If you think of supercomputers, it is hard not to think of Seymour Cray. He built giant computers at Control Data Corporation and went on to build the famous Cray supercomputers. While those computers aren’t especially amazing today, for their time, they were modern marvels. [Asianometry] has a great history of Cray, starting with his work at ERA, which would, of course, eventually produce the computer known as the Univac 1103.
ERA was bought up by Remington Rand, which eventually became Sperry Rand. Due to conflict, some of the ERA staff left to form Control Data Corporation, and Cray went with them. The new company decided to focus on computers to do simulations for things like nuclear test simulations.
To save money, the new company used out-of-spec transistors, pairing them so they’d work correctly. In 1960, the company delivered the CDC 1604, a million-dollar computer that ran at 200 kHz. It was the most powerful computer of its day. It was solid state with a 48-bit word. Core memory was 32K words (192 Kbytes). The company touted its “small size” (fits in a 20-foot by 20-foot room!).
Cray would eventually sour on CDC and founded Cray Research in 1972. Before long, though, Cray stepped down as CEO of Cray Research and founded the Cray Computer Corporation.
While early Cray designs were technically successful, growing technology allowed other companies to produce cheaper supercomputers. In addition, the need for supercomputers and how they were built was changing. Cray Computer Corporation went bankrupt in 1995. Cray Research continued without Cray at the helm, but attempts to access a broader market didn’t really work out.
Silicon Graphics bought Cray Research in 1996, selling some of it to Sun. That was the same year Seymour died in a traffic accident at age 71. By 2000, Cray Research was sold again to Tera Computer, which changed its name to Cray. However, they also had a rock road in the supercomputer market. They sold some assets to Intel in 2012 and in 2019 were bought by Hewlett Packard.
There is a lot of history in this video, and it would be amazing to see what Seymour Cray could have done with an unlimited budget and no business necessities.
Want to play with a Cray? Simulation is going to be easier than buying surplus. We’ve done our own biography of Mr. Cray, if you want some additional reading.
Navigating aircraft today isn’t like the old days. No more arrows painted on a barn roof or rotating airway beacons. Now, there are a host of radio navigation aids. GPS, of course, is available. But planes often use VOR to determine a bearing to a known point and DME — distance measuring equipment — to measure the distance to that point. DME operates around 1000 MHz and is little more than a repeater. An airplane sends a pair of pulses, and times how long it takes for the DME to repeat them. [Daniel Estévez] has been monitoring these transmissions with a LimeSDR.
Like most repeaters, the DME transponders listen on one frequency and transmit on another. Those frequencies are 63 MHz apart. This poses a challenge for some types of SDRs which have limits on bandwidth.
The LimeSDR has two chains of onboard processing, but each is tied to its own ADC. No problem. Just split the antenna and feed the same signal to both ADCs. Problem solved. An LNA makes up for the splitter loss.
Once you have the signal, a GNU Radio setup can grab the data to do any final processing and recording. Analysis shows how DME sends 2,700 pulses per second no matter what. That’s because the transponder adjusts its squelch to make this true. When there isn’t much going on, the receiver will be squelched below the noise level and be very sensitive. However, if many aircraft are using the system, it will automatically adjust to only repeat the strongest pulses.
While this wasn’t trivial, it was much easier using modern SDR tools than it would have been when radios had to be built for specific purposes.
If you have a hobby, it is natural to want to share it with kids. If you are interested in 3D printing, you may even have kids who want to try their hand at printing without prompting. There are a number of “kid printers” aimed specifically at that market. Are they worthwhile? How old is old enough? [Everson Siqueirar] tries out a Kidoodle with this 6-year-old daughter, and the results are good, as you can see in the video below.
Impressively, his daughter [Sophie] was able to set up the printer with a little help. The build plate is very small and not heated. Apparently, a glue stick is necessary for bed adhesion. The printer has WiFi but also has a collection of models you can print without any internet connection.
The results were good, and it looks like [Sophie] did all the work, which was impressive; she did a great job. While you could print some models locally and some on the network. You can also slice your own models, but if you use something like Cura or Slic3r, you’ll have to do some work to get a good profile. [Everson] tried it and managed to jam the printer. That requires adult intervention. But outside of that, [Sophie] was able to work on her own, even printing a few models while dad took a nap.
