6 Insane Do It Yourself Projects That Put Yours to Shame
Are you proud of yourself because you figured out how to build a kick-ass dog house out of a refrigerator box? Do you high-five your friends every time you upgrade your computer without setting it on fire?
Then you might not want to read about the kind of do-it-yourself projects other people have going on. Your self-esteem might not be able to handle ...

Justin Lee and Oliver Yeh are two MIT students who decided they wanted to take a picture of the curvature of the Earth just for shits and giggles. They spent $148 on the project and got this photo for their efforts:

We, meanwhile, spent $148 on a used PSP.
So what does it take to pull off something like that? Well, besides having brains the size of Krang, they used a weather balloon, some helium, a Styrofoam cooler and duct tape. They put some break-and-shake hand warmers in the cooler to keep the cheap camera they used from freezing in the near-space altitude and stuck in a prepaid cellphone with GPS to track it.

The balloon being launched.

The balloon being de-launched.
It went 18 miles into the sky -- pretty short of the accepted edge of the atmosphere where space really begins (62 miles up), but still three times higher than an airliner. And we're totally prepared to call that thing they photographed up there "space." To give you an idea, when the balloon finally burst, the beer cooler took 40 minutes to hit the ground.
They specifically set out to keep the project as cheap as possible so they could crash and burn over and over again until they got it right (which they did on the first try). In case you want to follow on their brilliant coattails, you can find instructions for building your own balloon camera here.
And while that's awesome and all, you know what would be even better? If you could put a person up there. Which, by the way, is the goal of Kristian von Bengston and Peter Madsen of Copenhagen Suborbitals.

This is simultaneously the greatest and most terrible idea in the history of time.
The two men have been using donations to fund their project, which will make them the first non-government-funded group to send a human into space if they succeed. (If they fail, they'll retain their title of "two assholes with an orange tube.")
The cockpit is roughly as roomy and comfortable as a Pez dispenser, and there is no real navigation on board to speak of. The duo are hoping that once the craft's liquid oxygen fuel carries it up into space, their calculations and the "laws of aerodynamics" will safely guide its screaming cargo back to Earth for a water landing slowed by parachutes, just like the old Apollo missions, because nothing bad ever happened on those.

You know, sometimes it's easier to just shoot yourself in the head.

Tao Xiangli from China and Mikhail Puchkov from Russia both harnessed their ingenuity and undeniable supply of crazy to build fully functioning submersibles.

Oh yeah, that's up to OSHA specs.
Tao spent about $4,385 (roughly a full year of his wages) and two years of his life building a sub out of barrels. It can safely cruise to a depth of 32.5 feet and has a periscope, electric motors for its two propellers, diving tanks, a manometer (for gauging pressure), headlights and a video camera/monitor setup for seeing outside. Tao used the barrels because they were cheap and cobbled the rest together out of second hand parts, because when you're going to be in a windowless metal tube under tons of water, you'll settle for nothing but the best.
Then you have Puchkov, who desperately wanted to escape the stifling life of a factory worker in Soviet Russia, so he set about building his own submarine, though considering the bodies of water that surround Russia, one wonders where the hell he thought he was going to go in said submarine. His earliest attempts just sank in the freezing water, and one of the ones that did not sink got caught in a steel net and wound up earning Puchkov a two-day stay in a KGB interrogation cell as a suspected spy.

When he finally succeeded, he wound up with a fiberglass mini sub with a backup pedal system in case the electric motor failed. He can travel in it for about 100 miles a day, at a speed of 4 knots and a depth of 30 feet, which appears to be both the limit for DIY subs and about 30 feet deeper than we would ever like to go in a homemade underwater tomb.
Oh, and instead of using a periscope or a video camera to see, he just uses a head-shaped plastic dome, which just goes to show you that living in an oppressive communist regime can really bring out the creativity in people.

We're guessing someone had a lot of pet goldfish as a kid.

