Steam powered USB charger keeps your iPod alive with Victorian sensibility

We love this steam powered USB charging device. It's well built, useful, loud, and totally anachronistic -- the same could be said of many of our editors here. According to the inventor, the thing is based on a Jensen #75 steam engine, which is used to drive a Lego Technic motor. The motor, in turn, feeds into a voltage regulator circuit, providing a continuous 5V charge to which ever USB device you might connect to it. This prompts us to ask a few obvious questions, including: "when is someone going to build us an appropriate steampunk PMP to go with the thing?" And, of course, "aren't Legos awesome?" Video after the break.

[seacow @ Apr 12th 2009 5:48AM]

I'd tap that.

[Game_playa @ Apr 12th 2009 1:43PM]

I get it, Steam, Water, Tap , LOL!

[woobie tuesday @ Apr 12th 2009 3:18PM]

seacow, you bad boy. tap THIS. *slurp*

[Sam @ Apr 12th 2009 5:52AM]

So can I buy one of these bad-boys?

[Josh Warner @ Apr 12th 2009 8:50PM]

Yes, actually, minus the Lego interface which is really converting the setup to electricity (but who doesn't have several unused Lego motors floating around?). The steam engine itself is a kit from a company called Wilesco who has made genuine working miniature steam powered replicas for decades. This guy hooked the flywheel up to a lego motor via pulley and hacked a circuit together to convert that to USB. Not sure what kind of voltage control he used, but I assume the circuit is largely to ensure the proper power is output (5V, ~150 mA if memory serves).

http://www.wilesco.de/wilesco/us/index.html is their site in English for the US. Check them out, they're really cool!

[henrydhanse @ Apr 13th 2009 9:47AM]

Holy Crap! I used one of those steam engines for a science fair!

[martin @ Apr 12th 2009 6:05AM]

OMG! i want one so much, portable power wherever you are

[superhobo @ Apr 12th 2009 6:12AM]

Batteries?

[Oli D @ Apr 12th 2009 6:16AM]

Next on the list is a mini fission plant charger

[martin @ Apr 12th 2009 6:21AM]

@superhobo

have you tried changing the batteries in an ipod lately? even my g1 with replaceable battery needs the battery in placee to charge, which is a pain if you want 2 charged up

[james @ Apr 13th 2009 12:00PM]

they do make external battery packs for the ipod, even kits you can build very inexpensively.

[superhobo @ Apr 12th 2009 6:12AM]

Crapgadget?

[Kizorblade @ Apr 12th 2009 10:08AM]

Steamgadget.

[Oli D @ Apr 12th 2009 6:15AM]

The lego motor makes it.

Is it wrong that i kept all my lego electrical stuff...?

[SpectreGadget @ Apr 12th 2009 11:09AM]

No

[G @ Apr 12th 2009 6:18AM]

i actually made a lego power generator a few years ago and it managed to light a little lego bulb :D

but i had to power it by hand, steam is far more awesome

[scooler @ Apr 12th 2009 10:46AM]

You mean you put a lego wire between a lego bulb and a lego motor and turned the motor with your fingers?
Crazy!

[G @ Apr 13th 2009 11:37AM]

i also added some graes because the motor needs to be turning really really fast to produce any power.

but yeah, that's about it :P

[G @ Apr 13th 2009 11:38AM]

EDIT: gears

[O. @ Apr 12th 2009 6:39AM]

Very interesting device, in traditions of Japanese steampunk subculture :)

[rederikus @ Apr 12th 2009 6:47AM]

How appropriate, I have always though that Crapple products were steam powered, here's the proof.

[Dave @ Apr 12th 2009 6:48AM]

"Isn't Lego awsome?" is what you mean. Engadget staff- your professional life is arranging the right words in a readable order... It is your job to set an example to your readership and use the correct terms for Lego bricks and Lego Technic bits, rather than to reinforce their misconceptions. You already do a fine job of 'informing, entertaining, educating', so there is no shame in reading your own comment sections if that is what it takes to be even better.

[Michael @ Apr 12th 2009 7:41AM]

what you are saying though, is there's a difference between the blocks and technic kits, and yet....they are both made by....Lego, therefore..."Isn't Lego Awesome" fits due to the fact they are referring to the company and not the individual product....

[Cameron @ Apr 12th 2009 2:18PM]

@ Dave:

Pull the stick out of your ass. You're like one of those ninety-eight year-old geezers that writes letters to the editor about things no one cares about. Just a thought: if you've got the time and energy to be correcting grammar on a tech blog, you should be getting out more.

