5 ms·
TL;DW: normal electrolysis doesn't work because electrolysis with salt water gives you H2 and Cl2 (hydrogen; and chlorine gas, which kills humans). But they des
by netsharc 3y ago
TL;DW: normal electrolysis doesn't work because electrolysis with salt water gives you H2 and Cl2 (hydrogen; and chlorine gas, which kills humans). But they desalinate the water and use K-OH (potassium hydroxide) as a catalyst.
The second way is to burn a special candle that is made out of Fe (iron) and NaClO3 (sodium chlorate) , and the heat releases O2 from the NaClO3.
Man, Destin is cool, but a 30 minute video to answer that question?
- SkyPuncher 3y agoI agree with your last line, but it’s not just Destin. It’s all of YouTube. The incentive system is driving creators to create longer videos filled with an insane amount of filler content.
- londons_explore 3y agoI recommend everyone to install the "sponsorblock" youtube addin. It makes long videos much shorter by cutting out all the filler content (~30% of most videos), and has an option to skip just to the highlight of the video. For this video, it skips you to 6:52, and within 1 minute you have learned that hydrolysis directly doesn't work due to the salt in salt water, it produces chlorine, and you need to do reverse osmosis first then electrolysis. It isn't AI... it's just other humans who have tagged and marked the videos - and they have done a pretty good job IMO.
- craigds 3y agoI find myself bothering to click through to YT so rarely (< once/month) it's not really worth installing an addon for this, but it sounds really useful for YT regulars. What I'd love (and even pay money for) would be the same thing for Spotify podcasts - especially for kids stories which are a constant feature of my car journeys at the moment. 5 minutes of junk surrounding 4 minutes of actual story is madness. (I already have Spotify Premium - I'm not talking about ads; the actual content of podcasts is mostly fluff, and it's almost as bad as YT)
- numpad0 3y agoFWIW, I often end up watching more Doug Demuro and Ian McCollum videos than Destin/SmarterEveryDay. To me, that’s widespread, but not all of YouTube.
- SkyPuncher 3y agoEven Doug is kind of creeping into that high 20 minute zone. That being said, there’s not really a lot of filler in hit stuff.
- netsharc 3y agoOh really? It feels like his format is "I'm going to show you something quirky. Look at this quirky thing. It is so quirky! Imagine designing this quirky thing.", so something that should take 10 seconds takes 50 seconds. For example here's him telling his viewers, who are most certainly car enthusiasts, what a lift button does: https://youtu.be/BGUqC7QbUDo?t=548 https://youtu.be/BGUqC7QbUDo?t=548
- SkyPuncher 3y agoMaybe I’ve just watched too much of him :P I generally think he does a good job of keeping things moving, with little filler. It just seems that he always ends up around that 25 minute mark.
- sbierwagen 3y agoMy interest in the series of Dustin sub videos was diminished by him saying in the first video that for "safety and security reasons" he wasn't going to show anything in the reactor or engine sections... then put on screen a graphic that showed he wasn't going to visit fully half the boat! I immediately knew this was just going to be a plumbing tour and checked out. Little bit funny to call it a tour of a nuclear submarine but skip anything nuclear.
- sitzkrieg 3y agoof course. that would never fly
- Twirrim 3y agoTo the contrary, the YouTube algorithm strongly discourages it. Longer videos are much less likely to appear in the suggested feed. The degree to which varies, but YouTubers are feeling very heavily forced towards < 5 minute content.
- entropie 3y agoI really think that depends. I have almost only videos 10+ minutes on my homepage and in my recommendations because I almost only watch longer videos. https://i.imgur.com/7T5tUGV.png https://i.imgur.com/7T5tUGV.png
- SkyPuncher 3y agoI haven’t had that experience at all. Though, I rarely use “the algorithm”. I basically only watch people I’m subscribed to (which I rarely find via YouTube). Those videos are getting increasingly longer because the payouts are higher.
- wmf 3y agoIsn't there a threshold (10 minutes?) where you get twice as many ads and thus people try to make their videos at least that long?
- apendleton 3y agoTo your last question: the nature of having to attract clicks means youtube creators have to choose reductive titles that tease some particular nugget of information that's going to be discussed, but it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that the intent of this video isn't _just_ to answer that question, and that he expects that his audience will also appreciate a slice-of-life experience of him interacting with the crew and understanding what life is like on the submarine in broader terms than just how they get air. With respect: if all you wanted was the answer to that question and nothing else, Googling produces it much more quickly than you'd likely ever get from a video, and you might just not be the target audience here. I personally enjoyed the whole series as-is, and it seems from the YouTube comments like many viewers did as well, but obviously YMMV.
- matthewmcg 3y agoReductive or oxidizing?
- andrewflnr 3y agoMaybe an oxidative title is an inflammatory claim that's not substantiated in the video...
- hyperhopper 3y agoThen the video should be titled "Informative tour of a nuclear submarine". Not focusing on one question.
- chongli 3y agoYouTube is part of the attention economy. Videos do better with click bait titles than they do with bland informative titles.
- lovich 3y agoThat was basically the premise of the series. This was one of multiple videos in that series. I don't know about everyone else but a good portion of that video was showing the physical steps taken to make these reactions happen on a sub, which I thought was more interesting than just getting a chemical reaction given as an answer
- kaashif 3y agoTo be fair, this video is literally on a nuclear submarine. Walking around and looking at all the stuff is 100% a worthwhile use of my time in my opinion, it's just really cool. A 1 minute video about it with some animations wouldn't be as interesting to me. This is entertainment, not pure information.
- gravypod 3y agoCould anyone not say the following: TL;DR: The answer is "Chemistry". Dustin: video too long. Only conveying information is not the goal of most media (social, informational, or news).
- drivingmenuts 3y agoYou're probably not his audience demographic.
- hinkley 3y agoFrom his earlier sub videos it’s very clear he’s having a good time. But I think there’s a point where you realize you have 3,4 hours of footage and you need to chop it to 18 minutes where you feel guilty leaving bits out, so stuff survives the cutting room floor that shouldn’t.
- George83728 3y agoThat could be it but his other videos recently have been over-long too. Paraphrasing: > "In this video I'm going to try fusing two bullets together but uh, I don't want to 'break the internet' with clickbait so actually 30 minutes of this video will be about me talking about the safety measures I took." [Spoilers: the bullets didn't fuse.] It's fine I guess, his videos are usually still worth watching. I just wish the youtube system was better at rewarding concise videos that are as long as they need to be, not rushed or stretched.
- andrewflnr 3y agoHe (and his crew)did smack the bullets together, they just shattered instead of fusing. And honestly I agree with him that the safety measures and perseverance stuff is important.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoGuy somehow got sailors to let him board their nuclear submarine. I'd say 30 minutes of video wasn't enough.