I don't want to start a new thread for the 11/10 "Mini-Myths" episode, both because there's not too much to discuss and because apparently the mods want us to consolidate threads by series (at least in SF&F, I don't know if that applies here). So I'll just add it here.
As far as I know having separate episodic threads is okay.
I think the premise was a bit bogus. I don't believe for a second that they chose these myths at random, since a lot of myths aren't practically testable. So they shouldn't have presented it with that pretense.
Eh, that's all it was was pretense. Just a "serving platter" for the basis of the episode. I doubt the gang was sitting around watching movies when they came up with that episode idea either.
Scuba tuxedo: Which Bond movie was this from? I think Goldfinger, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I'm surprised it worked. I can believe the scuba suit would keep one's clothes dry underneath, since watertightness is kind of the whole point, but I'm surprised that the tux didn't get more crumpled and sweaty.
If the SCUBA suit was a "dry suit" it makes sense the person inside would stay, well, dry. But, yeah, barring it being a wrinkle-free suit it surprised me too that Jamie was able to stay top form.
What would've been a better test would be if the judge hadn't known which Mythbuster had been in the scuba suit and had to try to guess from the relative state of their tuxedos.
I thought he HAD not know. If he did that's a bit of a flaw in the "method" here. The "Tuxedo Expert" was also a bit of a lint-picking snob for my tastes.
Tire pressure/mileage: Pretty simple and straightforward. Not much to say. I already knew that low tire pressure was bad for mileage, and I'm still mad at myself for not discovering how low my left rear tire pressure was until I was 2/3 of the way home from Manhattan last month. That reduced my fuel efficiency by several percent at least. Next time I go on an interstate trip, I should check my tires before I set out.
Yeah, this tire thing I've heard for years. And as they pointed out over-inflating your tires will roughen the ride of the car and can be dangerous. (Makes the tires more likely to have a blowout if they strike an object.)
Sneeze blocking: I didn't pay much attention to this one, but the results, again, weren't too surprising.
Quick and dirty: The "standard" covering your mouth offered little more protection than out-right doing it. As the sneeze-material just gets jetted out the top of your cupped hand, not to mention now contaminating your hand.
Using your elbow offered complete protection with the benefit of not contaminating your hand.
Using a hankie offered better protection (though the high-speed show about the same, but less sever, expulsion as a cupped hand) than a hand but has the drawback of contaminating your hand and the potential for recontamination when you handle the hankie and, well, carrying a rag full of germs in your pocket.
No surprising results here, I've been using my shoulder for these very reasons for years.
Bulletproof objects: So a laptop battery is bulletproof (or shot-proof), the rest of a laptop isn't, a hair weave isn't, and a fridge door isn't. I didn't really get at first what a "hair weave" was; I thought it meant that somebody's really heavily interwoven hairdo was alleged to be bulletproof (the Janice Rand defense?). I guess the term refers to a form of hair extension or partial wig. I guess even my idea wouldn't have worked to stop a bullet; it's just hair, after all.
When I saw them pull-out the old school fridge I quickly thought of Indiana Jones. Nothing surprised me here, most of all the hair weave. Which sometimes
are styled but even then it's just freaking hair. Kari's idea that the ricochet got caught in there makes the most sense. I knew the birdshot would be easily stopped, stopping a 40 seemed to me to far less likely. Would've been nice if they showed "how" the article could've happened. (Like they did with the laptop.)
Instant-freezing beer: I'm rather surprised this worked. An interesting demonstration of supercooling. I have two questions they failed to address, though. One: why does the beer get supercooled instead of freezing? I'd assume it's due to a lack of nucleation sites, but why is that? Two: why doesn't it expand and break the bottle when it freezes?
That was neat and I'm going to need to try it. Their supercooling idea is what I was thinking as it's very similar to how freezing rain works. It super-cooled water that has too much energy falling from the sky to freeze. When it impacts a surface it loses that energy and instantly freezes. I suspect something similar here but with the nucleation sigtes. On why it doesn't break the bottle as it expands? Maybe, like water, it doesn't expand when it freezes but remains the same size or shrinks and there's no gas or other materials to displace in the bottle as it "expands" to break the bottle open.
Taking candy from a baby: Okay, now they've crossed into evil science. Actually calculating how hard it is to take candy from a baby! Well, I blame the fan who sent in the question.
This one was just fun. It was neat to see how easily the babies used diversionary tactics to avoid the candy being taken away, but I've never taken the idiom to mean that you could do it quickly, easily, and not have anyone alerted without
any work in it. If Jamie and Adam weren't so easily enamored with the baby and cared when it cried they'd just snatch the candy away and run off. That's what "taking candy from a baby" means. Babies offer very little if any resistance. Sure they're going to offer
some in the form of gripping it or avoidance but if Jamie and Adam wanted it, they'd get it. The baby crying afterwards is moot. The idiom, as I understand it, doesn't imply that the "baby" wouldn't alert anyone to what you did. Unless the baby is Maggie Simpson.
My wife said exactly the same thing.
