MYTHBUSTERS 10th Anniversary Season

[Christopher]

This week is a crossover with that Deadliest Catch show about fishing that's popular for some reason. Okay, dangerous fishing, but I don't find that appealing either.

The myth about getting yanked overboard by a rope was kind of straightforward but kind of interesting to learn about. It seems that amputation might be a more likely result a lot of the time. But it was kind of scary how effective those coils were at grabbing firm hold of a limb, even knotting around it. The experimental design puzzled me, because it was obvious that the Simulaid "Buster" was getting caught against the frame as the rope was dragged to aft, yet they never tried moving him to the other side of the frame so it wouldn't keep getting in the way. Maybe the rope is never coiled on that side? It also seemed to me that the dummy's rigidity threw off the results -- his limbs functioned like a grappling hook whereas a human's would probably be more flexible. Maybe a Syndaver would've worked better -- I would've thought they'd be using those a lot more from now on. Maybe they decided they needed something more durable for this one.

The myth about brief naps being better than no sleep at all was kind of worthwhile, but it wasn't anything I didn't pretty much know already. The most interesting part was that the SFPD has a deputy who specializes in keeping people awake. Um... why is that again? Plus it's surprising whenever J.D. Nelson turns up in a capacity that doesn't involve blowing stuff up.

Speaking of which, the mini-myth about blowing up the crab "pot" (why is a steel cage called a "pot"?) was pretty gratuitous, but I liked seeing the Mythbusters use science! to figure out the best way to position the explosives and win the bet. Take that, interlopers from another show!

So a decent Mythbusters episode, but if the goal of the crossover was to entice MB fans to start watching Deadliest Catch, it was a total failure in my case.

 

[Forbin]

Yeah, I find Deadliest Catch one of those "reality shows" that may have been interesting to watch as a one-hour Nat Geo documentary, but I can't imagine how it could be an ongoing series. I really don't like the "crossover" MB episodes, trying to promote shows I don't want to watch.

That said, Kari's even cute when she's sleepless and cranky. And it's too bad she was too tired to realize it would have been funnier if she said she was "crabby".

 

[Roger Wilco]

Deadliest Catch is a decent series, or used to be anyway (after 9 seasons it's getting quite old), but this crossover episode sucked.

 

[Redfern]

Reads like I didn't miss that much.

Just as I turned on the TV to watch the episode, the phone rang. It was one of my cousins and I instantly knew I'd be stuck on the phone for a full hour. Sure enough, it was 9:57 before she finished her "family update".

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[davejames]

Yeah, I find Deadliest Catch one of those "reality shows" that may have been interesting to watch as a one-hour Nat Geo documentary, but I can't imagine how it could be an ongoing series. I really don't like the "crossover" MB episodes, trying to promote shows I don't want to watch.

That said, Kari's even cute when she's sleepless and cranky. And it's too bad she was too tired to realize it would have been funnier if she said she was "crabby".

Agreed on both points.

Although I was kind of surprised at the results for the napping myth. I had no trouble buying that the technique worked for the crab fishermen, whose bodies would have adapted to the crazy sleep schedule long ago. But I figured Kari and Tori would need a lot more time to adjust than that.

 

[Forbin]

I think "power naps" have been known to work for many years now. The B-2 bomber was designed with a bunk in the cockpit for just that reason, so the 2 pilots could both be alert thru 40-hour missions.

 

[Christopher]

In the 1988 War of the Worlds: The Series, the lead character Harrison Blackwood was an eccentric whose many personality quirks included sleeping for one hour out of every four, rather than sleeping through the night like most people. I always wondered if that would really work. This suggests it might work for a little while, but I'm still not convinced it would work as a lifelong practice.

 

[Christopher]

Ugh... I don't much care for the ones where they do myths about germs and bathrooms and stuff. But the test about the air dryers vs. paper towels was pretty informative. On the one hand, it's alarming how worthless air dryers really are. What I've read is that the only reason they're used is because it's cheaper and easier than having the maintenance staff refill paper towel dispensers regularly.

On the other hand, it's reassuring that as long as you wash your hands thoroughly and properly with soap, it doesn't matter whether you use dryers or towels. Since I do wash my hands thoroughly, I can feel secure. (Though I wonder -- in their test, were they using antibacterial soap or the regular kind?) It also makes me feel more comfortable about reusing cloth towels to dry my hands in the bathroom and kitchen.

The other myth was rather less pleasant, and I have to question the validity of an experimental result conducted with only one sample. They'd need to test other restrooms, see if the results were repeatable, before they could really declare a result. Anyway, I bet their result is now immediately invalidated as soon as they've announced it, because now legions of Mythbusters fans are going to switch to using the first stall, so it won't be the least used anymore, or at least not by as much.


On the earthquake myth, the shake table they built was impressive. I've never even heard of air casters; I'm still not entirely sure how they work. But they worked pretty well here. But why did the announcer call it the biggest build in Mythbusters history? They've certainly built bigger things before. The last thing I heard that phrase used for was the ramp for testing that viral-video stunt about flying off a ramp into a pool of water. That was a lot bigger than this. And they've built bigger house mockups too.