Technically, the printer has an enclosure, a large screen, and a direct drive extruder with an all-metal hot end. Not bad for a kid’s printer. It normally takes a small spool, but you can print an adapter for normal spools, although it was too fat for some spools and required a redesign.
We thought this printer was already out, but it is, alas, a Kickstarter. We’ve seen other printers try to address this market, including one from Mattel. You might argue that kids learn more from building a printer, but that has challenges, too.
We’ve often thought that while going to the moon in the 1960s was audacious, it was just the flashiest of many audacious feats attempted and accomplished in the 20th century. Imagine, for a minute, that the phone system didn’t exist today, and you stood up in front of a corporate board and said, “Let’s run copper wire to every home and business in the world.” They’d probably send you for a psychiatric evaluation. Yet we did just that, and, in the United States, that copper wire was because of the Bell system, which [Brian Potter] describes in a recent post.
The Bell company, regardless of many name changes and divisions, was clearly a very important company. [Brian] points out that in 1917, it was the second-largest company in the United States and continued to grow, eventually employing a whopping 1% of the entire U.S. workforce. That’s what happens when you have a monopoly on a product that is subject to wild demand. In 1900, Bell handled 5 million calls a day. By 1925, that number was over 50 million. In 1975, it was just shy of 500 million. If Wester Electric — just one part of Bell — was its own company, it would have been the 12th largest company in the U.S. during the 1970s.
From a technology point of view, the system was impressive in scale and rate of growth. In 1877, AT&T — the name after a restructuring — had 600 customers. A year later, it had 10,000. By 1881, that number was 100,000, and only 9 U.S. cities with more than 10,000 people lacked a phone exchange. By 1900, the 800,000 telephones in use required 2 million miles of wire!
That 2 million miles of wire had to go somewhere. New York City had hundreds of 90-foot poles, each carrying 300 wires, and people were complaining about the wires being in view. That caused AT&T to go underground. In 1888, a phone cable had 50 pairs of #18 wire. By 1939, #26 wire allowed 2,121 pairs of wires in a single cable.
Remember that the early phone system had no amplifiers. When tubes arrived, this allowed longer distances on smaller wires and radio links to reach the world. Bell’s monopoly allowed them to innovate but also hurt others who wanted to innovate.
For most people, you turn on your computer, and it starts the operating system. However, the reality is much more complex as [Thasso] discovered. Even modern x86 chips start in 16-bit real mode and there is a bit of fancy footwork required to shift to modern protected mode with full 64-bit support. Want to see how? [Thasso] shows us the ropes.
Nowadays, it is handy to develop such things because you don’t have to use real hardware. An emulator like QEMU will suffice. If you know assembly language, the process is surprisingly simple, although there is a lot of nuance and subtlety. The biggest task is setting up appropriate paging tables to control the memory mapping. In real mode, segments have access to fixed 64 K blocks of memory unless you use some tricks. But in protected mode, segments define blocks of memory that can be very small or cover the entire address space. These segments define areas of memory even though it is possible to set segments to cover all memory and — sort of — ignore them. You still have to define them for the switch to protected mode.
In the bad old days, you had more reason to worry about this if you were writing a DOS Extender or using some tricks to get access to more memory. But still good to know if you are rolling your own operating system. Why do the processors still boot into real mode? Good question.
When everything used wires, it was easy to splice them or replace them. Not so much with PC boards, but everyone has their favorite method for repairing a broken trace. [Mr. SolderFix] has his five favorite ways, as you can see in the video below.
Of course, before you can repair a trace, you probably have to expose it since most boards have solder mask now. Unless you plan to shut the trace at both ends, exposing the actual trace is probably the first step.
The first method is to just blob with solder, but we aren’t fans of that. Solder is not a great interconnect, so we nearly always put a small bit of wire over the gap, even if we might cover it with solder. That way, if the solder cracks over time, you still have a conductor as long as the solder bonds to the trace and wire. We did like that he used a blob of solder mask to cover the repair, which was a nice touch.
Of course, that isn’t going to work if you have a long delaminated trace. In particular, about two inches of a track was totally off the substrate. Here, using a wire is essential. We usually don’t bother to fit it exactly to the trace, but he is a bit more particular than we are. He used solder to model the bends in the wire and then straightened it out. That serves as a guide for how long to cut the jumper wire. He then bends the jumper to fit the trace and tacks it down with Kapton tape. It doesn’t work any better than one of our spaghetti-like repairs, but it does look better.
