×
Eufy Robot Vacuum Omni E28 Review: A Good Vacuum That Tries to Do Too Much

Eufy Robot Vacuum Omni E28 Review: A Good Vacuum That Tries to Do Too Much

Tech-news , , ,

Eufy’s robotic vacuums have always felt decent to me, but never great. I wouldn’t call the Eufy Robot Vacuum Omni E28 great, either, but I would call it one of Eufy’s best robot vacuums, thanks to some gimmicky features that actually work well, fun beta ones that don’t, and broad smart home support via the Matter protocol. It’s held back, though, by hellacious noise, unimpressive mopping, and the leakiness of its otherwise handy “deep clean” wet vac module.

Mostly, all I want out of a robot vacuum is for it to do its thing quietly without me babysitting it, and for it to leave no treats for my feet to pick up. No robot vacuum nails this, but some, like the Matic I recently reviewed, do get close. The Omni E28 isn’t quite as close as that, but if the Matic’s limitations—its ongoing costs and the fact it can’t go under a lot of furniture—make it a non-starter, then the E28, just as a vacuum, could be a solid alternative that’s shaped more like a regular robot vacuum and can, therefore, go more places.

Eufy Omni E28

Solid vacuum performance and a handy wet vac attachment don’t make up for mediocre mopping and an overly noisy self-empty dock.

  • Fast cleaning
  • Good battery life
  • Good object recognition
  • Solid vacuuming performance
  • Included deep clean module
  • Robot itself can be very quiet
  • Expensive
  • Mediocre mopping performance
  • Very noisy self-cleaning base
  • Deep clean module requires unplugging the base itself to use

The Omni E28’s gimmick is that most of its base—the clean and dirty water tanks, suction motor, and a hose attachment hidden under a cowl—is also a modular, manual wet vac that you can tote around to deal with liquid spills on rugs and furniture upholstery. And pleasantly, this actually works pretty well, but for some caveats I’ll get into later in this review.

For now, is the Omni E28 worth its street price of $1,400? No, and for me, its flaws mean it’s not even worth the $700 the company has it priced at as of this writing if you clip a coupon on its website.

Frustration-free operation (mostly)

© Wes Davis / Gizmodo

I’ve always loved robot vacuums as the science fiction gadgets they still are to me, whether they work particularly well or not. But it feels like they’ve recently crossed some vague threshold of set-it-and-forget-it-ness that makes them finally feel practical. That’s not true of all of them—see my review of the Dreame Aqua10 Ultra Roller—but the Omni E28 seems to tick most of the boxes.

Box number one? It can vacuum, and quickly. The Omni E28 generally handled the roughly 300-square-feet area I gave it to clean—which includes my living room, dining room, and kitchen—in around 30 minutes, leaving very little behind in the process. Eufy says it can run for up to 216 minutes in vacuuming-only mode, which should mean it runs long enough to cover most homes in one go. As for vacuum performance, in direct, head-to-head testing, it collected fewer rice grains and less sugar than the Matic, but not by a lot. And it was good at avoiding household objects (another box I like to see ticked) hewing close to the edges of clothes, books, and other large objects without driving over them and jamming up its dust roller. It would still gobble up small objects like pencil-top erasers and paperclips, but so has every other robot vacuum I’ve tested. The Omni E28 wasn’t so noisy that I couldn’t comfortably talk over it—something else that I consider a requirement.

All of that means I was able to let the robot go on its own at night without it being bothersome, at least if I set it not to automatically empty its bin into its extremely noisy dock. (More on that later.) The Omni E28 almost always ended up back in its dock the next morning, only once getting stuck overnight when it tried to ingest one of my kid’s sweaters. Unlike my Roomba J7, that sort of thing doesn’t seem to make it run out of battery—it still had an over 70% charge, letting me send it on its way again after freeing it.

The Omni E28 wasn’t a great mopping robot out of the box. Eufy didn’t include any of its bespoke cleaning solution and doesn’t recommend using just any old floor cleaner, so I stuck with water during testing. Even so, it ought to be able to clean up some of the salty crud my family brings into our entryway after heavy snows like those we had while I was testing Eufy’s robot, but it didn’t seem to make a dent in it. And when I sent it to deal with ketchup I’d squirted on the ground, it got most of it, but left some smears—and tracked some onto the rug in front of its base. The wet vac module was helpful there, but it highlighted why it’s just not that great an idea to trust robot vacuums with such messes.

I’m also not especially impressed with how the Omni E28 seems to handle change. In my entryway are three small rugs that we leave our boots and shoes on when we come in from outside. I moved them, hoping the robot would mop where they were, but it didn’t seem to register the difference, still avoiding the space where they were. Nice to know it wouldn’t have mopped the rugs, but in the ever-morphing environment of a human household, I want my robot vacuums to be more adaptable.

Dock of all trades, master of some

Eufy Omni E28 Review 5
© Wes Davis / Gizmodo

I liked how quiet the Omni E28 was while it toodled around my house, sucking up dirt and debris. But holy hell, it sounds like the end of days when the dock clears the robot’s dustbin. Not only that, but the dock always engages its vacuum motor twice in a row, and the second time it’s somehow even louder. It even does it once during the mop-cleaning cycle, and each time the dock turns on its vacuum motor, it fills the air with this unpleasantly musty, chemical odor. The smell got less intense after a few cycles, so hopefully it goes away in time.

On the plus side, Eufy’s cleaning base seems to be quick to clean its mop roll, and it doesn’t take forever to prepare the roll before a mopping job, unlike the Aqua10 Ultra Roller. That’s good, unless it means the roller isn’t getting as clean and would need replacing sooner. According to Eufy’s site, the mop roll should last about two months, give or take depending on usage, before it needs replacing.

Besides that, the dock uses 3-liter vacuum bags that Eufy says can last around 75 days before you have to swap them out. Also, the base mixes water and cleaning solution for you, so if you decide to buy Eufy’s solution, all you have to do is fill a small container on the base and you’re done there. And the generous 2.5-liter water tank meant that I didn’t have to refill it across several spot cleans with the deep cleaner and multiple mopping runs of the roughly 100 to 200-square-feet of exposed hard flooring I have in my home.

Eufy Omni E28 Review 4
© Wes Davis / Gizmodo

The wet vac is the star of the dock’s show, though. It’s a lot like the ones I used to see on infomercials as a kid that spray water into a rug or carpet and feature a transparent cleaning head you can watch it suck dirty water back up through. That’s attached to a flexible hose that sticks out of the side of the module, sending water into the Omni E28’s 1.8-liter dirty water tank. Happily, this thing works—remember that ketchup I mentioned earlier? There’s no sign of it in my rug. Same goes for some spilled milk I cleaned up during the testing process (after crying over it, of course). It’s all deeply satisfying, and a nice bonus, especially if this isn’t the sort of thing you already have in your house as a standalone device.