And this was just like the first myth in that it just reaffirmed what I've read elsewhere, about how the "stand in the door" idea doesn't work for modern buildings. Although it's kind of reassuring, because the impression I'd gotten was that modern buildings were less sturdy so it wouldn't matter where you stood. Nice to see it's the other way around.

 

[Pondwater]

Tonight's episode reinforced why I don't like using public restrooms. Although, I usually go for that first stall. I know they already stated that prior to the experiment that they had a hard time finding a public restroom. What would of been more interesting is if they did a restroom in a Wal-Mart or a public transit station. The former which is usually really disgusting.

 

[Forbin]

I'm a last-stall guy myself. But not the handicapped stall - I don't like the chair-height toilets.

 

[Redfern]

Kari Byron on the "shake table"...ratings gold!

Why, yes; I am a horn-dog. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[Forbin]

In fact, I'm surprised the net wasn't flooded with shaking-Kari GIFs this morning!

 

[davejames]

Not really surprised by the first stall being the cleanest, since that's usually what I've noticed in my visits to public restrooms.

And yeah, the shake table was pretty cool. Even if they do have a bunch of consultants on hand, I still find myself constantly impressed by Tori, Kari and Grant's building skills, and their ability to engineer such complicated devices.

And it WAS pretty amazing watching something as solid and sturdy-looking as that brick structure slowly come apart. It's one of those things you just can't imagine happening until you actually see it.

 

[Redfern]

Especially when we learned the concrete morter was allowed to cure for three weeks. Looks like they tried to be as authentic as reasonably possible for their test.

Good to know, too! I never heard of the "duck and cover" alternative until last night's presentation. Like many folks, I grew up with the "doorway" recommendation.

Still...Kari "bouncing"...dayum!!!

Sincerely,

Bill

 

[davejames]

Actually I thought her little dance in the introduction was far sexier.

 

[TheSeeker]

I didn't need to see the deadliest catch myth to know you can get yanked overboard by a spool of rope.

My cousin is a lobster fisherman in Nova Scotia and got pulled overboard when he got tangled up in the rope. He was pulled under by the weight of all the lobster pots and they had to winch everything back up to get him out. He wasn't breathing when they pulled him out and only came back after my Uncle performed CPR on him. He was very lucky.

 

[Forbin]

Yeah, more than a few "myths" over the years have been pretty obvious things like that. I guess they just do them for the sake of doing something spectacular, or promoting another show, or maybe just to show us we should be careful.

 

[Christopher]

^Then again, the "obvious" is often untrue, which is why science is about finding out rather than assuming. Sometimes the results are exactly what you thought they'd be, yes, but sometimes they're totally different. And that's why it's worth doing.

 

[Forbin]

True, dat.

 

[Christopher]

Another "special" this week, this time focusing on race-car myths.

Car vs. runner: This is sort of the same principle as their classic myth about whether a toy car could outrace a real car coasting downhill. The difference is that the car and the runner are both under power, but it's still about relative rates of acceleration over a short distance.

Impressive that Adam was able to tie the car on one trial. Though as it turned out, that was because Jamie couldn't accelerate the car as effectively as the pro driver could. Interesting that the result came down more to the driver's skill than the runner's. Their pro runner could definitely have beat Jamie or Adam's driving.


Manhole cover: My main question is, why would Indianapolis 500 racecars be racing on the streets instead of the speedway?

And if manhole covers can't be sucked up, where did the myth come from? I'm wondering if the shape of the cover has anything to do with it. Theirs had a smooth surface, but a real one has kind of a waffle-iron texture, and I think they sometimes have holes in them. I wonder if it would've made a difference if they'd replicated those properties.


Fast weight loss: Okay, so they called it plausible that driving in a race for three hours could generate enough sweat and exertion to burn off ten pounds, though they only got five. But it seems to me that losing ten pounds through sweat alone can't be very healthy, or very long-lasting, since it's basically just dehydration.

One thing I've never quite understood is how weight lost to exercise actually leaves the body. I mean, that's physical substance that has to go somewhere. Does it all just get sweated out? My assumption would be that the fatty compounds and such are broken down by the metabolism and, err, go the way of all bodily waste. If that's the case, then real weight loss, of fat rather than just moisture, couldn't be registered immediately after exertion, but only after... err... some time had passed, let's put it that way.

Also, how much of the perspiration was still saturating their clothes when they weighed themselves post-race (and post-sauna)? Maybe they should've showered and changed into identical dry clothes before the second weighing.

At first I was surprised to hear that an auto race could last for three hours. That seemed an oddly long time for something so fast-paced. But then I remembered... the name "Indy 500" refers to the number of miles driven, right? So 500 miles in 3 hours would be 167 mph, which is more or less consistent with the speeds mentioned for the race cars featured here. (You can tell I don't follow sports much.)