You’ve probably seen — or could deduce — how to do these repairs, but tips like using solder to model a trace are priceless. Some repairs have been done with copper sheets instead of wires. We didn’t see him using any conductive paint, which we’ve also had good luck with and we’ll admit we’ve covered repairs with clear nail polish rather than solder mask, but there are many possibilities, of course.
What’s your favorite method? It is harder — but not impossible — to repair boards that are completely broken. If you are a masochist, put your wires inside the board instead.
If you were expecting a post about ancient kings and queens, you are probably at the wrong website. [Burn Heart] has a fascination with ancient measuring devices and set out to recreate period-correct rules, although using decidedly modern techniques.
The first example is a French rule for measuring the “pied du Roi” or king’s foot. Apparently, his royal highness had large feet as a the French variant is nearly 13 inches long. The next rulers hail from Egypt and measure cubits and spans. Turns out the pyramid builders left a lot of information about measurements and their understanding of math and tools like dividers.
Other rules from Rome, Japan, and the Indus Valley are also included. According to the post, one set of these rulers used locally sourced wood, but a second “limited” edition used wood that the originals might have. Most of the rulers were etched via CNC, although the French ruler was hand-etched.
The Romans, apparently, had smaller feet than French royalty, as their Pes or foot was about 11.65 inches. There are plenty of little tidbits in the post ranging from the origin of the word inch to why the black wood used for piano keys is called ebony.
We’ll stipulate this isn’t exactly a hack, although it is fine workmanship and part of hacker culture is obsessing over measuring things, so we thought it was fair game. These days, rulers are often electronic. Which makes it natural to put them on a PC board.
Modern tech is great, but we have to admit that we sometimes miss when electronic things looked complicated. A modern computer looks dull compared to, say, an IBM 360. Control rooms now look no different than a stock trading room, instead of being full of indicators, knobs, and buzzers. [BorisDigital] must have some of those same feelings. He built a very cool control panel for his Home Assistant setup. He based it somewhat on a jet cockpit and a little on a nuclear plant control room, and the result, as you can see in the video below, is great.
This is less of a how-to video and more of an inspirational one. After all, you won’t have the same setup, but there are many details about how it was constructed with a Raspberry Pi, 3D printing, and control of the Home Assistant via web services.
You might point out that you could put everything on a computer screen, but what fun is that? There is a touchscreen, so you do have some options. Normally, the panel hangs on the wall, but you can snap feet on to rest the panel on a desk or table.
The panel has about 50 I/O devices, so a GPIO expander — actually several of them — was necessary. To make a nice-looking label, he fills in 3D-printed inset text with spackle. It isn’t perfect, but it looks good enough.
We have to admit that we often think about building unusual things, but we hadn’t really considered building our own hydroelectric dam before. [Mini Construction] did, apparently, and there’s a timelapse of the build in the video below.
We wished this was more of a how-to video, although if you are handy with brickwork, the mechanical construction seems straightforward. Presumably, you’d need to understand how much force the water had but we don’t know if there was math involved or just seat-of-the-pants design.
We were unclear what the tower was for until we saw the turbine installed in it. We weren’t clear where it came from, and it looked like maybe it was repurposed from something else. If you recognize what it is, or have a guess, drop a comment, will you? While the brickwork was impressive, the wiring — especially near water — looked a bit suspect. We hope that was just test wiring and a more permanent arrangement was made later.
We’ve all been there. You are on a flight, there’s WiFi, but you hate to pay the few bucks just to watch dog videos. What to do? Well, we would never suggest you engage in theft of service, but as an intellectual exercise, [Robert Heaton] had an interesting idea. Could the limited free use of the network be coopted to access the general internet? Turns out, the answer is yes.
Admittedly, it is a terrible connection. Here’s how it works. The airline lets you get to your frequent flier account. When there, you can change information such as your name. A machine on the ground can also see that change and make changes, too. That’s all it takes.
It works like a drop box. You take TCP traffic, encode it as fake information for the account and enter it. You then watch for the response via the same channel and reconstitute the TCP traffic from the remote side. Now the network is at your fingertips.
There’s more to it, but you can read about it in the post. It is slow, unreliable, and you definitely shouldn’t be doing it. But from the point of view of a clever hack, we loved it. In fact, [Robert] didn’t do it either. He proved it would work but did all the development using GitHub gist as the drop box. While we appreciate the hack, we also appreciate the ethical behavior!