How long the wet vac will be useful and not a nuisance is another question. The hose seems to trap water easily, meaning you have to be careful when wrapping it back up at the end or you’ll end up with dirty puddles on the floor next to the base afterward. But also, trapped water means mold and the bad smells that come with it—so I’d expect to disassemble and clean it regularly. Maintenance is a regular part of life if you own a robot vacuum, but there’s a line for everyone, and this one crosses it for me. I also found the wet vac noisy (it’s the same motor that empties the robot vacuum’s dustbin, after all), and I don’t like that it shares its power cable with the dock overall, meaning I had to reach behind a piece of furniture to unplug it every time I wanted to use it. Lastly, I have a bit of a semantic gripe—Eufy calls this a deep cleaner, which to me implies that it can do more than just suck up liquids; in practice, it clogged easily when I used it on any serious amount of debris.

Eufy gets better at app interface design

Eufy does a better job than usual with the Omni E28’s user interface (accessible via the Eufy Clean app). Its map is presented in 3D by default, although you can use the old 2D presentation found on other, older Eufy robot vacuums like the Robovac L35 if you prefer, and the company has done a mostly good job making sure it’s an accurate representation of your home, insofar as a bunch of colorful rectangles can do that. It doesn’t quite place all the rugs in my house properly on its own, though, so I had to do that manually, or face the possibility of having the robot try to mop them.

The home screen for the vacuum consists of the interactive map, tabs for choosing where you want the robot to clean—”Common,” or preset areas you can configure; “Home,” or the whole region it has mapped; “Room,” or cleaning by rooms in the order you choose; and “Zone,” which you’ll use to send the robot to do spot cleaning by drawing a rectangle on the map.

Once you’ve picked where you want it to go to work, you’ll choose the specific tasks the robot will carry out. At the top of the screen there’s an “AI Automation” toggle that preselects options for you, but if you prefer to be in control, you can pick whether you want it to vacuum, vacuum and mop, and clean quickly or deeply. You can also choose how much suction it uses, via labels “Quiet,” “Turbo,” and “Max,” as well as whether you want it to do one or two cleaning passes.

Eufy Omni E28 Review 6
© Screenshots by Wes Davis / Gizmodo

A settings icon at the top of the home screen gets you to cleaning history, scheduling, general preferences, and even a set of experimental “Eufy Lab” features. One of those was “Smart Track Cleaning,” a mode where the robot follows you, cleaning as it goes. I love the idea, even if this beta implementation wasn’t very good; it got stuck on corners and lost track of me if I walked out of sight or got tricked by a pair of nearby shoes. It didn’t even have to be shoes; it once mistook the pedal on my trashcan for my foot—see the picture above—and stopped there, waiting for the can to start walking. (It did not.)

With another of the experimental features, “Dirt Inspection,” turned on, the Omni E28 will go back after cleaning and inspect each room to see if it missed anything. In testing, it did do that, and it did pick up some dead plant leaves I dropped in one of the rooms it had cleaned, but it also seemed to just be going back and doing another quick pass regardless. It was hard to tell if this feature did anything beyond that. But hey, another quick pass is nice?

One non-experimental software feature I was pleased to see was support for the universal smart home standard Matter. That means the robot works with Apple Home, and that I could talk to my HomePods to get it to clean everywhere, only specific rooms, or to end the job early and go to its dock. All of that worked pretty well in my testing. It’s not as extensive as using the app itself, but that’s not unusual for more complex smart home products like this.

A mixed bag

Eufy Omni E28 Review 2
© Wes Davis / Gizmodo

The Eufy Robot Vacuum Omni E28 has some high highs—it’s very good at both vacuuming and object avoidance, two key things that make it a great candidate for the kind of set-it-and-forget-it scheduling that I prefer in a robot vacuum. Unfortunately, its mopping performance is too low a low for me to want to deal with the headache and upkeep of its water tanks, both internal to the robot and in the dock itself; I’d rather save money on a vacuum-only robot, and mop the old fashioned way. I also wish its dock wasn’t so startlingly loud.

The “deep clean” module, misnamed or not, is the next best thing this robot has going for it. It’s fun and effective, but that comes at the cost of lots of maintenance and maybe a few puddles on your floor when it leaks. Ultimately, if the Eufy Omni E28 hits enough of the right notes that if Eufy sold it for $400 without the self-empty base, I’d consider it. But subpar mopping and a noisy base just don’t justify its $1,400—or even $700 discounted—price.

Source link
#Eufy #Robot #Vacuum #Omni #E28 #Review #Good #Vacuum

Tag

Related Posts


Since LIGO’s Nobel-winning discovery of gravitational waves—ripples in spacetime—the U.S.-based detector has been picking up on hundreds of signals from black hole mergers. And, after a decade of studying gravitational waves, researchers believe a significant fraction of black holes may come from cosmic chain reactions.

A recent paper published in Physical Review Letters describes an analysis of 155 pairs of binary black holes, identified by LIGO and its sisters, Virgo and KAGRA, in Italy and Japan, respectively. According to the study, about 14% of merging black holes may be what’s called “second-generation black holes,” or black holes that form from previous mergers of two smaller black holes. This “hierarchical” backstory is vastly different from the textbook version of how black holes emerge from the explosive death of a star.

“Overall in the universe, black holes are merging all the time,” Cailin Plunkett, the study’s first author and a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told MIT News. “Now we’re seeing a relatively consistent picture where there’s a decent percentage of black holes that are coming from this repeated pathway.”

Tracking the invisible

Gravitational waves that reach Earth’s detectors typically come from extremely intense events. Over the years, LIGO has picked up some truly perplexing signals. For example, last summer it found the most colossal black hole merger ever—and if that wasn’t wild enough, the black holes that took part in the merger lie within a cosmic “dead zone” for black holes.

This zone refers to a range of black hole masses in which, physically speaking, black holes can’t form through ordinary stellar collapse. From these discoveries, astronomers realized just how little we knew about black holes, which are challenging to investigate directly. In that sense, it was a no-brainer that the ever-growing catalog of LIGO’s gravitational signals would turn up entirely new insights about black holes.

“It is increasingly clear, both from individual events and population analyses, that massive black holes exist in [this] range,” the researchers wrote in the latest paper. “These observations have spurred further investigation into mechanisms that can populate this gap.”

A wobbly imprint

The latest research represents one such investigation. During mergers, the two black holes spiral toward each other along an orbital plane. When one or both black hole spins are misaligned, the orbital plane can wobble, or “precess,” the researchers explained to MIT News. The degree to which the disk wobbles acts as a parameter from which researchers can measure the masses and spins of the merging black holes.

One telling sign of hierarchical mergers is that they’re “lopsided,” meaning one of the pair has a much higher spin and mass than the other. For the study, the team created an analytic model to capture the kind of wobble that would have emerged from second-generation black holes. Around 14% of merging black holes followed this pattern, and the second-generation black holes identified had a very specific range of masses, at around 20 solar masses or 40 solar masses and above.

Of mysterious origins

To be fair, that might not sound like a whole lot. But it demonstrates that a sizeable portion of known black holes indeed follow this pattern. As for why, the team suspects hierarchical mergers emerge from dense stellar environments. Simply, when multiple neighboring stars die and collapse into black holes, the dense environment can make it easier for those black holes to find each other and merge. That could further lead to the formation of second-generation black holes. Theoretically, this could “repeat potentially ad infinitum, by virtue of the fact that you have a ton of stars and black holes in this really dense environment,” Plunkett said.