We've shown you previously that with the right parts, you can supposedly build your own fusion reactor. Now, if you think that kind of thing is only easy to pull off on paper and that nobody could actually build a working device, think again. Two kids from Michigan actually did, although one was more successful than the other.

Guess which one?
The guy on the left, Thiago Olson, built a fusion reactor in his basement starting at age 15 and actually achieved a fusion reaction by age 17. He scoured for parts on eBay, read books on physics and posted questions on a fusion forum whenever he couldn't figure it out on his own, leading us to wonder just who the hell populates a message board with the secrets of nuclear science.

The other guy is David Hahn, who created a breeder nuclear reactor in his mother's shed as a 17-year-old Eagle Scout. Sadly, we can't show you a picture of it, since the EPA buried his shed and all of his experiments in a low-level radioactive waste site in Utah, presumably creating a team of superhuman mutants in the process.
Hahn never got enough nuclear material to reach critical mass and start a reaction, although he did succeed in irradiating his entire neighborhood. Other failures left him burned, turned his hair green and knocked him the hell out, but he continued on with the kind of pluck only cartoon coyotes possess.

This is bound to work eventually.
Although he was apparently a poor student (he had horrible scores in school and wrote the word "Caushon" on his work shed), he did manage to cobble together enough parts and nuclear material to build the base of his breeder reactor. In the end, Hahn was the subject of a book about how he nearly killed his neighborhood, which admittedly is pretty awesome until you compare him with the much more successful Olson, who managed to get a planet named after him.








