MYTHBUSTERS 6/8: "Fixing a Flat"

[Christopher]

Considering how he got rid of the wooden wheel, it was clearly rear-wheel drive.

Oh, of course. Duh! I should've remembered that.

So I hope I wasn't the only one half-expecting Jeremy Clarkson to show up at the end to tell Adam and Jamie why their ideas were stupid and that his was so much better?

I don't really know who that is or why he would do that.

The "viral video" flame was clearly CG so that was immediately a waste of time.

CG? I profoundly doubt that. It isn't easy to computer-animate convincing flame or anything fluid like that. Even top-notch Hollywood blockbusters have trouble doing it effectively, so there's no way some joker shooting a viral video could pull it off. As I remarked before, there was a clear cut in the video -- we saw the reel smoking, then we cut to an angle pointing away from the reel, then the camera moved back to the reel and it was on fire. Most likely they did exactly what the Mythbusters did and just used an open flame to light it while it was off-camera.

 

[Canadave]

So I hope I wasn't the only one half-expecting Jeremy Clarkson to show up at the end to tell Adam and Jamie why their ideas were stupid and that his was so much better?

I don't really know who that is or why he would do that.

He's one of the presenters on Top Gear, and he's probably do that because... well, because that's the sort of thing he tends to do.

 

[David cgc]

He's one of the presenters on Top Gear, and he's probably do that because... well, because that's the sort of thing he tends to do.

Ooh, maybe he could introduce the next viral-video myth.

"I went on the internet this week, and I found this!"

 

[Canadave]

^ That would be an... interesting... myth.

 

[Checkmate]

When did "viral video" become a synonym for "random video on YouTube" anyway? I couldn't even find this one after a couple search attempts.

 

[Capt. Vulcan]

Whenever they do a viral video myth, I tend to start off thinking the video was faked in the first place, and there's no point in even trying.

I thought that about 'spinning bullet in the ice'.

I looked up the thread on the mythbusters board about this and wow... some nerds can be such pompous douchebags. "I've got a phd in theoretical physics from blah blah blah and anyone with half a brain can see this is impossible." Lol. Some people just have too much faith in their own grasp of science.

 

[Forbin]

Whenever they do a viral video myth, I tend to start off thinking the video was faked in the first place, and there's no point in even trying.

I thought that about 'spinning bullet in the ice'.

Point!

 

[Forbin]

Whenever they do a viral video myth, I tend to start off thinking the video was faked in the first place, and there's no point in even trying.

I thought that about 'spinning bullet in the ice'.

I looked up the thread on the mythbusters board about this and wow... some nerds can be such pompous douchebags. "I've got a phd in theoretical physics from blah blah blah and anyone with half a brain can see this is impossible." Lol. Some people just have too much faith in their own grasp of science.

Some people just never let the facts get in the way of their opinions (or pomposity). I've encountered many an "intellectual" like that in my life.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Whenever they do a viral video myth, I tend to start off thinking the video was faked in the first place, and there's no point in even trying.

I thought that about 'spinning bullet in the ice'.

I looked up the thread on the mythbusters board about this and wow... some nerds can be such pompous douchebags. "I've got a phd in theoretical physics from blah blah blah and anyone with half a brain can see this is impossible." Lol. Some people just have too much faith in their own grasp of science.

I must have missed that episode, the Mythbusters were able to reproduce that video? What's the physics behind the bullet behaving that way?

 

[Gov Kodos]

Have they done whether a gun will fire in a vacuum? I guess it would, but it would make a fun episode section for Kari and the boys. I love Kari and guns episodes.

 

[Christopher]

I must have missed that episode, the Mythbusters were able to reproduce that video? What's the physics behind the bullet behaving that way?

They did reproduce the video's results without trickery (in fact, they went to an insane amount of trouble to do it in the proper ultra-frozen conditions, shooting in the middle of a blizzard, practically). They didn't really get into the physics of it, though, but we discussed it in the thread for that episode. Apparently what happens is that the bullet bounces when it hits the ice, adding additional spin to that imparted by the rifled barrel, and then when it lands, its rotation melts a very thin, friction-reducing layer of water atop the ice, the same principle by which ice skates reduce friction. Or something like that.

Have they done whether a gun will fire in a vacuum?

No, but they've done firing underwater successfully (for one shot, at least, since it jams thereafter). I believe the oxidant is included in the cartridge, so it doesn't need to be in air.