And what's more, your criticism is incorrect -- the writer could just as easily be referring to Legos the product as Lego the company, making "Aren't Legos awesome?" a totally viable statement.

In short: STFU.

[M Jeffries @ Apr 12th 2009 6:21PM]

Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that in re-typing the statement, "Aren't legos awesome", that Dave misspelled the word awesome?

[Thomas Brumleve @ Apr 13th 2009 1:58AM]

@ Cameron:

It's LEGO - that's the plural form of LEGO... last time we have to say this? Douche...

[james @ Apr 12th 2009 7:47AM]

for gods sake its LEGO! NO s!

singular = LEGO "pass me that Lego block"

plural = LEGO "isn't Lego awesome?"

do you say arn't sheeps awesome?

please for the sake of sanity, stop it!

[Rob Conway @ Apr 12th 2009 8:11AM]

every one i've ever met in life or on the internet has called more than one Lego "Legos". from the context of the article it seems as if they are referring to the awesomeness of the actual little bits of building material sold under the name of the company Lego. even if "Lego" was the plural form of "Lego", it'd still be "aren't Lego awesome?". but everyone who's not a pretentious bag of douche juice knows that more than one Lego is "Legos" so "aren't Legos awesome?" is perfectly fine.

[Phrogg @ Apr 12th 2009 8:25AM]

So would it be proper to say, "I built a life-sized replica of the Death Star completely using Lego?"

Lego has become a household name for building blocks, the same as Velcro has become for hook-and-pile tape. Rather than having extra words, such as 'Lego building blocks' or even 'Lego blocks', it's easier to type and say, 'legos', and last i checked, it is perfectly acceptable.

And since the Technics sets still have building block interfaces, i would presume it would also be acceptable to refer to them as legos, in the generic usage.

Unless, of course, you're a LEGOmaniac and obsess over honoring the corporation that brought us such a wonderful gift.

[Arthur Nonamiss @ Apr 12th 2009 11:16AM]

OK, James.

I've never made a grammar comment in my life, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
In your angry grammar correction, which was not worded very nicely I might add, you used the following example:
"plural = LEGO "isn't Lego awesome?""

You do realize "Isn't" is sigular, right? You wouldn't say "Isn't nachos awesome?" or "Isn't these shoes rad?" would you? You would say "_Aren't_ nachos awesome?"

If you're going to correct the writer's grammar and be a dick about it, at least make sure you aren't making an error that's much worse.

[FuzzyCat @ Apr 12th 2009 12:15PM]

Have to agree with James on this one.

Singular Lego
Plural Lego

I get even more pissed with "The Mentlist" don't get me started!! :/

:(

[Jorvay @ Apr 12th 2009 1:42PM]

According to the FAQ by Eric Harshbarger on his Lego Blog website (http://www.ericharshbarger.org/lego/faq.html):

"Which is correct as the plural of LEGO: 'Lego' or 'Legos'? Neither, actually. The word 'LEGO', when used as a noun, should only refer to the company that makes the product. Otherwise 'LEGO' is supposed to be used as an adjective. Thus, when referring to the pieces, neither 'lego' nor 'legos' is correct... rather one should say: 'LEGO bricks' or 'LEGO pieces' or whatever (using LEGO as an adjective -- and one should really capitalize all of the letters, and put the little 'circle-R' symbol after it (®)). This is all a matter of protecting the trademark of 'LEGO' for the company (using it otherwise degenerates the strength of the trademark). This is not to say that I use the word correctly 100% of the time... but that's the answer to the question (it's always fun/painful to read the near-flame-wars that start at slashdot.org over this topic... and generally, both sides are wrong)."

[wickedpheonix @ Apr 12th 2009 3:16PM]

@ jorvay

What he says doesn't matter when the community at large takes a word and runs with it, i.e. we don't refer to facial tissue, we refer to "Kleenex". You'd only refer to the subject matter as "Lego bricks" if you were writing something legal or incredibly formal, in order to distinguish it from similar products made by other companies (example: Mega Bloks).