But an ensuing mystery concerns those black holes in the 40-and-above regime, which coincides with the aforementioned “death zones” for black hole masses. According to stellar evolution theory, black holes born of supernovas shouldn’t leave any black holes above roughly 45 solar masses, explained Plunkett.

“Yet we have seen black holes that are that massive,” she mused. “And the question is: Where did they come from?”

For now, it’s hard to say when we’ll get an answer to that question, if ever. But one thing seems to be clear: black holes are a lot weirder than we could ever imagine.

#Scientists #Black #Holes #Born #Black #HolesBlack holes,Gravitational wave,LIGO">Scientists Say Some Black Holes Are Born From Other Black Holes Since LIGO’s Nobel-winning discovery of gravitational waves—ripples in spacetime—the U.S.-based detector has been picking up on hundreds of signals from black hole mergers. And, after a decade of studying gravitational waves, researchers believe a significant fraction of black holes may come from cosmic chain reactions. A recent paper published in Physical Review Letters describes an analysis of 155 pairs of binary black holes, identified by LIGO and its sisters, Virgo and KAGRA, in Italy and Japan, respectively. According to the study, about 14% of merging black holes may be what’s called “second-generation black holes,” or black holes that form from previous mergers of two smaller black holes. This “hierarchical” backstory is vastly different from the textbook version of how black holes emerge from the explosive death of a star. “Overall in the universe, black holes are merging all the time,” Cailin Plunkett, the study’s first author and a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told MIT News. “Now we’re seeing a relatively consistent picture where there’s a decent percentage of black holes that are coming from this repeated pathway.” Tracking the invisible Gravitational waves that reach Earth’s detectors typically come from extremely intense events. Over the years, LIGO has picked up some truly perplexing signals. For example, last summer it found the most colossal black hole merger ever—and if that wasn’t wild enough, the black holes that took part in the merger lie within a cosmic “dead zone” for black holes. This zone refers to a range of black hole masses in which, physically speaking, black holes can’t form through ordinary stellar collapse. From these discoveries, astronomers realized just how little we knew about black holes, which are challenging to investigate directly. In that sense, it was a no-brainer that the ever-growing catalog of LIGO’s gravitational signals would turn up entirely new insights about black holes. “It is increasingly clear, both from individual events and population analyses, that massive black holes exist in [this] range,” the researchers wrote in the latest paper. “These observations have spurred further investigation into mechanisms that can populate this gap.” A wobbly imprint The latest research represents one such investigation. During mergers, the two black holes spiral toward each other along an orbital plane. When one or both black hole spins are misaligned, the orbital plane can wobble, or “precess,” the researchers explained to MIT News. The degree to which the disk wobbles acts as a parameter from which researchers can measure the masses and spins of the merging black holes. One telling sign of hierarchical mergers is that they’re “lopsided,” meaning one of the pair has a much higher spin and mass than the other. For the study, the team created an analytic model to capture the kind of wobble that would have emerged from second-generation black holes. Around 14% of merging black holes followed this pattern, and the second-generation black holes identified had a very specific range of masses, at around 20 solar masses or 40 solar masses and above. Of mysterious origins To be fair, that might not sound like a whole lot. But it demonstrates that a sizeable portion of known black holes indeed follow this pattern. As for why, the team suspects hierarchical mergers emerge from dense stellar environments. Simply, when multiple neighboring stars die and collapse into black holes, the dense environment can make it easier for those black holes to find each other and merge. That could further lead to the formation of second-generation black holes. Theoretically, this could “repeat potentially ad infinitum, by virtue of the fact that you have a ton of stars and black holes in this really dense environment,” Plunkett said. But an ensuing mystery concerns those black holes in the 40-and-above regime, which coincides with the aforementioned “death zones” for black hole masses. According to stellar evolution theory, black holes born of supernovas shouldn’t leave any black holes above roughly 45 solar masses, explained Plunkett. “Yet we have seen black holes that are that massive,” she mused. “And the question is: Where did they come from?” For now, it’s hard to say when we’ll get an answer to that question, if ever. But one thing seems to be clear: black holes are a lot weirder than we could ever imagine. #Scientists #Black #Holes #Born #Black #HolesBlack holes,Gravitational wave,LIGO

Physical Review Letters describes an analysis of 155 pairs of binary black holes, identified by LIGO and its sisters, Virgo and KAGRA, in Italy and Japan, respectively. According to the study, about 14% of merging black holes may be what’s called “second-generation black holes,” or black holes that form from previous mergers of two smaller black holes. This “hierarchical” backstory is vastly different from the textbook version of how black holes emerge from the explosive death of a star.

“Overall in the universe, black holes are merging all the time,” Cailin Plunkett, the study’s first author and a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told MIT News. “Now we’re seeing a relatively consistent picture where there’s a decent percentage of black holes that are coming from this repeated pathway.”

Tracking the invisible

Gravitational waves that reach Earth’s detectors typically come from extremely intense events. Over the years, LIGO has picked up some truly perplexing signals. For example, last summer it found the most colossal black hole merger ever—and if that wasn’t wild enough, the black holes that took part in the merger lie within a cosmic “dead zone” for black holes.

This zone refers to a range of black hole masses in which, physically speaking, black holes can’t form through ordinary stellar collapse. From these discoveries, astronomers realized just how little we knew about black holes, which are challenging to investigate directly. In that sense, it was a no-brainer that the ever-growing catalog of LIGO’s gravitational signals would turn up entirely new insights about black holes.

“It is increasingly clear, both from individual events and population analyses, that massive black holes exist in [this] range,” the researchers wrote in the latest paper. “These observations have spurred further investigation into mechanisms that can populate this gap.”

A wobbly imprint

The latest research represents one such investigation. During mergers, the two black holes spiral toward each other along an orbital plane. When one or both black hole spins are misaligned, the orbital plane can wobble, or “precess,” the researchers explained to MIT News. The degree to which the disk wobbles acts as a parameter from which researchers can measure the masses and spins of the merging black holes.

One telling sign of hierarchical mergers is that they’re “lopsided,” meaning one of the pair has a much higher spin and mass than the other. For the study, the team created an analytic model to capture the kind of wobble that would have emerged from second-generation black holes. Around 14% of merging black holes followed this pattern, and the second-generation black holes identified had a very specific range of masses, at around 20 solar masses or 40 solar masses and above.

Of mysterious origins

To be fair, that might not sound like a whole lot. But it demonstrates that a sizeable portion of known black holes indeed follow this pattern. As for why, the team suspects hierarchical mergers emerge from dense stellar environments. Simply, when multiple neighboring stars die and collapse into black holes, the dense environment can make it easier for those black holes to find each other and merge. That could further lead to the formation of second-generation black holes. Theoretically, this could “repeat potentially ad infinitum, by virtue of the fact that you have a ton of stars and black holes in this really dense environment,” Plunkett said.

But an ensuing mystery concerns those black holes in the 40-and-above regime, which coincides with the aforementioned “death zones” for black hole masses. According to stellar evolution theory, black holes born of supernovas shouldn’t leave any black holes above roughly 45 solar masses, explained Plunkett.

“Yet we have seen black holes that are that massive,” she mused. “And the question is: Where did they come from?”

