Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Christopher, May 2, 2013.
Well you can't get much deader than being reduced to feces by a carnivore.
The poisonous snake could have been "milked" to have the bulk of it's deadly poisons removed so as that it didn't present a real danger. (Or maybe had anti-venoms at the ready.)
I still wouldn't chance it, even if it meant possibly breaking my "contract" with the production.
Yeah, I know, they take risks all the time. Why should this be any worse? Just my own (debatably) "irrational" fears. No, I don't "hate" snakes. I just have a very, VERY cautious "respect" for them. One time as I headed out the door, I nearly stepped onto a snake which I hoped was just an "oak" variety rather than the rattler it closely resembles. It slithered away too fast for me to get a good look of its tail. I never suspected I could perform a standing jump...three feet backwards!
Tonight's theme: "Do Try This at Home?" Myths that may or may not be safe enough to try at home for a change.
Microwaved water: Well, it was obvious right off the bat that water boiled in the microwave would not be toxic to plants. The idea is completely idiotic. Microwaved water is just hot water, period. But what's surprising is that the plants watered with the previously-microwaved water grew better. You'd probably have to repeat the test to confirm it wasn't a fluke, but I wonder why it could enhance plant growth. Could the microwaves have killed microbes that stovetop boiling didn't? That seems unlikely. It's probably just a fluke.
The fact that this myth took 2 weeks to test got me thinking. I've known for years that they must have a bunch of different myths going on at once, in different stages of readiness or progress. So I'd love to see an episode that shows us "a day in the life" for the Mythbusters, or maybe a week -- however long it takes to show the process of them dealing with the various myths they have going on concurrently. Of course, that would leave the longer myths incomplete, but they could be resolved in later episodes, or maybe there could be flashforwards or something.
Putting out a fire with a speedboat's wake: Okay, this one's obviously too dangerous to try at home -- at least unless you have the cooperation of your local fire department (plus it's a very generous definition of "at home"). I suppose the only reason it's in here is because it's too short a myth to focus half an episode on. So I was able to guess that it would work, since if it didn't work, they would've had to try other things and replicate the results and so forth.
Metronomes: This is a standard physics demonstration to show the concept of resonance, so I knew it would work. The air hockey table is a cool idea, though. Interesting that it didn't work with 216 of them. I guess there was just too much noise in the system -- Adam chalked it up to the loose manufacturing tolerances. But I wonder if maybe the movable surface just absorbed too much of the energy, and 216 metronomes were just too much mass to affect with the available energy. Which makes me wonder if more energy could've helped. They should've tried lifting the weights higher, so that there was a more powerful swing to the metronomes.
Adam was overstating a bit when he said this was their biggest failure ever. I'd say that was the second JATO Rocket Car attempt where the car blew up on the ramp. That was much bigger in scale, personpower, and expense.
Ball chain arc: I've seen this demonstrated online, and the video I saw explained the physics much better than the Mythbusters did, I'm afraid.
"Suspended" water drops: Another thing I've seen before in a viral video, and the video explains it well enough that the mythbusters didn't add anything new.
"Elephant toothpaste"/"Explosive snake": Okay, interesting chemistry demonstrations, but not really myths.
Dry ice bombs: This is a nice idea -- taking something stupidly dangerous that people do try at home, and showing exactly why they shouldn't, as a public service. It showed the danger pretty effectively, I think.
This really seemed to be more of a "Mini Myth" episode than a "Do Try This At Home" one since half of the stories they told you couldn't do at home. Still an interesting take.
I think you may be on to something, Christopher, that the microwave may have heated and killed microbes in the water beyond what simply boiling water could do. But at the same time, yeah, other tests would need to be done to rule out the microwaved water plant(s) growing better being a fluke. And, yeah, it was one with a result I knew how it would come out. The premise of it seemed built on the idea some still have that microwaves use dangerous forms of radiation to heat things. As I've said before when it comes to any "myth" dealing with microwaves or other forms of EM radiation, humanity is bathed in all sorts of forms of radiation from radio waves, microwaves and all of that and has been for pretty much a century. If it was dangerous (which it can't be since it's non-ionizing. The energy of these forms of radiation being too big to cause damage to cells) we'd been seeing some serious impacts on humanity for quite some time now.
The metronome test was interesting. I think the failure of the large-scale test came from the foam on the air-hockey table. I think it probably gave too many variables for all of the metronomes to balance out. With the foam on the tubes the metronomes only had one axis to balance. (Left/Right, horizontal axis.) But on the hockey table the metronomes had to balance out through pretty much three dimensions. Left/Right, Font/Back and Up/Down (as the foam shifted while floating on the air.) I think it was just more than could be overcome by the devices. Setting up another "one dimensional" system to shift things around may have gotten them better results.
Or if it was a case of the devices being imperfect and out of sync with one another I'd think it'd be fairly easy to get them tuned in to one another by having one or two being your "base" and then introducing the others one at a time and tuning them in to the "controls." Then they'd all be in sync and the large-scale experiment could work.
I disagree with the conclusions on the fire-fighting boat. As the premise itself already has a LOT you have to grant someone. I mean I wouldn't tell Joe Blow to go out there with a regular boat and try this without any boating experience. But someone who *is* a capable boatman with a capable boat this "could" work in emergency situations, where people take risks all of the time to save lives or prevent the spread of a disaster.
I mean, this is like telling someone to not run into a burning building to save a trapped person and to wait for the fire department to get there. Yeah, sure, doing it would be dangerous and the fire department is better trained and equipped to save that person but they might get there too late.
