safety reasons. Two patients did not receive the scheduled surgery; three did not receive the allocated intervention for administrative reasons. Post-interventional drop-out in the xenon group occurred in two cases ($) by exclusion from data analysis due to study protocol violation. 93 patients in the xenon group received the allocated intervention and data analysis. Of these patients, 43 received dexamethasone as randomized prophylactic treatment, whereas 50 received placebo. Five patients (§) withdrew preterm because of severe nausea. Their data until the time of dropout was included into the final analysis. Pre-interventional drop-out in the sevoflurane group occurred in seven cases (Ұ): One patient withdrew his consent; two were excluded after randomization for safety reasons. Two patients did not receive the scheduled surgery; two did not receive the allocated intervention for administrative reasons. Post interventional drop-out in the sevoflurane group occurred in nine cases (&): One patient dropped out due to a serious adverse event not associated with the study intervention. Eight patients of the sevoflurane group were excluded from data analysis because of violation of the study protocol. 94 patients in the sevoflurane group received the allocated intervention and data analysis, with 44 cases of dexamethasone as randomized prophylactic treatment and 50 placebo. Two patients (#) did not complete the 24h-follow-up because of withdrawal due to severe nausea. Their data until the time of dropout was included into the final analysis.</p