For now, it’s hard to say when we’ll get an answer to that question, if ever. But one thing seems to be clear: black holes are a lot weirder than we could ever imagine.

#Scientists #Black #Holes #Born #Black #HolesBlack holes,Gravitational wave,LIGO">Scientists Say Some Black Holes Are Born From Other Black HolesScientists Say Some Black Holes Are Born From Other Black Holes Since LIGO’s Nobel-winning discovery of gravitational waves—ripples in spacetime—the U.S.-based detector has been picking up on hundreds of signals from black hole mergers. And, after a decade of studying gravitational waves, researchers believe a significant fraction of black holes may come from cosmic chain reactions. A recent paper published in Physical Review Letters describes an analysis of 155 pairs of binary black holes, identified by LIGO and its sisters, Virgo and KAGRA, in Italy and Japan, respectively. According to the study, about 14% of merging black holes may be what’s called “second-generation black holes,” or black holes that form from previous mergers of two smaller black holes. This “hierarchical” backstory is vastly different from the textbook version of how black holes emerge from the explosive death of a star. “Overall in the universe, black holes are merging all the time,” Cailin Plunkett, the study’s first author and a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told MIT News. “Now we’re seeing a relatively consistent picture where there’s a decent percentage of black holes that are coming from this repeated pathway.” Tracking the invisible Gravitational waves that reach Earth’s detectors typically come from extremely intense events. Over the years, LIGO has picked up some truly perplexing signals. For example, last summer it found the most colossal black hole merger ever—and if that wasn’t wild enough, the black holes that took part in the merger lie within a cosmic “dead zone” for black holes. This zone refers to a range of black hole masses in which, physically speaking, black holes can’t form through ordinary stellar collapse. From these discoveries, astronomers realized just how little we knew about black holes, which are challenging to investigate directly. In that sense, it was a no-brainer that the ever-growing catalog of LIGO’s gravitational signals would turn up entirely new insights about black holes. “It is increasingly clear, both from individual events and population analyses, that massive black holes exist in [this] range,” the researchers wrote in the latest paper. “These observations have spurred further investigation into mechanisms that can populate this gap.” A wobbly imprint The latest research represents one such investigation. During mergers, the two black holes spiral toward each other along an orbital plane. When one or both black hole spins are misaligned, the orbital plane can wobble, or “precess,” the researchers explained to MIT News. The degree to which the disk wobbles acts as a parameter from which researchers can measure the masses and spins of the merging black holes. One telling sign of hierarchical mergers is that they’re “lopsided,” meaning one of the pair has a much higher spin and mass than the other. For the study, the team created an analytic model to capture the kind of wobble that would have emerged from second-generation black holes. Around 14% of merging black holes followed this pattern, and the second-generation black holes identified had a very specific range of masses, at around 20 solar masses or 40 solar masses and above. Of mysterious origins To be fair, that might not sound like a whole lot. But it demonstrates that a sizeable portion of known black holes indeed follow this pattern. As for why, the team suspects hierarchical mergers emerge from dense stellar environments. Simply, when multiple neighboring stars die and collapse into black holes, the dense environment can make it easier for those black holes to find each other and merge. That could further lead to the formation of second-generation black holes. Theoretically, this could “repeat potentially ad infinitum, by virtue of the fact that you have a ton of stars and black holes in this really dense environment,” Plunkett said. But an ensuing mystery concerns those black holes in the 40-and-above regime, which coincides with the aforementioned “death zones” for black hole masses. According to stellar evolution theory, black holes born of supernovas shouldn’t leave any black holes above roughly 45 solar masses, explained Plunkett. “Yet we have seen black holes that are that massive,” she mused. “And the question is: Where did they come from?” For now, it’s hard to say when we’ll get an answer to that question, if ever. But one thing seems to be clear: black holes are a lot weirder than we could ever imagine. #Scientists #Black #Holes #Born #Black #HolesBlack holes,Gravitational wave,LIGO

Since LIGO’s Nobel-winning discovery of gravitational waves—ripples in spacetime—the U.S.-based detector has been picking up on hundreds of signals from black hole mergers. And, after a decade of studying gravitational waves, researchers believe a significant fraction of black holes may come from cosmic chain reactions.

A recent paper published in Physical Review Letters describes an analysis of 155 pairs of binary black holes, identified by LIGO and its sisters, Virgo and KAGRA, in Italy and Japan, respectively. According to the study, about 14% of merging black holes may be what’s called “second-generation black holes,” or black holes that form from previous mergers of two smaller black holes. This “hierarchical” backstory is vastly different from the textbook version of how black holes emerge from the explosive death of a star.

“Overall in the universe, black holes are merging all the time,” Cailin Plunkett, the study’s first author and a graduate student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told MIT News. “Now we’re seeing a relatively consistent picture where there’s a decent percentage of black holes that are coming from this repeated pathway.”

Tracking the invisible

Gravitational waves that reach Earth’s detectors typically come from extremely intense events. Over the years, LIGO has picked up some truly perplexing signals. For example, last summer it found the most colossal black hole merger ever—and if that wasn’t wild enough, the black holes that took part in the merger lie within a cosmic “dead zone” for black holes.

This zone refers to a range of black hole masses in which, physically speaking, black holes can’t form through ordinary stellar collapse. From these discoveries, astronomers realized just how little we knew about black holes, which are challenging to investigate directly. In that sense, it was a no-brainer that the ever-growing catalog of LIGO’s gravitational signals would turn up entirely new insights about black holes.

“It is increasingly clear, both from individual events and population analyses, that massive black holes exist in [this] range,” the researchers wrote in the latest paper. “These observations have spurred further investigation into mechanisms that can populate this gap.”

A wobbly imprint

The latest research represents one such investigation. During mergers, the two black holes spiral toward each other along an orbital plane. When one or both black hole spins are misaligned, the orbital plane can wobble, or “precess,” the researchers explained to MIT News. The degree to which the disk wobbles acts as a parameter from which researchers can measure the masses and spins of the merging black holes.

One telling sign of hierarchical mergers is that they’re “lopsided,” meaning one of the pair has a much higher spin and mass than the other. For the study, the team created an analytic model to capture the kind of wobble that would have emerged from second-generation black holes. Around 14% of merging black holes followed this pattern, and the second-generation black holes identified had a very specific range of masses, at around 20 solar masses or 40 solar masses and above.

Of mysterious origins

To be fair, that might not sound like a whole lot. But it demonstrates that a sizeable portion of known black holes indeed follow this pattern. As for why, the team suspects hierarchical mergers emerge from dense stellar environments. Simply, when multiple neighboring stars die and collapse into black holes, the dense environment can make it easier for those black holes to find each other and merge. That could further lead to the formation of second-generation black holes. Theoretically, this could “repeat potentially ad infinitum, by virtue of the fact that you have a ton of stars and black holes in this really dense environment,” Plunkett said.

But an ensuing mystery concerns those black holes in the 40-and-above regime, which coincides with the aforementioned “death zones” for black hole masses. According to stellar evolution theory, black holes born of supernovas shouldn’t leave any black holes above roughly 45 solar masses, explained Plunkett.

“Yet we have seen black holes that are that massive,” she mused. “And the question is: Where did they come from?”