Some airlines allow free messaging, which is another way to tunnel traffic. If you can connect to something, you can probably find a way to use it as a tunnel.
If you’ve ever seen the cockpit of an airplane, you’ve probably noticed the round ball that shows your attitude, and if you are like us, you’ve wondered exactly how the Attitude Direction Indicator (ADI) works. Well, [msylvain59] is tearing one apart in the video below, so you can satisfy your curiosity in less than 30 minutes.
Like most things on an airplane, it is built solidly and compactly. With the lid open, it reminded us of a tiny CRT oscilloscope, except the CRT is really the ball display. It also has gears, which is something we don’t expect to see in a scope.
Getting to the ball mechanism was fairly difficult. It is nearly the end of the video before the ball comes apart, revealing a pair of hefty but tiny autosyn units and a clockwork full of gears. Bendix equipment often used the autosyn to transmit positions over wire similar to a selsyn but using AC instead of DC.
Next time you peek into a cockpit, you’ll know what’s driving that eyeball or, at least, what might be driving it since not every one of these is identical, of course.
These cool devices show up in our feed every so often. If you can cram a CPU, a screen, and an accelerometer into a Lego, you could build one for your next block model.
[Thomas Scherrer] likes to tear down old test equipment, and often, we remember the devices he opens up or — at least — we’ve heard of them. However, this time, he’s got a Hung Chang HC-F100 multifunction counter, which is a vintage 1986 instrument that can reach 100 MHz.
Inside, the product is clearly a child of its time period. There’s a transformer for the linear supply, through-hole components, and an Intersil frequency counter on a chip. Everything is easy to get to and large enough to see.
Powering it up, the display lit up readily. The counter seemed to work with no difficulties, which was a bit of a surprise.
The oscillator inside has a temperature regulator so that once warmed up, it should be more or less stable. Touching it disturbs it, but you really shouldn’t be making real measurements with the top off while you are poking around on the inside.
Conventional batteries have anodes and cathodes, but a new design from the University of Chicago and the University of California San Diego lacks an anode. While this has been done before, according to the University, this is the first time a solid-state sodium battery has successfully used this architecture.
Sodium is abundant compared to lithium, so batteries that use sodium are attractive. According to the University of Chicago’s news release:
Anode-free batteries remove the anode and store the ions on an electrochemical deposition of alkali metal directly on the current collector. This approach enables higher cell voltage, lower cell cost, and increased energy density…
Of course, there are also downsides. In particular, making anodeless batteries with liquid electrolytes can be easier to build, but the liquid forms solids that impede the battery’s performance over time.
The new battery uses an aluminum powder as a current collector. Interestingly, while this is a solid, it flows more like a liquid. Combined with a solid electrolyte, the battery flips the usual idea of a solid cathode and a liquid electrolyte.
We are always interested in new battery tech. However, we rarely see them out in the wild. Maybe AI will have better luck.
On the one hand, we were impressed that a tiny Brother label maker actually uses CUPS to support printing. Like [Sdomi], we were less than impressed at how old a copy it was using – – 1.6.1. Of course, [Sdomi] managed to gain access to the OS and set things up the right way, and we get an over-the-shoulder view.
It wasn’t just the old copy of CUPS, either. The setup page was very dated and while that’s just cosmetic, it still strikes a nerve. The Linux kernel in use was also super old. Luckily, the URLs looked like good candidates for command injection.
Worst of all, the old version of CUPS had some known vulnerabilities, so there were several avenues of attack. The interface had some filtering, so slashes and spaces were not passed, but several other characters could get around the limitations. Very clever.
The post contains a few good tricks to file away for future use. It also turned out that despite the Brother branding, the printer is really from another company, which was useful to know, too. In the end, does the printer work any better? Probably not. But we get the urge to check some of the other devices we own.
The last time we saw CUPS save an old printer, it had to be bolted on. CUPS was meant to support 3D printers, but we never see anyone using it like that.
When you think of solar energy, you probably think of flat plates on rooftops. A company called WAVJA wants you to think of spheres. The little spheres, ranging from one to four inches across, can convert light into electricity, and the company claims they have 7.5 times the output of traditional solar panels and could later produce even more. Unfortunately, the video below doesn’t have a great deal of detail to back up the claims.
