• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

MYTHBUSTERS 2015 Season Thread

"Blow It Out of the Water": Okay, the half that's testing that saying literally is pretty interesting. I never realized it was originally meant literally, that it described the effect of torpedoes on ships in WWII. I always took it more as an exaggeration, or figurative, in the sense that a boat blown to pieces would effectively no longer be in the water, at least as a boat. The idea that it refers to literally lifting a boat out of the water is surprising and interesting. The small-scale tests were pretty intriguing.

I'm not sure which is a greater act of trust on Jamie's part: Standing directly underneath a huge, heavy boat hanging from a crane... or letting Adam handle his beret.

I'm surprised they made so little of the cliffhanger of the bomb in the pond not going off. I remember when that happened to Kari, Grant, and Tory a few years ago, they played it up as this horribly dangerous thing because the bomb squad experts had to risk their lives to re-rig it and such. But here, they barely acknowledged it and just said they whipped up a new detonator. What happened there?

Interesting result -- I like how Jamie worked out the physics and concluded that the myth could never work.


The Breaking Bad myth does essentially spoil the ending for me, but then, I doubt I'll ever want to see that show. The one time I tuned in to a bit of it out of curiosity, it was right at the most gruesome possible moment, and the unpleasantness of that guaranteed I'd never be curious about it again.

Anyway, the homemade rig they recreated was kind of clever, in a murderous sort of way. But when they do these movie myths, I always wonder why they don't just contact the people who actually did the things in the original shows/films and find out how they did them -- in this case, whether it was done for real, and what parts they used. I mean, they did bring in the show's creator for a guest appearance, so it shouldn't have been hard to call up its property master. But instead they did the thing where they study photos from the episode.

Although I suppose that's the sort of thing they're good at, as we see in those YouTube videos where Adam recreates movie costumes and Kirk's captain's chair and things like that. I guess part of the fun is figuring it out for themselves rather than just asking.

What surprised me about the result was that the bullets didn't tumble/get thrown off more by going through the side of the car first. I think that did contribute to some of the bullets tumbling and going astray, but apparently it didn't disrupt most of them that badly.

Anyway, they left out one part, the trunk lid automatically rising. I'm not sure why that was necessary beyond letting the audience see the gun, but I guess maybe it was so that the cartridges could be ejected.
 
As cool as the small scale tests and the full scale explosion was, I thought it was silly for them to declare the "blown out of the water" myth "busted" based on one explosion.

First of all, I think their definition of "blown out of the water" was dubious to begin with. 9,000 ton vessels don't go flying hundreds of feet in the air intact like a plastic toy. What they will do, and there's plenty of documentary footage and first hand accounts from military observers during the World Wars to back this up, is have the portion of the ship struck by a torpedo, mine, aerial bomb that penetrates the hull, etc. be briefly lifted completely out of the water, causing the ship's "spine" to break in half and the ship to sink.

You can see that in the footage of torpedo strikes on decommissioned vessels like this:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWQF9RXHBwo[/yt]

You can also see it in the forward hull of the USS Arizona being lifted a full thirty feet out of the water by the Japanese aerial bomb that penetrated into its forward magazine and detonated below the water line in the footage below:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqYO9nT4MtU[/yt]

That's what I've always interpreted the phrase "blown out of the water" to mean in its original naval warfare context, not some fanciful notion where a fully intact 600 foot long ship goes flying through the air.

Secondly, while I appreciate that they can't actually afford to get a real decommissioned naval vessel to destroy, a steel hulled yacht is not the same as a naval destroyer with an armored hull and a reinforced spine designed to take hits from torpedoes, mines, and bombs. A vessel with a much stronger hull is obviously going to be able to take a much stronger beating and remain mostly intact.

Thirdly, blowing up a 1,000 pounds of ANFO 30-feet deep in a shallow 60-foot lake is not remotely like destroying a vessel in the open ocean. Obviously, much of the force of the explosion is going to immediately be driven back upwards by the fact that it instantly strikes the bottom of the lake rather than having a large portion of the force dissipate in open water.

It just sort of bugs me when they declare stuff "busted" that has plenty of historical reference, first hand eyewitness accounts from reliable witnesses trained in observation, documentary footage, etc. all because it didn't work after one try under often wildly different conditions and parameters. I get that they're limited by time and budget concerns, but in cases such as that I think it would be wise to demonstrate that yes, there have been historical examples that fit the more general meaning of the term "blown out of the water," but we're just testing this specific thing.
 
Which is why I wonder how much thy scaled things. Judging from the modelboat, I would had to have been deep water. I doubt a plastic model boat has more structural Iintegrity to survive and explosion over a full-sized yacht.

I respect they need to use an unpopulated lake for the experiment, but maybe a deeper test location or a larger-scale final test but not full-scale. What happened in the small-scale test suggests *something* if there was any suction effect certainly we would have seen one there. Maybe place the bomb on the bottom of the quary would have seen somthing? There was some result in small scale, maybe this'd scale up better?

I think it's too soon to call it, there needs to be a revisit.
 
As cool as the small scale tests and the full scale explosion was, I thought it was silly for them to declare the "blown out of the water" myth "busted" based on one explosion.

But Jamie's explanation made sense. That one explosion revealed enough about the physics to allow the conclusion that it could never work. As Jamie said, the explosion creates an expanding gas bubble underwater. As soon as that bubble breaches the surface, it meets far less resistance to expansion from the air than from the surrounding water, so the force of the explosion will inevitably erupt up into the air all at once. It's the same principle that causes the air in a balloon to rush out of a puncture. So the force experienced by a boat directly on top of it is going to be powerful enough to destroy the boat rather than simply pushing it upward. Combine that with the small-scale tests showing that a deeper explosion wouldn't have much effect on the surface, and it's a reasonable conclusion.

