The basic setup is a stake on a turntable in the path of an X-ray beam. There is a blower from above to simulate moving through air. Also included are a stereo pair of high speed cameras. The hapless fly is glued to the stake and rotated while he flaps in the air stream. They collect the X-ray data, correlate it to wing position using the stereo cameras and reconstruct the 3d model of the fly's interior at different phases of the wing flapping cycle.
Very nice science. Robert Hooke would be most impressed. There is an elegant mastery of space and time here where they can interchange them freely to come up with a result that makes sense.
␄
A tangent off in the weeds: There appear to be no legs on the fly in the pictures. I presume some lab technician is tasked with pulling the legs off of flies. Who knew that would be a job skill?
<Disclosure>I work in the group where these experiments were performed.
Marco Stampanoni is my boss, Rajmund Mokso one of my office mates.</Disclosure>
The flies legs were not pulled off as far as I know (I can ask tomorrow).
It's simply that the field of view of the microtomographic setup is not big enough to have the whole fly in it (at this magnification and speed).
I.e. the sample is bigger than the FOV, which we call "local tomography".
This isn't quite what I thought it might be. I thought it was going to be a POV video, from inside a flying house fly.
This is really an animated CT scan of a restrained house fly, studying the mechanisms of its ability to propel itself through the air and maneuver during flight.
Very nice science. Robert Hooke would be most impressed. There is an elegant mastery of space and time here where they can interchange them freely to come up with a result that makes sense.
␄
A tangent off in the weeds: There appear to be no legs on the fly in the pictures. I presume some lab technician is tasked with pulling the legs off of flies. Who knew that would be a job skill?