Some scenes in the video are clearly forward-looking. However, the so-called photon energy system appears to be powering a variety of real devices. It’s difficult to assess some of the claims. For example, the video claims 60 times the output of a similar-sized panel. But you’d hardly expect much from a tiny 4-inch solar panel.
What do you think? Do they really have layers of exotic material? If we were going to bet, we’d bet these claims are a bit of hyperbole. Then again, who knows? We’ll be watching to see what technical details emerge. We have to admit that quotes like this from their website don’t make us especially hopeful:
…relies on the use of multiple layers of materials and special spheres to introduce sunlight and generate a significant amount of luminosity, which is then transformed into electricity using a silicon conductor module…
These days, it is hard to imagine electronics without printed circuit boards. They are literally in everything. While making PCBs at home used to be a chore, these days, you design on a computer, click a button, and they show up in the mail. But if you go back far enough, there were no PC boards. Where did they come from? That’s the question posed by [Steven Leibson] who did some investigating into the topic.
There were many false starts at building things like PCBs using wires glued to substrates or conductive inks. However, it wasn’t until World War II that mass production of PC boards became common. In particular, they were the perfect solution for proximity fuzes in artillery shells.
The environment for these fuzes is harsh. You literally fire them out of a cannon, and they can feel up to 20,000 Gs of acceleration. That will turn most electronic circuits into mush.
The answer was to print silver-bearing ink on a ceramic substrate. These boards contained tubes, which also needed special care. Two PCBs would often have components mounted vertically in a “cordwood” configuration.
From there, of course, things progressed rapidly. We’ve actually looked at the proximity fuze before. Not to mention cordwood.
Like many of us, [MIKROWAVE1] had a lot of electronic toys growing up. In a video you can watch below, he asks the question: “Did electronic toys influence your path?” Certainly, for us, the answer was yes.
The CB “base station” looked familiar although ours was marked “General Electric.” Some of us certainly had things similar to the 150-in-one kit and versions of the REMCO broadcast system. There were many versions of crystal radio kits, although a kit for that always seemed a little like cheating.
Shortwave radios were fun in those days, too. We miss the days when you could find interesting stations on shortwave. We were also happy to see the P-box kits. If you weren’t interested in radio, there were also digital logic kits including a “computer” that was really a giant multi-pole switch that could create logic gates.
It made us wonder what toys are launching the next generation of engineers. We are not convinced that video games, Tik Tok, and ChatGPT are going to serve the same purpose these toys did for many of us. What do you think? What were your favorite toys and what do think will serve that purpose for the next generation?
When you buy a cheap ham radio handy-talkie, you usually get a little “rubber ducky” antenna with it. You can also buy many replacement ones that are at least longer. But how good are they? [Learnelectronics] wanted to know, too, so he broke out his NanoVNA and found out that they were all bad, although some were worse than others. You can see the results in the — sometimes fuzzy — video below.
Of course, bad is in the eye of the beholder and you probably suspected that most of them weren’t super great, but they do seem especially bad. So much so, that, at first, he suspected he was doing something wrong. The SWR was high all across the bands the antennas targeted.
It won’t come as a surprise to find that making an antenna work at 2 meters and 70 centimeters probably isn’t that easy. In addition, it is hard to imagine the little stubby antenna the size of your thumb could work well no matter what. Still, you’d think at least the longer antennas would be a little better.
Hams have had SWR meters for years, of course. But it sure is handy to be able to connect an antenna and see its performance over a wide band of frequencies. Some of the antennas weren’t bad on the UHF band. That makes sense because the antenna is physically larger but at VHF the size didn’t seem a big difference.
He even showed up a little real-world testing and, as you might predict, the test results did not lie. However, only the smallest antenna was totally unable to hit the local repeater.
Conservation of energy isn’t just a good idea: It is the law. In particular, it is the first law of thermodynamics. But, apparently, a lot of people don’t really get that because history is replete with inventions that purport to run forever or produce more energy than they consume. Sometimes these are hoaxes, and sometimes they are frauds. We expect sometimes they are also simple misunderstandings.
We thought about this when we ran across the viral photo of an EV with a generator connected to the back wheel. Of course, EVs and hybrids do try to reclaim power through regenerative braking, but that’s recovering a fraction of the energy already spent. You can never pull more power out than you put in, and, in fact, you’ll pull out substantially less.
Not a New Problem
If you think this is a scourge of social media and modern vehicles, you’d be wrong. Leonardo da Vinci, back in 1494, said:
Oh ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists.
