On the cheap? It's nearly $700! I'm all for building my own gadgets, but projectors have come down in price a lot in the past several years. For less than $700 you can get something likely to surpass this in every way, not to mention it will be far more compact.

The only way it would make sense to build something like this is if you already had an extra LCD monitor gathering dust.

Seems like the optics are too small for there to be any point in it being HD.

If it's anything like the low end network cameras, I would avoid it. Experience tells me that anything under about $150 produces a terrible image under anything but ideal conditions, but once you get into the $200-$300 range it's suddenly a big step up in image quality, unless of course you want pan/tilt functionality, but that's a whole different discussion.

I understand why they do this, Li-ion batteries can be dangerous if abused, and while some aftermarket batteries are just fine, those that are inferior have the very real risk of catching fire and the possibility of lawsuits, which is an aspect of society that I despise, but I don't see it changing any time soon.

That said, NiMH rechargeable AA batteries have gotten quite good, and cameras are so compact these days that in recent years I've been willing to accept a little more bulk to get a camera that uses standard AA cells. An added bonus is that you can use ordinary alkalines in a pinch which you can get anywhere. You're not gonna find a custom lithium ion pack at the corner store.

I can't be the only one who sees "hardon" every time I look at the word Hadron.

I'm always a little saddened by the end of an era, although in all honesty, I haven't used a film camera of any sort in years. When it comes right down to it, the convenience of digital is a winner for me even though the result does not quite match the "real" feel of film. I suspect most average folks are in the same boat, the convenience of digital just can't be beat, and in most cases the result is good enough.

I want random stuff!

I just saw a show about this thing today, it performed very well up against a professional motocross rider on a gas bike. Price isn't bad for an all-electric vehicle, especially a high performance type. The cost is in the batteries, and like the Tesla roadster, anything with a gigantic Lithium Ion battery is gonna be spendy. Not gonna sweep the nation overnight, but it looks pretty cool to me, and hopefully is another stepping stone on the way to improved technology and lower cost higher performance batteries.

Power consumption is similar to an ordinary LED clock, perhaps a bit higher with some designs but certainly not bad. My biggest clock uses six 4" high tubes and consumes around 14 Watts. The smallest is under 2W.

Figure about 140V drop across an illuminated tube, typical current is 1-10mA depending on the tube (size and desired brightness) so ~0.14 to 1.4 Watts per tube, with most toward the lower end of that scale. Add on to that whatever the electronics you use consume, perhaps a few Watts for vintage TTL chips to a fraction of a Watt for modern CMOS, and losses in the power supply and you have the answer.

No, they stay cool to the touch. A nixie tube is just a glorified neon glow lamp like you'd find in those old nightlights that glow orange. Safety wise they are similar to line powered lightbulbs, if they break there is sharp glass and you can get a shock, but the same is true of Christmas lights. With kids around I would recommend a fully enclosed design if only to protect the fragile tubes from curious or clumsy fingers.

Nixie tubes require around 170V at a few milliamps. It's high voltage compared to what most electronics use, but it's not nearly as high as you'd find in a TV set, tube amplifier, etc. These days you can get inexpensive DC-DC converters that take 5V in and put 170V out, the available current from these is low so it's less dangerous than ordinary household current. Speaking from experience, it will bite you if you touch the wrong thing, but you'd be hard pressed to kill yourself.