It's surprising that home automation isn't more widespread than it is. Barraford's Jarvis seems cool, but I think Microsoft and Mac both offer home automation platforms. It's just a matter of buying and setting-up all the fiddly little peripherals needed to allow the platform to dim the lights, open and close the blinds and so on. None of the setup work is especially difficult, but some of the parts can be pricey.
ReplyComedian Jeff Dunham also builds helicopters....man, I thought making homemade pizza was the shizzle #lifeputintoperspective
ReplySweet baby jesus...I want that last one.
ReplyI can't imagine the claustrophobia that homemade space shuttle would bring on... I don't mind small spaces, but knowing that you couldn't get out... No thanks. That is acrophobia AND claustrophobia, and that is not okay.
Reply"homemade flying machines are illegal in China"
Reply...um, good?
No, not good. When a country has to MAKE a law like that, it tells you pretty clearly how desperate some of its people are to get the hell out.
Home made flying machines are illegal in Canada too, it's not the getting out part (or not only) it's the crashing into the innocent people below you part.
Sweet Jesus, Wile E. Coyote is real. I'm moving into an underground bunker.
ReplyLook out, he may blow it up and get crushed somehow.
How about your own personal tank, the Killdozer?
ReplyAnother article, about real-life supervillains.
these guys sound really innovative and should be proud of their accomplishments. can't say that for myself though. my latest "project" involved me running out of toilet paper and scrounging around in my pocket to macgyver together some old kleenex into a semi-functional tattered sheet of TP. Definitely NOT one of the highlights of my life!
Replystill proud of you bro...
I wanna build an AI Voice assisted helicopter that sends a cruise missile into space with me inside it, so that it'll plummet with a parachute into water and turn into a submarine, all powered by a home made fusion reactor.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesCracked, providing supervillain recruitment pools since 2011.
WIN
When you succeed in your most worthy quest, I want some video of it!
All under 4000$
the reactor guy's hair turned green? I guess DC knew what they were talking about when they made the Joker fall into radioactivte waste for his creation...
ReplyUm, I'm 15 and I already did #1. That's not all that insane.
ReplyUm, I'm 31 and made a coloring book. Shut up, brat.
I'm fifteen, and I'm not annoying, and that's really insane.
I don't mean this in a snarky way; I'm just checking to see if I've gone crazy. Is this a repost?
Replypretty sure the concept has been done before, but with different things.
Or a lot of the same things......I recognize several.
The article said:
Reply"the "laws of aerodynamics" will safely guide its screaming cargo back to Earth for a water landing slowed by parachutes, just like the old Apollo missions, because nothing bad ever happened on those."
There had been some close calls, but in all fairness to NASA, those early missions were surprisingly safe. Between the Apollo 1 fire in 1967 and the Challenger disaster (STS-51-L) in 1986, everybody came home safely. This despite going to the Moon, creating the world's first reusable spacecraft, building and inhabiting a series of space stations, and taking untethered spacewalks in an increasingly-cluttered atmosphere with a few millimeters of fabric as protection.
You're reading way too much into a joke...
Dittos on the complaint about confusing Nuclear Fusion with Fission. Fission reactors work on completely different principles than Fusion reactors... Also see movies like Spider-Man 2 and Chain Reaction (not actually recommended).
ReplyIf there's anything we can learn from this, it's that the next Cracked writer who mentions fusion should probably explain that there's several different ways to achieve it, and that the smallest reaction isn't going to light up a whole city like the face of God, as so many of us believe thanks to action movies and high school science.
ReplyOf course, the links explain this too, but it seems very few of us can bother to look at them before flailing at our keyboards to tell the world how much smarter we are.
I should buy you a drink for that. Thank you.
So, what makes #1 unique? The voice control? Because haven't some tech-savvy people already created automated houses and such for some time now?
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesEither way, that and #6 are things I would love to try putting together.
the point to the article is that people are making extremely expensive and technological machines dirt cheap with everyday materials. Sure, if your budget is in the house-range then of course you can make something better.
eh, a random program that can take spoken orders isn't nearly as impressive as a home built submarine or nuclear seed reactor. I don't know why it deserved #1. I'd have to see it to tell if its AI but it doesn't seem that way, it just looks like a random program that can take orders. INTERESTING, but AI can think through commands, anyone can make a program that takes something and turns it into something else depending on what went in.
Real world AI isn't really something that thinks through commands. Its programming that adapts to situations by adding to its own progamming. In other words, its software that "learns" how to react independently to a changing environment. Although the article doesn't explicitly give examples, Jarvis could be AI if its learning how to adapt to Barraford's preferences, making suggestions to him or learning how to spot if he's got a migrane etc.
Nice article, though #5 impressed me the most. Anybody who can build a space camera for less than two hundred bucks has my respect.
ReplyNumber One = DO WANT.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesIt's only a matter of time, man, only a matter of time.
yea, only a matter of time before "security personnels" can spy on your every motion for "security reasons".
Oh piss off you damn conspiracy theorist.
