Comments on: What a Joker!

What a Joker!

gman — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:40:47 -0800

Back in 1978, Jack Nicholson was ahead of his time.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:55:48 -0800

I love how unfamiliar with things they are. "The 'hy-dro-gen' is produced by 'so-lar pow-er'." Meanwhile, he's driving a compact car that's at least 50 ft wide and 100 ft long with a suspension made of bungee cords.

By: rmless

rmless — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:57:01 -0800

I like the speculation in that first link: Imagine if we listened to him back then!!! Why not take it back further: Imagine if we all listened to Tesla in the 1930s!!! We've had the technology and the ideas for a long time now. The problem is that we're still only beginning to listen and to prefer non-gasoline vehicles. It's just now that the cost (in dollars and blood) of oil is forcing us to reconsider these previously rejected technologies.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:08:27 -0800

Or Stanley in 1906.

By: rmmcclay

rmmcclay — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:26:31 -0800

The clip linked to "ahead of his time" is just awesome! ty

By: Bathtub Bobsled

Bathtub Bobsled — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:35:29 -0800

Or Jakob Ammann. Seriously. I hear horses get ten miles to the carrot.

By: Fuzzy Skinner

Fuzzy Skinner — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:42:03 -0800

It's a hydrogen kyar! Cool vid! Great find!

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:43:11 -0800

Yeah the "ahead of his time" is great. It kinda made me think though how 30 years have past and still no commercial hydrogen car, who killed the hydrogen kyar.

By: wundermint

wundermint — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:50:03 -0800

I want to drive a standard shift hydrogen-solar power steaming behemoth, because it would be green while running over all the non-hydrogen SUVs in my way.

By: Daddy-O

Daddy-O — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:11:53 -0800

The Stanley Steamer was powered by steam generated by burning gasoline or kerosine, so unless that was more efficient than burning gas directly in an internal combustion engine you would still have the same pollution problems. Plus you would have to wait around for the burner to build up a sufficient head of steam before you could go anywhere. Not very convenient.

By: anthill

anthill — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:19:36 -0800

The Tucker '48 mentioned in the clip is a pretty good story in its own right... thanks, Jack!

By: echo target

echo target — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:27:57 -0800

That trunk full of hydrogen tanks, held in place with just a strap, made me nervous even from 30 years out.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:30:09 -0800

...burning gasoline or kerosine, so unless that was more efficient than burning gas directly in an internal combustion engine... Which it is, so there you go. Not to mention the fact that, since the engine itself doesn't require petroleum, you can swap out some other fuel whenever you want without retooling the entire fleet.

By: octothorpe

octothorpe — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:34:46 -0800

There were so many interesting technologies that were being researched in the seventies and early eighties that got abandoned. I was big reader of Popular Science and such back then and every month seemed to have new ideas in alternative energy. Things like using high-speed carbon-fiber flywheels to store electrical energy in cars or early experiments in gas-electric hybrids. Then, in the Reagan era, we just abandoned all that and went back to big dumb overpowered gas powered monsters. It's sad to think that we could be 25 years ahead of where we are now in energy technology. Yea, I know that Popular Science isn't exactly a research journal but it does tend reflect the general direction of research interest of its time

By: jimmythefish

jimmythefish — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:37:36 -0800

Double...but deserves a second posting given these crazy times we live in.

By: StickyCarpet

StickyCarpet — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:40:06 -0800

Imagine if we all listened to Tesla in the 1930s!!! We'd all be getting the power for our electric lights wirelessly, harnessing the oscillations induced in the resonating magnetic field of the entire planet. Of course, everything made of metal would be pulsing with tiny voltages. That wouldn't be so bad for the electric toasters and sewing machines, but it would be hell on computers.

By: Malor

Malor — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:46:06 -0800

The problem is, and has always been, that when you drive a hydrogen-powered car, we have to generate all of the power you use. When we use gasoline, we get about a 10:1 return on power invested to power delivered. So, gas is enormously cheaper, and everyone uses that. That's what markets do -- they find the most efficient solution. They're very good at it. But the true costs of that solution aren't visible in the price, so in this case, the market chose poorly.

By: Pecinpah

Pecinpah — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:46:21 -0800

Wow, that kyar's cool. That shit goes on my Bucket List.

By: Gungho

Gungho — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:54:47 -0800

malor, but Click and Clack just told me that gas engines only get 1% of the potential energy to the wheels. Put that in your HyDroGen pipe and smoke it.

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:55:42 -0800

That trunk full of hydrogen tanks, held in place with just a strap, made me nervous even from 30 years out. "OH, THE HUMANITY!"

By: b1tr0t

b1tr0t — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:56:51 -0800

Even farther ahead of its time.