For now, it’s hard to say when we’ll get an answer to that question, if ever. But one thing seems to be clear: black holes are a lot weirder than we could ever imagine.

#Scientists #Black #Holes #Born #Black #HolesBlack holes,Gravitational wave,LIGO

Ready for the 2026 World Cup final? You might think you are, but your body is going to have to be prepared to put in some work—especially if your favorite team makes it.

Research shows that watching high-pressure matches can raise your heart rate, increase your stress levels, and put extra strain on your cardiovascular system.

According to a recent study from researchers at Bielefeld University in Germany, fans’ physiological stress increases by about 41 percent during a soccer final compared to a normal day. Heart rate also rose significantly, jumping from 70.9 beats per minute to 78.7 beats per minute—a difference even when compared to other weekends.

Researchers at Bielefeld tracked 229 fans of the German club Arminia Bielefeld for three months. Participants wore smartwatches that continuously recorded heart rate and an estimated stress index based on heart rate variability, allowing researchers to compare the day of the 2025 German Cup final with the days leading up to the match.

The physiological reaction to the soccer final began long before the match began. The researchers saw fans’ stress levels begin to rise in the morning and peak just before kickoff. Even after the final whistle, viewers showed signs of elevated stress.

Where you watch the game also makes a difference. The study found that fans who watched at the stadium had an average heart rate of 94.2 beats per minute compared to 79.4 among those who watched the match on television. After their team’s first goal, those in the stands saw their heart rate climb to an average of up to 108 beats per minute—a much more intense response than that observed in other contexts.

Alcohol consumption appeared to amplify that effect. Participants who reported drinking during the game had a heart rate approximately 5 percent higher than the rest of the fans during the match and nearly 12 percent higher after their team’s first goal. Although the researchers did not assess medical risks, they note that alcohol can increase cardiovascular strain when people are in an emotional state.

During the first few minutes of the match, when the outcome was still uncertain, heart rates reached their highest levels. Once the game seemed to be decided, fans’ heart rates dropped.

However, two goals scored in the final minutes caused them to spike again, even though the chances of a comeback were practically nil. (You can only imagine how fast Argentina fans’ hearts were thumping during this week’s furious comeback against Egypt.) For the authors, this reflects that the body responds not only to the objective chances of winning but also to emotions such as hope, pride, or attachment to the team.

The findings align with the results of previous studies on the physiological impacts of soccer. That incluides a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine after the 2006 World Cup in Germany, found that the risk of suffering an acute cardiovascular event nearly triples during German national team matches among people with preexisting heart conditions.

Subsequent research shows that matches can lead to an increase in stress hormones such as cortisol and found that fans who identify more strongly with their team exhibit more intense biological responses during decisive matches.

This article originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

#Watching #Soccer #Final #Body #Scienceworld cup 2026,sports,health,soccer,stress,fandom">What Watching a Soccer Final Does to Your Body, According to ScienceReady for the 2026 World Cup final? You might think you are, but your body is going to have to be prepared to put in some work—especially if your favorite team makes it.Research shows that watching high-pressure matches can raise your heart rate, increase your stress levels, and put extra strain on your cardiovascular system.According to a recent study from researchers at Bielefeld University in Germany, fans’ physiological stress increases by about 41 percent during a soccer final compared to a normal day. Heart rate also rose significantly, jumping from 70.9 beats per minute to 78.7 beats per minute—a difference even when compared to other weekends.Researchers at Bielefeld tracked 229 fans of the German club Arminia Bielefeld for three months. Participants wore smartwatches that continuously recorded heart rate and an estimated stress index based on heart rate variability, allowing researchers to compare the day of the 2025 German Cup final with the days leading up to the match.The physiological reaction to the soccer final began long before the match began. The researchers saw fans’ stress levels begin to rise in the morning and peak just before kickoff. Even after the final whistle, viewers showed signs of elevated stress.Where you watch the game also makes a difference. The study found that fans who watched at the stadium had an average heart rate of 94.2 beats per minute compared to 79.4 among those who watched the match on television. After their team’s first goal, those in the stands saw their heart rate climb to an average of up to 108 beats per minute—a much more intense response than that observed in other contexts.Alcohol consumption appeared to amplify that effect. Participants who reported drinking during the game had a heart rate approximately 5 percent higher than the rest of the fans during the match and nearly 12 percent higher after their team’s first goal. Although the researchers did not assess medical risks, they note that alcohol can increase cardiovascular strain when people are in an emotional state.During the first few minutes of the match, when the outcome was still uncertain, heart rates reached their highest levels. Once the game seemed to be decided, fans’ heart rates dropped.However, two goals scored in the final minutes caused them to spike again, even though the chances of a comeback were practically nil. (You can only imagine how fast Argentina fans’ hearts were thumping during this week’s furious comeback against Egypt.) For the authors, this reflects that the body responds not only to the objective chances of winning but also to emotions such as hope, pride, or attachment to the team.The findings align with the results of previous studies on the physiological impacts of soccer. That incluides a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine after the 2006 World Cup in Germany, found that the risk of suffering an acute cardiovascular event nearly triples during German national team matches among people with preexisting heart conditions.Subsequent research shows that matches can lead to an increase in stress hormones such as cortisol and found that fans who identify more strongly with their team exhibit more intense biological responses during decisive matches.This article originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.#Watching #Soccer #Final #Body #Scienceworld cup 2026,sports,health,soccer,stress,fandom

2026 World Cup final? You might think you are, but your body is going to have to be prepared to put in some work—especially if your favorite team makes it.

Research shows that watching high-pressure matches can raise your heart rate, increase your stress levels, and put extra strain on your cardiovascular system.

According to a recent study from researchers at Bielefeld University in Germany, fans’ physiological stress increases by about 41 percent during a soccer final compared to a normal day. Heart rate also rose significantly, jumping from 70.9 beats per minute to 78.7 beats per minute—a difference even when compared to other weekends.

Researchers at Bielefeld tracked 229 fans of the German club Arminia Bielefeld for three months. Participants wore smartwatches that continuously recorded heart rate and an estimated stress index based on heart rate variability, allowing researchers to compare the day of the 2025 German Cup final with the days leading up to the match.

The physiological reaction to the soccer final began long before the match began. The researchers saw fans’ stress levels begin to rise in the morning and peak just before kickoff. Even after the final whistle, viewers showed signs of elevated stress.

Where you watch the game also makes a difference. The study found that fans who watched at the stadium had an average heart rate of 94.2 beats per minute compared to 79.4 among those who watched the match on television. After their team’s first goal, those in the stands saw their heart rate climb to an average of up to 108 beats per minute—a much more intense response than that observed in other contexts.

Alcohol consumption appeared to amplify that effect. Participants who reported drinking during the game had a heart rate approximately 5 percent higher than the rest of the fans during the match and nearly 12 percent higher after their team’s first goal. Although the researchers did not assess medical risks, they note that alcohol can increase cardiovascular strain when people are in an emotional state.

During the first few minutes of the match, when the outcome was still uncertain, heart rates reached their highest levels. Once the game seemed to be decided, fans’ heart rates dropped.