Here's a site that discusses the subject in theoretical terms:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/sidearmslug.php#id--Slugthrowers--Propellent_and_Lubrication

 

[Forbin]

Yes, cartridges are completely self-contained and sealed. A gun will fire underwater, in space, in a vacuum chamber, jammed in the mud, wherever. it's all been tested at one time or another over the years.

What happens after the cartridge goes off may vary - if the barrel is blocked with mud or water, it may rupture. A semi-auto may not cycle due to the extra drag on the slide from being in a medium thicker than air (or the spent shell may not eject all the way and jam the slide).

In vacuum, though, any gun should work fine - even Vera, dammit! (what a stupid scene). Just brace yourself if you shoot a gun in space, 'cause Mr. Newton will come a'callin.

 

[Professor Zoom]

CG? I profoundly doubt that. It isn't easy to computer-animate convincing flame or anything fluid like that. Even top-notch Hollywood blockbusters have trouble doing it effectively, so there's no way some joker shooting a viral video could pull it off. As I remarked before, there was a clear cut in the video -- we saw the reel smoking, then we cut to an angle pointing away from the reel, then the camera moved back to the reel and it was on fire. Most likely they did exactly what the Mythbusters did and just used an open flame to light it while it was off-camera.

To me, the flame looked fake. So, I agree, it's hard to computer animate convincing flame. It didn't look convincing at all.

 

[Christopher]

To me, the flame looked fake. So, I agree, it's hard to computer animate convincing flame. It didn't look convincing at all.

I just reviewed the footage, and I'm certain it's real. I know what CG-faked flame looks like, and that isn't it. Besides, as I said, there's no reason the makers of the video would've needed to bother. There's a blatant cut between the shot of the reel smoking and the shot of it burning, so obviously they just had someone light the lubricant with a lighter before they moved the camera to it. Why bother with the time and expense of creating digital fakery when they could've done it so simply? It's real flame, it's just not ignited the way they claimed.

It probably looked "fake" to you because it was shot under natural outdoor lighting conditions and thus appeared dimmer than we're conditioned to expect by professional cinematographers and pyrotechnicians who employ considerable artifice to make flames look appropriately flamey. Also because we're not used to seeing flame coming from something in the shape of a fishing reel, so the configuration of the flames looked unfamiliar. Reality is Unrealistic, you know.

For as long as computer graphics have existed, people have been giving them far, far too much credit. I've just been seeing this from the DVD features on the Max Headroom series set, where they were talking about how everyone assumed that Max really was a computer-generated creation when it was really just Matt Frewer in heavy prosthetic makeup. Even now, 15 years later, we can't achieve quite that level of realistic expression and movement in CGI characters. As a rule, it's best not to be too quick to assume any given thing is computer-animated. It's not as all-powerful a tool as people assume, and there are frequently far simpler ways of achieving a desired result.

 

[Professor Zoom]

To me, the flame looked fake. So, I agree, it's hard to computer animate convincing flame. It didn't look convincing at all.

I just reviewed the footage, and I'm certain it's real. I know what CG-faked flame looks like, and that isn't it. Besides, as I said, there's no reason the makers of the video would've needed to bother. There's a blatant cut between the shot of the reel smoking and the shot of it burning, so obviously they just had someone light the lubricant with a lighter before they moved the camera to it. Why bother with the time and expense of creating digital fakery when they could've done it so simply? It's real flame, it's just not ignited the way they claimed.

It probably looked "fake" to you because it was shot under natural outdoor lighting conditions and thus appeared dimmer than we're conditioned to expect by professional cinematographers and pyrotechnicians who employ considerable artifice to make flames look appropriately flamey. Also because we're not used to seeing flame coming from something in the shape of a fishing reel, so the configuration of the flames looked unfamiliar. Reality is Unrealistic, you know.

For as long as computer graphics have existed, people have been giving them far, far too much credit. I've just been seeing this from the DVD features on the Max Headroom series set, where they were talking about how everyone assumed that Max really was a computer-generated creation when it was really just Matt Frewer in heavy prosthetic makeup. Even now, 15 years later, we can't achieve quite that level of realistic expression and movement in CGI characters. As a rule, it's best not to be too quick to assume any given thing is computer-animated. It's not as all-powerful a tool as people assume, and there are frequently far simpler ways of achieving a desired result.

Ok. Sure.

 

[Forbin]

No, I'm with Christopher. Real flame.
Either way it was a faked result, though.