Comments for "jack nicholson promotes the hydrogen-powered chevy (1978)" Video at VideoSift.com

By ant

ant (http://www.videosift.com/member/ant) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:17:53 -0800

FYI. If this video gets pulled, then here's a copy: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2245729493419202077

By choggie

choggie (http://www.videosift.com/member/choggie) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:33:40 -0800

....like the concept was pulled, bought,shelved,and ......fill in the blanks....no way, not till you topple the beast...

By grinningevild

grinningevild (http://www.videosift.com/member/grinningevild) — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:02:25 -0800

I'll bet this car makes more of a bang than the Pinto!

By Spoon_Gouge

Spoon_Gouge (http://www.videosift.com/member/Spoon_Gouge) — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:36:55 -0800

It does sound too good to be true. The proof of that is in the fact that it is not availiable today and this video is from 1978 (28 years ago).
The bit I liked was the fact that hydrogen would be combined with metal to create and INERT white powder that is explosion resistant. huh?

By bigdaddymalcontent

bigdaddymalcontent (http://www.videosift.com/member/bigdaddymalcontent) — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:46:12 -0800

Hey Spoon, are you an auto exec or something? The fact that the vid is 28 years old isn't proof that the technology doesn't work; it's proof that the auto & oil industries are dragging their feet.

By Wingoguy

Wingoguy (http://www.videosift.com/member/Wingoguy) — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:54:50 -0800

There are a few good reasons this car isn't on the market:

- Hydrogen takes a lot of power to make; there isn't enough solar power to fill everyones tank with this. Solar power is still very inefficient. If you use conventional power, you are still burning fossil fuels or making nuclear waste.

- Hydrogen is much more volatile than gasoline. Compare getting a leak in one of those hydrogen tanks in a fender-bender (remember the Hindenberg) to getting a leak in your gas tank

- The Hydrogen tanks take hours to refill; try taking a road trip in that

No, I'm not a gas or auto exec, just a guy with a science background

By ren

ren (http://ren.videosift.com) — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:49:14 -0800

Hey Mr Scientist, riddle me this.

The Nature of Hydrogen:

* Hydrogen is less flammable than gasoline. The self-ignition temperature of hydrogen is 550 degrees Celsius. Gasoline varies from 228-501 degrees Celsius, depending on the grade. When the Hindenburg burned, it took some time before the hydrogen bags were ignited.
* Hydrogen disperses quickly. Being the lightest element (fifteen times lighter than air), hydrogen rises and spreads out quickly in the atmosphere. So when a leak occurs, the hydrogen gas quickly becomes so sparse that it cannot burn. Even when ignited, hydrogen burns upward, and is quickly consumed, as shown in the Hindenburg picture. By contrast, materials such as gasoline and diesel vapors, as well as natural gas are heavier than air, and will not disperse, remaining a flammable threat for much longer.
* Hydrogen is non-toxic. Hydrogen is a non-toxic, naturally-occurring element in the atmosphere. By comparison, all petroleum fuels are asphyxiants, and are poisonous to humans.
* Hydrogen combustion produces only water. When pure hydrogen is burned in pure oxygen, only pure water is produced. Granted, that’s an ideal scenario, which doesn’t occur outside of laboratories and the space shuttle. In any case, when a hydrogen engine burns, it actually cleans the ambient air, by completing combustion of the unburned hydrocarbons that surround us. Compared with the toxic compounds (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrogen sulfide) produced by petroleum fuels, the products of hydrogen burning are much safer.
* Hydrogen can be stored safely. Tanks currently in use for storage of compressed hydrogen (similar to compressed natural gas tanks) have survived intact through testing by various means, including being shot with six rounds from a .357 magnum, detonating a stick of dynamite next to them, and subjecting them to fire at 1500 degrees F. Clearly, a typical gasoline tank wouldn’t survive a single one of these tests.

By ren

ren (http://ren.videosift.com) — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:53:00 -0800

Also, i'm getting tired of people using arguments like "But you have to burn coal to make the electricity to power that automobile so it isn't a solution". The problem of the automobile is a 2 part solution, firstly you need to make the car run on clean fuels, SECONDLY and most importantly you must provide clean energy sources for the fuel, which can be done later down the line... (Fusion, Wind Power, Solar, Hydroelectricity, Geothermal etc) Which has to be done anyway if we intend to keep our atmospheric temperatures anywhere near accepted norms.