However, two goals scored in the final minutes caused them to spike again, even though the chances of a comeback were practically nil. (You can only imagine how fast Argentina fans’ hearts were thumping during this week’s furious comeback against Egypt.) For the authors, this reflects that the body responds not only to the objective chances of winning but also to emotions such as hope, pride, or attachment to the team.

The findings align with the results of previous studies on the physiological impacts of soccer. That incluides a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine after the 2006 World Cup in Germany, found that the risk of suffering an acute cardiovascular event nearly triples during German national team matches among people with preexisting heart conditions.

Subsequent research shows that matches can lead to an increase in stress hormones such as cortisol and found that fans who identify more strongly with their team exhibit more intense biological responses during decisive matches.

This article originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

#Watching #Soccer #Final #Body #Scienceworld cup 2026,sports,health,soccer,stress,fandom">What Watching a Soccer Final Does to Your Body, According to Science

Ready for the 2026 World Cup final? You might think you are, but your body is going to have to be prepared to put in some work—especially if your favorite team makes it.

Research shows that watching high-pressure matches can raise your heart rate, increase your stress levels, and put extra strain on your cardiovascular system.

According to a recent study from researchers at Bielefeld University in Germany, fans’ physiological stress increases by about 41 percent during a soccer final compared to a normal day. Heart rate also rose significantly, jumping from 70.9 beats per minute to 78.7 beats per minute—a difference even when compared to other weekends.

Researchers at Bielefeld tracked 229 fans of the German club Arminia Bielefeld for three months. Participants wore smartwatches that continuously recorded heart rate and an estimated stress index based on heart rate variability, allowing researchers to compare the day of the 2025 German Cup final with the days leading up to the match.

The physiological reaction to the soccer final began long before the match began. The researchers saw fans’ stress levels begin to rise in the morning and peak just before kickoff. Even after the final whistle, viewers showed signs of elevated stress.

Where you watch the game also makes a difference. The study found that fans who watched at the stadium had an average heart rate of 94.2 beats per minute compared to 79.4 among those who watched the match on television. After their team’s first goal, those in the stands saw their heart rate climb to an average of up to 108 beats per minute—a much more intense response than that observed in other contexts.

Alcohol consumption appeared to amplify that effect. Participants who reported drinking during the game had a heart rate approximately 5 percent higher than the rest of the fans during the match and nearly 12 percent higher after their team’s first goal. Although the researchers did not assess medical risks, they note that alcohol can increase cardiovascular strain when people are in an emotional state.

During the first few minutes of the match, when the outcome was still uncertain, heart rates reached their highest levels. Once the game seemed to be decided, fans’ heart rates dropped.

However, two goals scored in the final minutes caused them to spike again, even though the chances of a comeback were practically nil. (You can only imagine how fast Argentina fans’ hearts were thumping during this week’s furious comeback against Egypt.) For the authors, this reflects that the body responds not only to the objective chances of winning but also to emotions such as hope, pride, or attachment to the team.

The findings align with the results of previous studies on the physiological impacts of soccer. That incluides a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine after the 2006 World Cup in Germany, found that the risk of suffering an acute cardiovascular event nearly triples during German national team matches among people with preexisting heart conditions.

Subsequent research shows that matches can lead to an increase in stress hormones such as cortisol and found that fans who identify more strongly with their team exhibit more intense biological responses during decisive matches.

This article originally appeared on WIRED en Español and has been translated from Spanish.

#Watching #Soccer #Final #Body #Scienceworld cup 2026,sports,health,soccer,stress,fandom

These days, new versions of AI chatbots don’t just launch; they’re unshackled and released to the public following government scrutiny. OpenAI’s new GPT-5.6 models were – like Anthropic’s Claude Mythos and Fable – apparently too powerful to just launch; but now, after some tinkering, they’re available to you, dear customer.

In practice, it simply means that the new GPT-5.6 models are very powerful and smarter than before. In its introductory post, OpenAI shared a bunch of graphs showing just how much better GPT-5.6 is than the competition, whilst using fewer tokens and generally costing less.

OK, great. But GPT-5.6 is not just one model; it comes in three distinct flavors: Sol, Terra, and Luna. So what do different kinds of users get, what should they pay for, and which models should they (mostly) use? Let’s dive in.

Free users get (almost) nothing

Sorry; if you’re not a paying customer, you’ll have to make do with OpenAI’s previous flagship model, GPT-5.5. Any sort of access to GPT-5.6 models requires a subscription of some sort. Fortunately, GPT-5.5 is still quite capable at most tasks, but if you want the best of the best, you’ll have to cough up the dough.

There’s an exception to this: Free and Go users can access GPT-5.6 through ChatGPT Work. More on that below.

If you’re a Plus or Business user, you can only get Sol (the most powerful model) at medium and higher effort settings. There’s another, higher level of performance called Sol Pro, but that’s only available for Pro and Enterprise users.

In terms of availability per one million tokens, the prices are: $5 input and $30 output for Sol. $2.5 input and $15 output for Terra, and $1 input and $6 output for Luna.

SEE ALSO: Visa is connecting with ChatGPT to let AI agents automatically make purchases

Sol, Terra, or Luna?

Why are there three models in the first place? Well, OpenAI always had a multi-tier model; for example, previously users were able to choose a “mini” version of the main model to get results done cheaper. Now, the model has been split into three tiers.

If you’re a paying customer, you’re free to use all three. But you know how it is in the world of LLMs: If you pick the smartest one, your usage limits will get hit faster (yes, there are always usage limits, even if you throw a ton of money at OpenAI).

In the simplest sense, GPT-5.6 Sol is the smartest model, Terra is in between (with roughly GPT-5.5 level of performance), and Luna is the cheapest, fastest, but also least capable of the bunch.

The breakdown is as follows: Terra is a “balanced” model for everyday work. That’s the one you should be asking most of your questions. Don’t underestimate it, though, as OpenAI claims it performs better than Anthropic’s Fable 5 in some cases.

Luna is cost-efficient, and should be used for easy, non crucial everyday tasks; think recipes and movie recommendations. Again, OpenAI says it outperforms Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 in some cases, so it’s not a slouch, either.

Sol should be reserved for coding, deep research, planning, and cybersecurity: The most demanding tasks. Of course it comes at a (literal) cost: While OpenAI claims it spends less tokens than Anthropic’s Fable 5, Sol will still hit usage limits a lot faster than the other variants.

Fun fact: If you ask GPT-5.5 about any of this, right now, it’ll give you completely wrong answers. Hopefully OpenAI will fix this soon.

Wait, what’s this ChatGPT Work thing, then?

Oh yeah, OpenAI also launched ChatGPT Work, which is a new agent in ChatGPT that can access and take actions on your apps and files, and work in the background until a task is finished. It’s powered by Codex (OpenAI’s software engineering agent) and GPT-5.6. Think about it as your buddy that will go through your emails and files, browse the web, fetch the relevant data, and create that presentation your boss wants before the day is done.

ChatGPT Work is rolling out to Pro, Enterprise and Edu users first on web and mobile; this will be expanded to Plus and Business users “over the next few days.”

On the desktop, Work is available for everyone, including Free users.