By: Daddy-O

Daddy-O — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 06:57:08 -0800

...burning gasoline or kerosine, so unless that was more efficient than burning gas directly in an internal combustion engine... Which it is, so there you go. Please provide a citation backing this up. Not to mention the fact that, since the engine itself doesn't require petroleum, you can swap out some other fuel whenever you want without retooling the entire fleet. Like what kind of fuel, coal or wood? As far as I know, steam power for vehicles is used only on ships with nuclear reactors nowadays. Most ships have diesel engines. Even trains abandoned steam decades ago.

By: designbot

designbot — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:00:04 -0800

The Hydrogen Hoax The Queen in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass says that she could believe "six impossible things before breakfast." Such an attitude is necessary to discuss the hydrogen economy, since no part of it is possible.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:07:19 -0800

Please provide a citation backing this up. Um, it's pretty common knowledge that a continuous combustion process is very much more efficient than one where you start and stop combustion many times per second. Like what kind of fuel, coal or wood? Or ethanol. Or any reaction that produces heat.

By: diogenes

diogenes — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:08:16 -0800

Frank: Who would you rather bone, Meg Ryan or Jack Nicholson? Billy Madison: Jack Nicholson now, or 1974? Frank: '74. Billy Madison: Meg Ryan.

By: Daddy-O

Daddy-O — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:20:38 -0800

If it's common knowledge there should be no trouble finding a source. Of all the proposed replacements for gasoline or diesel powered vehicles, is anyone advocating steam power? If so, please provide some links.

By: dobbs

dobbs — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 07:59:35 -0800

One of the peeps getting out of the car looked liked Francis Ford Coppola.

By: bhnyc

bhnyc — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:08:43 -0800

It's depressing that people are still talking in the same unrealistic way about hydrogen.

By: never used baby shoes

never used baby shoes — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:14:22 -0800

Bobby: Yeah, now all you have to do is hold the carbon emissions, bring me the car, give me a bill for an SUV, and you haven't broken any rules. Waitress: You want me to hold the carbon, huh? Bobby: I want you to hold it between your knees.

By: nanojath

nanojath — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:15:43 -0800

Well, steam power as a method of heat energy reclamation is a technology that has been explored, Daddy-O. However, straight up steam power is not a practical portable, on-board power supply for modern transportation, stop goofing around, DU. There's a reason the steam-powered train is unequivocally a thing of the past.

By: Student of Man

Student of Man — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:19:59 -0800

A quick reading of designbot's link should stop all discussion right-quick.

By: Daddy-O

Daddy-O — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:27:21 -0800

Thanks, nanojath, interesting article. I wonder if that reclamation process will ever become standard on cars.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:42:44 -0800

If it's common knowledge there should be no trouble finding a source. Are you serious? Random link. Of all the proposed replacements for gasoline or diesel powered vehicles, is anyone advocating steam power? Not that I know of. But my point about continuous combustion is not dependent on steam (and if it were, it would not be dependent on the number of people advocating it).

By: nanojath

nanojath — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:58:29 -0800

A quick reading of designbot's link should stop all discussion right-quick. That article is hardly definitive. While I pretty much agree that politically, hydrogen is a sort of gee-whiz technology politicians trot out for show, on the technology side Zubrin (who is certainly no expert in the field) is just setting up a straw man in that article but restricting the possible methods of generating hydrogen to two, electrolysis or cracking fossil fuels. Scientists who are interested in the possibilities of hydrogen as a medium for energy exchange are looking at a much broader range of possibilities in production, storage and utilization. As a short-term solution for transportation, Zubrin's analysis does a pretty good job of debunking hydrogen. The technology is just not there to make it efficient today. But throwing out hydrogen as an energy exchange tool is not practical. Its potential as a closed-loop, zero-emission (in use, independent of the question of how it is generate) form of energy storage has enough interesting qualities to justify its continued research.

By: ericbop

ericbop — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 08:59:06 -0800

The narrator sounds like SNL's Kristin Wiig doing her Target Lady Character. "Nicherlson and Erd Bergley Jr. [sic] - It's a match!"

By: Daddy-O

Daddy-O — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:16:56 -0800

Dm, the random article you linked shows a graph showing loss of efficiency of increasingly intermittent combustion heating a boiler, it in no way sheds any light on steam boiler versus internal combustion engine efficiency.

By: Daddy-O

Daddy-O — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:17:37 -0800

OOPS, DU, not Dm.

By: Daddy-O

Daddy-O — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:29:02 -0800

After less than 2 minutes of research, I found this article. It says: 05)The efficiency of Internal combustion Engine is as high as 35 to 40 % as compared to that of Steam Engines which have efficiency is near about 10 to 15%. Advantages of Internal combustion Engine over Steam Engine. 01)It has higher efficiency 02)It has low weight to power ratio because of its compact design. 03)It can be started instanneously,in Steam engine Boiler has to be fired and Steam raised before the Engine can be started.