There was a rumor in the 8th century that someone built a “magic wheel,” but this appears to be little more than a myth. An Indian mathematician also claimed to have a wheel that would run forever, but there’s little proof of that, either. It was probably an overbalanced wheel where the wheel spins due to weight and gravity with enough force to keep the wheel spinning.
Villard’s machine
An architect named Villard de Honnecourt drew an impractical perpetual motion machine in the 13th century that was also an overbalanced wheel. His device, and other similar ones, would require a complete lack of friction to work. Even Leonardo da Vinci, who did not think such a device was possible, did some sketches of overbalanced wheels, hoping to find a solution.
Types of Machines
There isn’t just a single kind of perpetual motion machine. A type I machine claims to produce work without any input energy. For example, a wheel that spins for no reason would be a type I machine.
Type II machines violate the second law of thermodynamics. For example, the “zeromoter” — developed in the 1800s by John Gamgee, used ammonia and a piston to move by boiling and cooling ammonia. While the machine was, of course, debunked, Gamgee has the honor of being the inventor of the world’s first mechanically frozen ice rink in 1844.
Type III machines claim to use some means to reduce friction to zero to allow a machine to work that would otherwise run down. For example, you can make a flywheel with very low friction bearings, and with no load, it may spin for years. However, it will still spin down.
Often, machines that claim to be perpetual either don’t really last forever — like the flywheel — or they actually draw power from an unintended source. For example, in 1760, James Cox and John Joseph Merlin developed Cox’s timepiece and claimed it ran perpetually. However, it actually drew power from changes in barometric pressure.
Frauds
These inventions were often mere frauds. E.P. Willis in 1870 made money from his machine but it actually had a hidden source of power. So did John Ernst Worrell Keely’s induction resonance motion motor that actually used hidden air pressure tubes to power itself. Harry Perrigo, an MIT graduate, also demonstrated a perpetual motion machine to the US Congress in 1917. That device had a secret battery.
However, some inventors probably weren’t frauds. Nikola Tesla was certainly a smart guy. He claimed to have found a principle that would allow for the construction of a Type II perpetual motion machine. However, he never built it.
There have been hosts of others, and it isn’t always clear who really thought they had a good idea and how many were just out to make a buck. But some people have created machines as a joke. Dave Jones, in 1981, created a bicycle wheel in a clear container that never stopped spinning. But he always said it was a fake and that he had built it as a joke. Adam Savage looks at that machine in the video below. He wrote his secret in a sealed envelope before he died, and supposedly, only two people know how it works.
Methods
Most perpetual machines try to use force from magnets. Gravity is also a popular agent of action. Other machines depend on buoyancy (like the one in the video below) or gas expansion and condensation.
The US Patent and Trademark Office manual of patent examining practice says:
With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.
The UK Patent Office also forbids perpetual motion machine patents. The European Patent Classification system has classes for “alleged perpetua mobilia”
Of course, having a patent doesn’t mean something works; it just means the patent office thought it was original and can’t figure out why it wouldn’t work. Consider Tom Bearden’s motionless electromagnetic generator, which claims to generate power without any external input. Despite widespread denouncement of the supposed operating principle — Bearden claimed the device extracted vacuum energy — the patent office issued a patent in 2002.
The Most Insidious
The best machines are ones that use energy from some source that isn’t apparent. For example, a Crookes radiometer looks like a lightbulb with a little propeller inside. Light makes it move. It is also a common method to use magnetic fields to move something without obviously spinning it. For example, the egg of Columbus (see the video below) is a magnet, and a moving magnetic field makes the egg spin. This isn’t dissimilar from a sealed pump where a magnet turns on the dry side and moves the impeller, which is totally immersed in liquid.
Some low-friction systems, like the flywheel, can seem to be perpetual motion machines if you aren’t patient enough. But eventually, they all wear down.
Crazy or Conspiracy?
Venues like YouTube are full of people claiming to have free energy devices that also claim to be suppressed by “the establishment”. While we hate to be on the wrong side of history if someone does pull it off, we are going to go out on a limb and say that there can’t be a true perpetual motion machine. Unless you cheat, of course.
This is the place we usually tell you to get hacking and come up with something cool. But, sadly, for this time we’ll entreat you to spend your time on something more productive, like a useless box or put Linux on your Commodore 64.
Conectar