The other "myths" I've not much to say on. Interesting look at some chemical reactions and the testing of pressures with the CO2 "myth." Interesting construction this time of their "human analogue", particularly using someone from BTS rather than either Jamie, Adam or one of the Jr. Team.
I agree, Christopher, that the metronome test wasn't their biggest failure. They've certainly had others where tried as they might they couldn't get things to work. The second JATO test is up there but, to be fair, it was a failure on the part of the makers of the rockets and not so much on Jamie and Adam.
Well, I don't think they were saying "If you happen to come across a fire while you're in your speedboat, don't try to help." After all, that's not a scenario that's very likely to occur. What they were saying was, "Don't go out and set something on fire in order to try to put it out with a speedboat."
Besides, they have lawyers, so they aren't going to verbally encourage people to put themselves in danger.
Maybe, but Adam concluded that this failure was due to the construction of the metronomes, so it's pretty analogous. He wasn't saying it was his and Jamie's fault that it failed, just that it was a case where they put a ton of effort into something that they couldn't get to work for whatever reason. (Come to think of it, "Breakstep Bridge" would seem to be right up there on their greatest-failures list.)
After all, remember the Mythbuster motto. Failure is always an option. And in science, you can often learn things from failure that you couldn't learn any other way.
I want to buy one of those ball chains now.
I agree with that. Though I always miss the first couple of minutes because I feel they show too much sometimes so I might have missed the explanation.
I just watched one of their early "blooper" episodes on Netflix this evening and had a great time watching it. I'm sure they could something similar with a "Behind the Scenes" special where they show us how they put an episode together. I know I would watch it.
I agree that the air hockey table test might have worked better if the platform was in rollers (operating on a single directional axis) instead.
As for the jet boat - that's more of a "DO try this in a dire emergency if it just so happens that a boat is on fire and you just so happen to have a jet boat handy, but otherwise what would even be doing this for?"
^Also if you're a skilled enough boat operator to make what they stressed was a rather dangerous maneuver.
^Or if you're someone who likes to say "Hold mah beer an' watch this!"
I'm watching a repeat of the animal myths. I wonder when someone suggested water bottles as cat deterrents that perhaps they meant to actually spray them with it rather than just their mere presence which seems rather dubious from the get go.
The "premise" of the technique, which I'm guessing they got from the fan suggestion, was that the light-show from the bottles as they reflected sunlight dazzled and confused the cats away. (Much like how it was supposed to work with flies.) If it was the spritz-bottle technique I'm sure they would've gleamed that from the fan suggestion(s) and, well, it obviously works because a)people use it all of the time b)cats hate getting wet.
I googled it and there's a bunch of sites that suggest that works. I never heard of that before and it just sounds so ludicrous I thought maybe there was a misunderstanding, I guess not. Now if they could hook up some spritzers with a motion detector...
They actually make such a thing, my mom had it hooked up to her garden as a supposed deterrent to other animals, like deer.
This week: "Myth-ssion Impossible," testing proverbs about things that supposedly can't be done.
Herding cats: Oh boy, more kitties! It seemed to me that part of the reason the cats were uncooperative is that they were nervous in the unfamiliar environment. My cats would get similarly sullen and slow and cautious when they were somewhere new and unnerving, and that made them even less inclined to cooperate with going where people wanted them to go. That's why they weren't interested in the toys or the lasers -- they were just too wary and on edge.
What they should've done was remembered the snake test from a few weeks ago -- they made one part of the set more inviting to the snakes by making it dark and warm. If the cat corral had been covered and dark, if it had given the cats a place where they could hide and not be exposed out in the open, they would've made a beeline for it -- as was proven when several of their guest felines escaped and hid inside the wall.
It's all about psychology. Herding works on sheep or cattle because it's just taking what they're naturally inclined to do anyway and redirecting it. So the way to get cats to go -- at least approximately -- where you want is to find a way that's based in their psychology. Of course, "herding" would be the wrong word for that, since they aren't herd animals.
I feel a little sorry for the sheepdog. He was used to herding cooperative, submissive animals, and suddenly he was surrounded by hostile predators. "I'm not trained for this, man!"
Of course, I've found that the best way to get cats to go where you want is to pick them up and put them in a box. Although that's often easier said than done.
Catching a greased pig: Not that hard, apparently, although I doubt grabbing the hind legs is what the proverb has in mind (and I'm surprised that's considered the most humane technique -- it looks painful). Also, it probably doesn't make much difference, but the proverb specifies grease, not birthing lubricant. Would it be easier or harder with actual grease? What exactly qualifies as grease and what doesn't?
Grant and Tory's pig-catching devices were both really overcomplicated. No surprise Grant went the "robot" route, but his grippers were too small, having to be precisely aimed to work. I saw right off that it wouldn't do much good. And what was Tory thinking with that suction rig?
As for the third myth... I'd rather not talk about it. Except to say that I've never heard that saying before, mercifully.
Meh, episode. After last week's break I would've expected more than this. Really nothing to add or talk about. Just both teams goofing around is all this added up to as none of the "myths" were really that interesting.
^But... but... cats! Anything to do with cats is interesting!
They should do a lot more cat myths. Not the nine-lives one, though, for obvious reasons.
Around here, a more sanitized" version of that expression gets recited, "Ten pound of sugar in a five pound sugar sack." Which would prove even more difficult since granular cane sugar can't be as easily compressed. Now it could, in theory, be "ground" into something akin to powdered sugar, but I doubt the volume could be reduced by the required "half".
Separate names with a comma.