By: rongorongo

rongorongo — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:29:06 -0800

A quick reading of designbot's link should stop all discussion right-quick. As a non-chemist who had always thought of hydrogen power as something at least broadly plausible I found this to be a pretty devastating demolition job. In the long term somebody might come up with a more economical way of making hydrogen- but to work it would have to be competitive with that era's electric, bio-fuel and hydrocarbon driven vehicles.

By: dismas

dismas — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:35:26 -0800

Wait, so is this related to Marketplace, the show on NPR? Like, did they have TV version that migrated to radio, or radio to TV to radio, or...?

By: DU

DU — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:47:53 -0800

I think you've gotten fixated on the "steam" aspect of my comment. I'm not at all talking about steam power. (I realize this is confusing because I linked to a steam car, but that was just in response to the Tesla thing. I know next to nothing about the Stanley Steamer.) I'm talking about pure combustion question raised in your comment: ...burning gasoline or kerosine, so unless that was more efficient than burning gas directly in an internal combustion engine... Compare two processes, one continuously burning and the other intermittent. The first one is going to be more efficient. If you are constantly heating and cooling the fuel to/from the ignition point, you are wasting power. If you can't completely combust all the products and sub-products, you are wasting fuel. Both of these are the case for intermittent combustion, therefore it is less efficient. All else being equal, a continuous combustion engine is going to be more efficient than an intermittent combustion one. Getting all else to be equal is hard, which is why I'm limiting my comment to the pure combustion aspect. As for steam: It's not really fair to compare efficiency, because so much technology has gone into making one of them more efficient. Although I still don't believe that 10-15% figure--steam power plants (i.e. most of them) are better than that.

By: nanojath

nanojath — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:50:40 -0800

Wait, so is this related to Marketplace, the show on NPR? Marketplace is on APM, not NPR, and no, it was created in 1989 and as that article discusses its name was chosen from scratch.

By: gompa

gompa — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:51:48 -0800

Wait, so is this related to Marketplace, the show on NPR? Like, did they have TV version that migrated to radio, or radio to TV to radio, or...? No relation I know of. Marketplace is a long-running mainstay of CBC TV, hosted these days by the pixie-ish Wendy Mesley. It leans toward fairly hard-hitting investigative stuff on the crimes and misdemeanours of the corporate world, with Mesley doing a pretty fine job of disarming corporate shill types with her diminutive looks and charm; they don't seem to anticipate the hard question coming. It's a hydrogen kyar! The narrator sounds like SNL's Kristin Wiig doing her Target Lady Character. What you're hearing there is actually a classic Maritime Twang. My guess would be South Shore of Nova Scotia, but it could be Cape Breton or even a Newfoundland accent that's been half-buried with practice. One of my East-Nova-Scotia-raised aunts has lived her entire adult life in southern New Hampshire, and my wife thinks she's got about the zaniest accent in North America. There is no known grammatical symbol for the way she pronounces the long "o" sound in "shoes."

By: Daddy-O

Daddy-O — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:02:09 -0800

DU, I agree that continuous INTERNAL combustion, like a gas turbine, is more efficient than intermittent internal combustion like piston or Wankel engines. I guess we can stop arguing now that we have cleared all of this up!

By: Zambrano

Zambrano — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:16:07 -0800

That was back when there was a gasoline "shortage" and people were queueing up for hours to buy gas. So he was not really "ahead of his time", was he.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:46:26 -0800

What you're hearing there is actually a classic Maritime Twang. It's getting to be really, really rare, but oh god is that accent ever awesome. In my decade-plus time here in Halifax, I have only ever encountered one person so strongly afflicted: My grade 9 Home Ec teacher, who actually looked a heck of a lot like that woman (and Target Lady). My only clear memory of her was the time one recipe called for nachos, which she repeatedly referred to as "tack-oo chips." The guy's accent is extremely common around here, but only among pudgy, middle-aged newsmen. I'm not even kidding. It's bizarre.

By: kaibutsu

kaibutsu — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:48:39 -0800

Aren't nuclear reactors essentially big steam engines, using fusion for heat instead of burnt wood? I wonder what their efficiency is... (Which should probably be measured in terms of power produced vs. energy lost as heat.)

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:49:08 -0800

(In case you were curious.)

By: davejay

davejay — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:13:26 -0800

Eh, just put solar panels on top of every building everywhere, and concentrate that power into rapid-charge terminals at filling stations and other key locations, and of course in our garages, then use it to power our electric cars. Of course, that'll require a huge solar panel infrastructure, and the ability to rapid-charge (which I consider to be the true blocker for electric cars, not the range itself) doesn't exist. But that's just one breakthrough and a lot of money, versus several breakthroughs and a lot of money for hydrogen.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:47:50 -0800

Why not take it back further: Imagine if we all listened to Tesla in the 1930s!!! what do signs messing up the scenery and breakin my mind have to do with....on 1930's. (just to pre-empt it, I know the Five man Electrical band did it first and better)