By ren

ren (http://ren.videosift.com) — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:55:12 -0800

Ohhh and I nearly forgot:
See Hindenburg: The Giant Matchstick
The Facts on the Hindenburg Disaster:
1. The bags of hydrogen that provided the lifting force for the Hindenburg were NOT the main contributor to the fire. The surface of the ship was coated with a combination of dark iron oxide and reflective aluminum paint. These components are extremely flammable and burn at a tremendously energetic rate once ignited. The skin of the airship was ignited by electrical discharge from the clouds while docking during an electrical storm. This reaction has been proven chemically for years, and was demonstrated with actual remnants of the Hindenburg sixty years later, which burned as vigorously as on the day of the disaster.
2. The hydrogen burned quickly, safely, above the occupants. When the escaping hydrogen was ignited by the burning skin of the airship, it burned far above the airship, and was completely consumed within 60 seconds of the ignition. During this period of time, the airship descended to the ground from the 150-foot docking tower.
3. Almost all deaths were caused by jumping or falling from the airship. Of the 35 deaths from the disaster, 33 were caused by jumping or falling. Only two deaths were caused by burning, and it is likely that those two were from proximity to the burning skin of the airship, or from the stores of diesel fuel that were ignited by the covering. Whereas the hydrogen burned within one minute of ignition, the diesel fires burned for up to ten hours after the ignition.
4. The Hindenburg would have burned if it had been filled with inert helium gas. Even if the Hindenburg had not been lifted by hydrogen, the ignition of the covering would still have happened, and would then have set ablaze the diesel stores, resulting in the same disaster.
5. The main cause of the disaster was pilot error. The only way to prevent the disaster would have been if the pilot had chosen to land in better conditions elsewhere, which was very feasible, considering he had had enough fuel remaining to reach all the way to California.

By Krupo

Krupo (http://krupo.videosift.com) — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:32:24 -0800

Love the anchorwoman's East Coast accent.

By choggie

choggie (http://www.videosift.com/member/choggie) — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:35:26 -0700

*promote

By siftbot

siftbot (http://siftbot.videosift.com) — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:35:27 -0700

Re-promoting this video to the front page as a VideoSift Classic. Originally published on Thursday 16th November 2006 (promotion called by gold star member choggie)

By choggie

choggie (http://www.videosift.com/member/choggie) — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:35:52 -0700

Happy Birthday Jack, don't burn out or fade away....

By joedirt

joedirt (http://www.videosift.com/member/joedirt) — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:04:54 -0700

"Clearly, a typical gasoline tank wouldn’t survive a single one of these tests."

Well, technically you can use your gastank for target practice, and it is pretty hard to cause ignition (let alon a nearly impossible explosion)

But, yes, this should outrage everyone that auto and oil companies have colluded for decades on preventing alternative energies. Look at the EV1 documentary!

Now, I agree that right now, hydrogen is less efficient than gasoline, but you are missing some major points. Instead of pollution all along the cities and freeways, in a hydrogen based economy, the pollution would only occur near the hydrogen production plant. This plant could be solar, nuclear, coal, etc. And if all the source pollution was in a few mega-large plants, it would be rather cost effective to scrub pollution from ONE plant, instead of 50 million car exhausts. (duh!)

Not only that, places like Canada where hydroelectric is primary energy source, or France where it is nuclear -- over production of electricity to generate hydrogen is really irrelevant.

Can you imagine a city where the only pollution is oil, antifreeze and rubber? No lead, CO, toxic fumes.

What is really dumb is this technology is waiting on "Fuel Cells"... when it worked in the 70s!!! WTF! I hope the auto execs all go to jail, or hell, or both.

By eric3579

eric3579 (http://eric3579.videosift.com) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:56:01 -0700

*dead

By siftbot

siftbot (http://siftbot.videosift.com) — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 00:56:02 -0700

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.

By laura

laura (http://www.videosift.com/member/laura) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:00:08 -0700

doesn't play for me
"sorry this video is no longer available"
* dead?

By littledragon_79

littledragon_79 (http://www.videosift.com/member/littledragon_79) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:40:42 -0700

NOOOOOOO!!! I just watched this today and it was friggin awesome
*dead

By littledragon_79

littledragon_79 (http://www.videosift.com/member/littledragon_79) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:49:16 -0700

*dead ...please, PLEASE

By siftbot

siftbot (http://siftbot.videosift.com) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:49:17 -0700

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by littledragon_79.

By siftbot

siftbot (http://siftbot.videosift.com) — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:22:16 -0700

gorgonheap has fixed this video's dead embed code - no star awarded because gorgonheap was awarded too recently.

By siftbot

siftbot (http://siftbot.videosift.com) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:31:23 -0700

Tags for this video have been changed from 'car, hydrogen, solar, fuel, energy' to 'car, caer, hydrogen, solar, fuel, energy, standard chevy standard engine' - edited by calvados

By calvados

calvados (http://www.videosift.com/member/calvados) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:31:48 -0700

*1sttube *canada *vintage *eco *science *engineering

By siftbot

siftbot (http://siftbot.videosift.com) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:31:50 -0700

Adding video to channels (1sttube, Canada, Eco, Engineering, Science, Vintage) - requested by calvados.