Please learn the difference between FISSION and FUSION! Nuclear fusion IS possible, and they've used it in bombs and reactors, but let's dig a little deeper into the issue, shall we?
Reply Hide All See All 9 Replies1. First of all, the first link in the section "Nuclear Reactors" is the article "6 Web How-To's That Are Apparently For Supervillains", which is also by the same author, David Dietle. Not sure how that's too different from "6 Insane Do It Yourself Projects That Put Yours to Shame". I'm not sure those really warrant two completely different articles, but I digress; what's really tragic is that in the previous article, Dietle ALSO confuses FUSION and FISSION (as I have commented on), even though his link [to the 'radioactive boy scout] doesn't even CONTAIN the word "Fusion", and is in fact about FISSION.
2. Speaking of links, let's take a look at the myriad in the "Nuclear Reactors" section of this article. I count 11 instances of hyperlinked words. Now, I'm all for referencing one's work, but are all these really necessary? Of four consecutive links, three of which are consecutive words in the article ("think again. Two"), the four hyperlinked words are to only 2 articles! I would call that redundant, but maybe you were trying to be thorough? I mean, ok, it's not always bad to link to something twice in the same article, because one source can relate to multiple things, and maybe the readers didn't read the whole article, or forgot what it was about, but when you do it twice, in two consecutive sentences, and in 2 consecutive words? I find that careless, if not insulting.
3. Many other readers have pointed out Dietle's misuse of the term FUSION. The issue is that this article, in fact, references two instances: one in which Thiago Olson built a FUSION reactor (discovermagazine), and one in which David "The Radioactive Boy Scout" Hahn built a FISSION reactor (damninteresting). I see how this may be confusing to someone without a technical background (the words FUSION and FISSION being pretty similar; I mean, they both start with F and end in -ION, kind of like dessert and desert, a desert being the location of Iraq and Iran, which are obviously very similar, but I digress-). Ever wonder why Thiago Olson's picture doesn't show him covered with burns compared to David Hahn's picture, or why none of the sources mention Thiago having issues with the radioactivity? BECAUSE FUSION REACTORS DON'T USE RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL. Dietle says "Hahn never got enough nuclear material to reach critical mass and start a reaction". Another way of saying "nuclear material" would be "fissile material". Fissile. Just like in the very first sentence of that wikipedia article you yourself linked to, on Breeder reactors, in which it says "fissile material". Fissile. As in FISSION. GET IT? IT'S DIFFERENT.
TL;DR In conclusion, the "Nuclear Reactors" section of this article exasperates me because the author David Dietle 1. Reuses old material, which is also inaccurate, 2. Sloppily and repetitively misuses a myriad of hyperlinks to cheaply add value to his statements which 3. Obviously betray Dietle's fundamental lack of knowledge on the topic of nuclear reactions, despite the fact that he just linked 7 unique references on that topic.
In closing, I would like to offer my advice for improving future articles (if you even bother). 1. Take the time to read the comments on your own articles. If you read the comments of "6 Web How-To's That Are Apparently For Supervillains", you would have seen readers pointing out this issue, 2. Write about something you're actually interested in/excited/angry about. This will show in your writing, and will make it easier to 3. Actually research your topic (and by that I mean READ and UNDERSTAND your sources. If you can't understand, the majority of your readership probably wont either. If you need help, ask someone on the internet. There are plenty of sources online for you to learn about topics you're interested in but don't understand). By understanding the concepts on which you write, you will be able to actually create interesting, detailed, and perhaps even comedic articles without resorting to distorting the facts, and using cheap sensationalist tactics to excite your writing.
Good day, and good luck.
Your TL;DR was TL;DR.
You're kind of a jerk, but still awesome.
As a physicist, thank you.
wow! it's almost like deitle crapped in your cornflakes this morning.
Your comment explains better than I ever could why I typically avoid them. Your argument is that I use insulting hyperlinking and lumped fusion and fission reactors together as nuclear, when they are both clearly nukeular.
Thank you, I will know better next time than to wander down into the comments where I will no doubt in the future suffer your slings and arrows when I haphazardly include 3 links in one sentence and mistakingly include both plants AND animals under the heading "life forms."
Thank you sir, your hard work and bewildering rage managed to consume 2 minutes of my life.
I re-read the article after Vodstok and your comments and it's true - he never says Hahn built a fission reactor, or that the materials in Olson's were radioactive. I presume he just couldn't find a way to fit in those factlets that wouldn't have come across as careless and insulting posturing getting in the way of jokes. Heh, now I'll actually remember his name, thanks nerd-rager. Go Dietle.
"In conclusion"
*Next paragraph* "In closing"
Dude, this is Cracked, not freakin' CNN, or something. You DO understand the concept of "comedy", don't you?
I couldn't finish reading this... I lost it at 'many other readers have pointed out...' So why are you pointing out the same thing?
You also go into an INSANE amount of detail that I personally could not care less about, instead of making your points in a compact manner, and providing search terms that those who care can Google.
And really, it's a comedy article, not something from New Science or something.
Number 1 is the most amazing thing I'vve ever read.
ReplyWhy isn't he marketing this!?
He actually is. He's hoping for a public beta in a few months.
Seriously, just Google Project Jarvis, you'll end up finding his blog.