I never make grammar posts but enough is enough - both are correct and incorrect depending on context. In the context of "isn't" and "aren't", the correct usage is "isn't Lego grand?" because you refer to the multitude of bricks as a collective, singular whole, for the same reason you say "isn't Kleenex grand?". However, when referring to a smaller concentration of bricks; say, when building with a friend in a private home, you say "pass me the blue Legos" just like you would say "pass me the 4x5 flat bricks". Saying "pass me the blue Lego" would refer to a singular brick, i.e. if you had a huge pile of assorted bricks and there was 1 blue brick on top of the pile.

[woobie tuesday @ Apr 12th 2009 3:32PM]

Nerd fights. HOT.

[krish @ Apr 12th 2009 7:10PM]

"Take 4 cow to make 3 hamburger."

Analogies are dumb. You can always find one that validates your statement.

If we are being picky... Lego blocks are not called Lego or Legos. They are called blocks. They are only MADE by Lego. Lets move on... Please.

[FuzzyCat @ Apr 13th 2009 4:17AM]

@wickedphoenix

'i.e. we don't refer to facial tissue, we refer to "Kleenex"'

I'm willing to bet it's all about localization. No one I've ever met, other than Americans, calls a tissue a 'Kleenex'. The brand, like 'Band-Aid', isn't a generic term in other locations. In the UK, for example, Hoover is a well known make of vacuum cleaner, so much so that 'hoover' is now a generic term for such a device and 'hoovering' is an accepted term for its use. In the US I presume you vacuum rather than hoover?

Similarly with Lego (LEGO) I've never heard someone from the UK call it Legos, although I have heard Legos from Dutch, American and the odd Swede.

[Kurian @ Apr 12th 2009 7:57AM]

Using the godlike speed of the pistons to their full advantage, you charge the usb device at the same time, this makes solar power and batteries useless. This is Jensen's, Steam Engine.

[ED @ Apr 12th 2009 8:00AM]

I'm gonna go get some fresh airs and maybe some popcorns.
(Seriously, the ignorances of some peoples...)

[Jusin @ Apr 12th 2009 9:16AM]

The point is, Ed, no one cares. I don't think I ever said "lego" for the plural when I was a kid. It was always "hand me those legos". That's how most people remember them, so that's how we are going to say it. If you base someone's intelligence upon whether or not they are grammatically correct in a comment on a blog, then you sir have some problems of your own you need to work out.

[SpectreGadget @ Apr 12th 2009 11:12AM]

He was making a funny. (or two or five)

[ED @ Apr 12th 2009 8:09PM]

Justins are right. I make joke!

Anyhow... K'nex is where it's at :P

[BradS @ Apr 13th 2009 1:50PM]

@Jusin:

I never said "hand me those legos" or any other variation of that. I just punched my little brother and took the Lego(s).

[fastharry @ Apr 12th 2009 8:21AM]

The heck with the past....


Flux capacitor USB Charger for the win!!

[GingerFox @ Apr 12th 2009 8:55AM]

As a person in love with steam engines (mainly trains) i think this is awesome!

[Grey @ Apr 13th 2009 12:44PM]

Very cool, but be careful - can get some bad burns in some sensitive places that way.

[feffrey @ Apr 12th 2009 9:37AM]

I have one of those Jensen Steam Engines, don't think it is a 75 though.

[Mitch @ Apr 12th 2009 9:53AM]

IT ISNT LEGOS!!! The plural is Lego!!!

[Ross @ Apr 12th 2009 10:20AM]

OMG!!!!!!!!!!! This is a TOTAL RIP-OFF!!!! I swear by all things everywhere that I powered a Radio for a final project during undergrad using that same brand steam engine and a lego motor. My setup was a bit different, replacing the fly-wheel entirely, but STILL.

[Munky @ Apr 12th 2009 10:39AM]

So what you're saying is that the person who created this took YOUR idea and claimed it (basically) as their own? So this person has been biding their time so as to claim your idea as their own? Sounds awfully diabolical. I'm guessing you either stole the love of their life, killed their cat fluffy, or embarrassed them so completely that even your own mother would be ashamed of you.... tsk, tsk.... I mean why else would this person "RIP" you "OFF"???

I mean heck... it's totally impossible for 2 people to come up with the same thought as to take someone else's invention ('cause I'm assuming you didn't invent the steam engine, otherwise you'd be pretty friggin' old) and utilize it in some other different/creative way... Nope, never in a million years would that ever happen. ;P

[Xenoterranos @ Apr 12th 2009 11:14AM]

Welcome to the club. I invented the sham-wow AND sexual pleasure. Yet I receive no royalties. Le sigh.