Oh, and one more thing: The fact that ChatGPT Work has a built-in browser also means that OpenAI is sunsetting its standalone web browser, Atlas. Sorry.

How about GPT Live?

GPT Live is a new version of ChatGPT Voice and it will show up when you start talking to ChatGPT.

We’ve covered this in more depth here, but the bottom line is that GPT Live can listen and speak at the same time, allowing it to keep up a more realistic conversation.

Wrapping it all up

The new GPT-5.6 model is smart. It comes in three flavors: Luna, Terra, and Sol, with Sol being the most capable variant, Luna the most affordable one, and Terra somewhere in the middle. You can currently only get them on paid tiers, unless you’re using ChatGPT Work on desktop. And ChatGPT Voice has also gotten smarter with GPT-Live underneath, a model that can listen and speak at the same time.

Topics Artificial Intelligence OpenAI

#GPT5.6 #Sol #Terra #Luna">GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna are here. See which one’s best for you. These days, new versions of AI chatbots don’t just launch; they’re unshackled and released to the public following government scrutiny. OpenAI’s new GPT-5.6 models were – like Anthropic’s Claude Mythos and Fable – apparently too powerful to just launch; but now, after some tinkering, they’re available to you, dear customer.In practice, it simply means that the new GPT-5.6 models are very powerful and smarter than before. In its introductory post, OpenAI shared a bunch of graphs showing just how much better GPT-5.6 is than the competition, whilst using fewer tokens and generally costing less. OK, great. But GPT-5.6 is not just one model; it comes in three distinct flavors: Sol, Terra, and Luna. So what do different kinds of users get, what should they pay for, and which models should they (mostly) use? Let’s dive in. Free users get (almost) nothingSorry; if you’re not a paying customer, you’ll have to make do with OpenAI’s previous flagship model, GPT-5.5. Any sort of access to GPT-5.6 models requires a subscription of some sort. Fortunately, GPT-5.5 is still quite capable at most tasks, but if you want the best of the best, you’ll have to cough up the dough. There’s an exception to this: Free and Go users can access GPT-5.6 through ChatGPT Work. More on that below. If you’re a Plus or Business user, you can only get Sol (the most powerful model) at medium and higher effort settings. There’s another, higher level of performance called Sol Pro, but that’s only available for Pro and Enterprise users. In terms of availability per one million tokens, the prices are: input and output for Sol. .5 input and output for Terra, and input and output for Luna. SEE ALSO: Visa is connecting with ChatGPT to let AI agents automatically make purchases Sol, Terra, or Luna?Why are there three models in the first place? Well, OpenAI always had a multi-tier model; for example, previously users were able to choose a “mini” version of the main model to get results done cheaper. Now, the model has been split into three tiers. If you’re a paying customer, you’re free to use all three. But you know how it is in the world of LLMs: If you pick the smartest one, your usage limits will get hit faster (yes, there are always usage limits, even if you throw a ton of money at OpenAI). Mashable Light Speed In the simplest sense, GPT-5.6 Sol is the smartest model, Terra is in between (with roughly GPT-5.5 level of performance), and Luna is the cheapest, fastest, but also least capable of the bunch. The breakdown is as follows: Terra is a “balanced” model for everyday work. That’s the one you should be asking most of your questions. Don’t underestimate it, though, as OpenAI claims it performs better than Anthropic’s Fable 5 in some cases. Luna is cost-efficient, and should be used for easy, non crucial everyday tasks; think recipes and movie recommendations. Again, OpenAI says it outperforms Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 in some cases, so it’s not a slouch, either.Sol should be reserved for coding, deep research, planning, and cybersecurity: The most demanding tasks. Of course it comes at a (literal) cost: While OpenAI claims it spends less tokens than Anthropic’s Fable 5, Sol will still hit usage limits a lot faster than the other variants. Fun fact: If you ask GPT-5.5 about any of this, right now, it’ll give you completely wrong answers. Hopefully OpenAI will fix this soon.Wait, what’s this ChatGPT Work thing, then?Oh yeah, OpenAI also launched ChatGPT Work, which is a new agent in ChatGPT that can access and take actions on your apps and files, and work in the background until a task is finished. It’s powered by Codex (OpenAI’s software engineering agent) and GPT-5.6. Think about it as your buddy that will go through your emails and files, browse the web, fetch the relevant data, and create that presentation your boss wants before the day is done. ChatGPT Work is rolling out to Pro, Enterprise and Edu users first on web and mobile; this will be expanded to Plus and Business users “over the next few days.”On the desktop, Work is available for everyone, including Free users. Oh, and one more thing: The fact that ChatGPT Work has a built-in browser also means that OpenAI is sunsetting its standalone web browser, Atlas. Sorry. How about GPT Live?GPT Live is a new version of ChatGPT Voice and it will show up when you start talking to ChatGPT. We’ve covered this in more depth here, but the bottom line is that GPT Live can listen and speak at the same time, allowing it to keep up a more realistic conversation.Wrapping it all upThe new GPT-5.6 model is smart. It comes in three flavors: Luna, Terra, and Sol, with Sol being the most capable variant, Luna the most affordable one, and Terra somewhere in the middle. You can currently only get them on paid tiers, unless you’re using ChatGPT Work on desktop. And ChatGPT Voice has also gotten smarter with GPT-Live underneath, a model that can listen and speak at the same time. Topics Artificial Intelligence OpenAI #GPT5.6 #Sol #Terra #Luna

Fable – apparently too powerful to just launch; but now, after some tinkering, they’re available to you, dear customer.

In practice, it simply means that the new GPT-5.6 models are very powerful and smarter than before. In its introductory post, OpenAI shared a bunch of graphs showing just how much better GPT-5.6 is than the competition, whilst using fewer tokens and generally costing less.

OK, great. But GPT-5.6 is not just one model; it comes in three distinct flavors: Sol, Terra, and Luna. So what do different kinds of users get, what should they pay for, and which models should they (mostly) use? Let’s dive in.

Free users get (almost) nothing

Sorry; if you’re not a paying customer, you’ll have to make do with OpenAI’s previous flagship model, GPT-5.5. Any sort of access to GPT-5.6 models requires a subscription of some sort. Fortunately, GPT-5.5 is still quite capable at most tasks, but if you want the best of the best, you’ll have to cough up the dough.

There’s an exception to this: Free and Go users can access GPT-5.6 through ChatGPT Work. More on that below.

If you’re a Plus or Business user, you can only get Sol (the most powerful model) at medium and higher effort settings. There’s another, higher level of performance called Sol Pro, but that’s only available for Pro and Enterprise users.

In terms of availability per one million tokens, the prices are: $5 input and $30 output for Sol. $2.5 input and $15 output for Terra, and $1 input and $6 output for Luna.

SEE ALSO: Visa is connecting with ChatGPT to let AI agents automatically make purchases

Sol, Terra, or Luna?

Why are there three models in the first place? Well, OpenAI always had a multi-tier model; for example, previously users were able to choose a “mini” version of the main model to get results done cheaper. Now, the model has been split into three tiers.

If you’re a paying customer, you’re free to use all three. But you know how it is in the world of LLMs: If you pick the smartest one, your usage limits will get hit faster (yes, there are always usage limits, even if you throw a ton of money at OpenAI).