Sure, if they had unlimited time and budget, they could've gotten a bunch more boats and tested at a lot of different depths, but they could probably only get their hands on one boat of that size. And it was unlikely that the results would've been any different.



First of all, I think their definition of "blown out of the water" was dubious to begin with.

Isn't that the whole basis of the show, though? It's called Mythbusters, not Reasonableinterpretationbusters. The expression says "out of the water," so that's what they were testing.

And I don't think they were looking for "flying through the air," just actually being completely separated from the surface of the water, even if only by a few feet.
 
Except in the examples I provided, the portion of the ship that was directly hit did literally get "blown out of the water" for a moment, it's just that the weight of the bow and stern of the ship breaks them in half as the center is traveling upwards, which is what sinks them.

If they make up some ridiculous definition of the expression that no one ever actually intended it to mean then what's the point of even testing it? It's like busting a myth that Ralph can't send Alice straight to the Moon because he can't afford a lunar rocket on a domestic abusing bus driver's salary. The myths should be somewhat within the realm of possibility or else there's no point in testing them.

It's not called Foregoneconclusionbusters either.
 
If they make up some ridiculous definition of the expression that no one ever actually intended it to mean then what's the point of even testing it?

But you're describing dozens of the myths they've done in the past. Many of them are ridiculous to a reasonable observer, but that's what the myths are, so that's what they test. I mean, they once tested whether a rolling stone gathers moss. Everybody knows that's not meant to refer to a literal phenomenon, but they tested the letter of the saying anyway.
 
I think the point is that they should at least acknowledge the difference between what is being tested and the actual original intent of such a myth. They could have easily added a 30 second bit of historical footage demonstrating "blown out of the water".
 
Loved seeing the Breaking Bad "myth" and was surprised at how little fudging they had to do to make it work. Though I do feel bad to anyone who never saw the show but planned to at some time.

I never figured the "blow it out of the water" expression to mean "blow it out of the water intact and in one piece". It was OK but I wasn't invested in that one.

Weird not having the B team or whatever they were called...
 
I wonder if my wife and I are the only people in the world who don't care about Breaking Bad and the Walking Dead. :lol:
 
I'm surprised they made so little of the cliffhanger of the bomb in the pond not going off. I remember when that happened to Kari, Grant, and Tory a few years ago, they played it up as this horribly dangerous thing because the bomb squad experts had to risk their lives to re-rig it and such. But here, they barely acknowledged it and just said they whipped up a new detonator. What happened there?

The impression I got was that they already had a backup detonator ready and hooked up to the bomb, in case the first one didn't work (which definitely seems like a sensible thing to do with all the problems they've had with that in the past).

I wonder if my wife and I are the only people in the world who don't care about Breaking Bad and the Walking Dead. :lol:

You're not. I have no interest in either one. Never seen Game of Thrones either.

Wow, you're really missing out. Those are only three of the best shows of the last 10 years (with Breaking Bad easily being one of the best shows ever).
 
I wonder if my wife and I are the only people in the world who don't care about Breaking Bad and the Walking Dead. :lol:

You're not. I have no interest in either one. Never seen Game of Thrones either.

Wow, you're really missing out. Those are only three of the best shows of the last 10 years (with Breaking Bad easily being one of the best shows ever).

Maybe, but I have limited tolerance for violence and darkness.
 
I find the violence in Game of Thrones to be palatable but the violence in Breaking Bad totally turns me off. Am I weird or what? lol

I think its because when there's violence in Game of Thrones, it tends to be over very quickly. Typically the truly violent and gory parts don't last more than 30 seconds. Breaking Bad on the other hand, spent nearly a quarter to a third of its first 3 episodes delving into gory violent stuff and I find that I couldn't watch it anymore.
 
The wife and I watched the first season of Walking Dead. She bailed after a few eps, saying she didn't like a single character. I watched the whole (short) season, and ended up agreeing with her. So much for that.

I never had any interest in Breaking Bad. My nephew's ex-wife turned out to be a meth dealer behind his back and caused him no end of misery. I don't need to watch a show about that.

Thrones, on the other hand, is sheer brilliance and wonder. Just don't get attached to anybody! :lol:
 
From that perspective, Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, and even somewhat Breaking Bad have the same upside for you: if you don't like a character, just wait. Chances are they won't be bothering you for too long ;)
 
I think its because when there's violence in Game of Thrones, it tends to be over very quickly. Typically the truly violent and gory parts don't last more than 30 seconds.

There are different kinds of violence, though. I've read a lot of protest of its increasingly gratuitous use of rape. It's gotten to the point that one major website has refused to cover the show anymore.


Breaking Bad on the other hand, spent nearly a quarter to a third of its first 3 episodes delving into gory violent stuff and I find that I couldn't watch it anymore.

The one time I decided to check it out, I chose the worst possible moment to tune in. I saw a guy walk out of a room, and then the angle changed to reveal that half of his head had been blown away, and he fell dead. Not only was it deeply disgusting, but I question whether it was even medically possible. (Although I don't see any ethical way for the Mythbusters to test that...) It was enough to scare me off for good.
 
I never got the disgust people show over red Karo syrup, some rubber body parts and CGI.

Then you're missing the whole point of fiction and art, which is to evoke an emotional response with simulations of real things. If nobody ever reacted to something artificial as though it were real, then nobody would ever cry at a tragedy or be moved by a love story or be thrilled by a chase scene. So this is a very nonsensical thing for you to say, because it's basically denying the power of illusion, which is the entire reason that fiction works in the first place. Of course we all know it's not real, but it reminds us of things that are real, and if the simulation is convincing, then it can evoke an equivalent emotional response. That's the whole reason for doing it.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top