In the simplest sense, GPT-5.6 Sol is the smartest model, Terra is in between (with roughly GPT-5.5 level of performance), and Luna is the cheapest, fastest, but also least capable of the bunch.

The breakdown is as follows: Terra is a “balanced” model for everyday work. That’s the one you should be asking most of your questions. Don’t underestimate it, though, as OpenAI claims it performs better than Anthropic’s Fable 5 in some cases.

Luna is cost-efficient, and should be used for easy, non crucial everyday tasks; think recipes and movie recommendations. Again, OpenAI says it outperforms Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 in some cases, so it’s not a slouch, either.

Sol should be reserved for coding, deep research, planning, and cybersecurity: The most demanding tasks. Of course it comes at a (literal) cost: While OpenAI claims it spends less tokens than Anthropic’s Fable 5, Sol will still hit usage limits a lot faster than the other variants.

Fun fact: If you ask GPT-5.5 about any of this, right now, it’ll give you completely wrong answers. Hopefully OpenAI will fix this soon.

Wait, what’s this ChatGPT Work thing, then?

Oh yeah, OpenAI also launched ChatGPT Work, which is a new agent in ChatGPT that can access and take actions on your apps and files, and work in the background until a task is finished. It’s powered by Codex (OpenAI’s software engineering agent) and GPT-5.6. Think about it as your buddy that will go through your emails and files, browse the web, fetch the relevant data, and create that presentation your boss wants before the day is done.

ChatGPT Work is rolling out to Pro, Enterprise and Edu users first on web and mobile; this will be expanded to Plus and Business users “over the next few days.”

On the desktop, Work is available for everyone, including Free users.

Oh, and one more thing: The fact that ChatGPT Work has a built-in browser also means that OpenAI is sunsetting its standalone web browser, Atlas. Sorry.

How about GPT Live?

GPT Live is a new version of ChatGPT Voice and it will show up when you start talking to ChatGPT.

We’ve covered this in more depth here, but the bottom line is that GPT Live can listen and speak at the same time, allowing it to keep up a more realistic conversation.

Wrapping it all up

The new GPT-5.6 model is smart. It comes in three flavors: Luna, Terra, and Sol, with Sol being the most capable variant, Luna the most affordable one, and Terra somewhere in the middle. You can currently only get them on paid tiers, unless you’re using ChatGPT Work on desktop. And ChatGPT Voice has also gotten smarter with GPT-Live underneath, a model that can listen and speak at the same time.

Topics Artificial Intelligence OpenAI

#GPT5.6 #Sol #Terra #Luna">GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, and Luna are here. See which one’s best for you.

These days, new versions of AI chatbots don’t just launch; they’re unshackled and released to the public following government scrutiny. OpenAI’s new GPT-5.6 models were – like Anthropic’s Claude Mythos and Fable – apparently too powerful to just launch; but now, after some tinkering, they’re available to you, dear customer.

In practice, it simply means that the new GPT-5.6 models are very powerful and smarter than before. In its introductory post, OpenAI shared a bunch of graphs showing just how much better GPT-5.6 is than the competition, whilst using fewer tokens and generally costing less.

OK, great. But GPT-5.6 is not just one model; it comes in three distinct flavors: Sol, Terra, and Luna. So what do different kinds of users get, what should they pay for, and which models should they (mostly) use? Let’s dive in.

Free users get (almost) nothing

Sorry; if you’re not a paying customer, you’ll have to make do with OpenAI’s previous flagship model, GPT-5.5. Any sort of access to GPT-5.6 models requires a subscription of some sort. Fortunately, GPT-5.5 is still quite capable at most tasks, but if you want the best of the best, you’ll have to cough up the dough.

There’s an exception to this: Free and Go users can access GPT-5.6 through ChatGPT Work. More on that below.

If you’re a Plus or Business user, you can only get Sol (the most powerful model) at medium and higher effort settings. There’s another, higher level of performance called Sol Pro, but that’s only available for Pro and Enterprise users.

In terms of availability per one million tokens, the prices are: $5 input and $30 output for Sol. $2.5 input and $15 output for Terra, and $1 input and $6 output for Luna.

SEE ALSO: Visa is connecting with ChatGPT to let AI agents automatically make purchases

Sol, Terra, or Luna?

Why are there three models in the first place? Well, OpenAI always had a multi-tier model; for example, previously users were able to choose a “mini” version of the main model to get results done cheaper. Now, the model has been split into three tiers.

If you’re a paying customer, you’re free to use all three. But you know how it is in the world of LLMs: If you pick the smartest one, your usage limits will get hit faster (yes, there are always usage limits, even if you throw a ton of money at OpenAI).

In the simplest sense, GPT-5.6 Sol is the smartest model, Terra is in between (with roughly GPT-5.5 level of performance), and Luna is the cheapest, fastest, but also least capable of the bunch.

The breakdown is as follows: Terra is a “balanced” model for everyday work. That’s the one you should be asking most of your questions. Don’t underestimate it, though, as OpenAI claims it performs better than Anthropic’s Fable 5 in some cases.

Luna is cost-efficient, and should be used for easy, non crucial everyday tasks; think recipes and movie recommendations. Again, OpenAI says it outperforms Anthropic’s Opus 4.8 in some cases, so it’s not a slouch, either.

Sol should be reserved for coding, deep research, planning, and cybersecurity: The most demanding tasks. Of course it comes at a (literal) cost: While OpenAI claims it spends less tokens than Anthropic’s Fable 5, Sol will still hit usage limits a lot faster than the other variants.

Fun fact: If you ask GPT-5.5 about any of this, right now, it’ll give you completely wrong answers. Hopefully OpenAI will fix this soon.

Wait, what’s this ChatGPT Work thing, then?

Oh yeah, OpenAI also launched ChatGPT Work, which is a new agent in ChatGPT that can access and take actions on your apps and files, and work in the background until a task is finished. It’s powered by Codex (OpenAI’s software engineering agent) and GPT-5.6. Think about it as your buddy that will go through your emails and files, browse the web, fetch the relevant data, and create that presentation your boss wants before the day is done.

ChatGPT Work is rolling out to Pro, Enterprise and Edu users first on web and mobile; this will be expanded to Plus and Business users “over the next few days.”

On the desktop, Work is available for everyone, including Free users.

Oh, and one more thing: The fact that ChatGPT Work has a built-in browser also means that OpenAI is sunsetting its standalone web browser, Atlas. Sorry.

How about GPT Live?

GPT Live is a new version of ChatGPT Voice and it will show up when you start talking to ChatGPT.

We’ve covered this in more depth here, but the bottom line is that GPT Live can listen and speak at the same time, allowing it to keep up a more realistic conversation.

Wrapping it all up

The new GPT-5.6 model is smart. It comes in three flavors: Luna, Terra, and Sol, with Sol being the most capable variant, Luna the most affordable one, and Terra somewhere in the middle. You can currently only get them on paid tiers, unless you’re using ChatGPT Work on desktop. And ChatGPT Voice has also gotten smarter with GPT-Live underneath, a model that can listen and speak at the same time.

Topics Artificial Intelligence OpenAI

#GPT5.6 #Sol #Terra #Luna

Post Comment