MYTHBUSTERS 2015 Season Thread
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
Yeah, I've seen that done in a number of shows/films. The more I think about it, the more unnecessary that whole situation seemed. Didn't she have a hairpin or anything? If the windows were somehow jammed shut, couldn't she have broken a pane and thrown the grenade out? There must've been plenty of alternatives to just holding the spoon shut for two hours.
I would imagine that those who pin their hair up do. Although I think the woman in the clip had a pretty basic, straight hairstyle.
Pin trick depends on the grenade, really. In some grenades, the striker will actually move a bit (also makes a really unnerving *click*) when the pin is pulled, so the holes aren't aligned anymore. I'm not sure if you can put the pin back in after that.
Part of the problem with using golf as an example and then testing with a motion control game system like the Playstation Move (seen in the episode, or so it appears) or the Wii Remote is that so much of golf involves the clubhead contact.
I wonder if the results would have been different if they were learning how to play tennis, for instance.
Tennis is a game I've actually played, unlike golf (unless you count miniature golf). It's been a long time, but I'm pretty sure that the way the racket contacts the ball (and the tactile feedback the player gets therefrom) is extremely important, probably just as much as in golf. The game is affected a great deal by what kind of racket you use, how it's strung, how you hold it, where the ball hits the strings, etc.
Got around to watching this. One "concern" I had on the grenade test is that Adam as an adult male is stronger than the average female. Hmmmm..... If only the show had an adult woman who would be a better test on whether or not it'd be possible to hold the grenade closed.
While I've never been a fan of this whole annual "Shark Week" weirdness, I appreciated the revisit of the Jaws scuba-tank myth, because I've always wondered myself whether the "rocket" tank would've killed the shark by puncturing it rather than blowing it up. I remember being part of online discussions where these alternative scenarios were raised. I wish it hadn't taken a decade to get these questions answered, but it's good to see them answered at last. Their methodology for constructing an analog for the materials inside a shark was interesting, though watching Adam feel up the innards of dead sharks was icky.
The particularly interesting part was seeing the armor-piercing round just bounce off the scuba tank. I guess the physics of a glancing blow don't change that much regardless of the nature of the bullet's point -- if it doesn't hit at the right angle, it just won't penetrate. If anything, it seemed to bounce farther than the other ricochets did.
I do wonder why the orca sounds had no effect on the sharks. I'd guess that maybe it's because they rely more on scent than sound, so the sound without the scent doesn't seem real to them. That would fit with the really intense reaction to the dead-shark odor. That was really effective. Do we now know the secret formula of shark repellent Bat-spray? (I'm disappointed in Adam for calling it "kryptonite." Wrong DC allusion!)
The particularly interesting part was seeing the armor-piercing round just bounce off the scuba tank. I guess the physics of a glancing blow don't change that much regardless of the nature of the bullet's point -- if it doesn't hit at the right angle, it just won't penetrate. If anything, it seemed to bounce farther than the other ricochets did.
I do wonder why the orca sounds had no effect on the sharks. I'd guess that maybe it's because they rely more on scent than sound, so the sound without the scent doesn't seem real to them. That would fit with the really intense reaction to the dead-shark odor. That was really effective. Do we now know the secret formula of shark repellent Bat-spray? (I'm disappointed in Adam for calling it "kryptonite." Wrong DC allusion!)
I wonder what the "whale song" and "orca sound" actually sounded like? The show dubbed-in the whale/orca song, but what did the file actually sound like?
What I think of is in "Star Trek IV" when the "Whale Probe" is playing it's screeching noises in space and Spock adjusts the sound with the computer to hear what it'd sound like underwater.
The density of water, naturally, changes what a sound sounds like sense it's denser than air. So, did their test compensate for this? Or was the sound underwater "doubly distorted" in that the file sounded like orcas underwater and the speakers played a sound that sounded like orcas underwater... underwater?
What I think of is in "Star Trek IV" when the "Whale Probe" is playing it's screeching noises in space and Spock adjusts the sound with the computer to hear what it'd sound like underwater.
The density of water, naturally, changes what a sound sounds like sense it's denser than air. So, did their test compensate for this? Or was the sound underwater "doubly distorted" in that the file sounded like orcas underwater and the speakers played a sound that sounded like orcas underwater... underwater?
Did anyone catch the panicked voice in the opening beach scene? "Something just touched me!" I could be wrong of course, but to me it sure sounded like that clip of Grant Imahara when they tested "thrashing vs. remaining still", a snippet they often used in the opening titles. And, more obvious, the "flashback" to the first air tank experiments, we saw Kari.
Speaking of Grant, he was, in a way, competing against MythBusters last night. BBC America was airing "special" versions of three tear-jerking "Doctor Who" episodes. When cutting to a break or returning from a commercial, a young hostess (Whom I didn't recognize, sorry), commented about the episodes and DW in general. Duding a couple of those sequences, Grant Imahara was a "guest". This was in the 9 PM Eastern slot while MysthBusters aired. I had to smile at the irony.
Sincerely,
Bill
Speaking of Grant, he was, in a way, competing against MythBusters last night. BBC America was airing "special" versions of three tear-jerking "Doctor Who" episodes. When cutting to a break or returning from a commercial, a young hostess (Whom I didn't recognize, sorry), commented about the episodes and DW in general. Duding a couple of those sequences, Grant Imahara was a "guest". This was in the 9 PM Eastern slot while MysthBusters aired. I had to smile at the irony.
Sincerely,
Bill
I don't think you can rely too much on the scientific assertions of a movie that assumed sounds could be heard in outer space.
We're talking about a sound that was recorded underwater and played back underwater. Just like most recorded voices and sounds we hear on TV were recorded in air and played back in air. Those sounds aren't "doubly distorted" to our ears, so I don't think that would be an issue here either.
Well, it was never my intent to take "scientific evidence" from a movie, just the basic premise of it which is upheld by science. Sounds move differently though different densities. Water is more dense than air so, sound moves more slowly than it does through air and is carried differently so it sounds different. (FWIW. It was never my interpretation that the probe was literally transmitting sound through space, but rather a type of signal that could generate sound when passing through a medium. A radio/EM signal vibrant enough to actually have a physical impact on surrounding materials.)
My thinking is that a whale generates a sound which starts at level A and as it travels from the whale to another point the densities between the two points distorts it to level B, where it is recorded. I would think then playing *that* back would distort it more. Sort of like "making a copy of a copy."
Think of it this way, someone is playing a loud stereo in a room. Someone in an adjacent room hears the slightly distorted sound muffled and changed by the shared wall. He records it. He then takes his recording and plays *it* loudly. Does the person in the first room hear the exact same thing his neighbor was hearing the first time around? Or is it different because now that distorted sound is going to be further distorted by moving through air and the shared wall?
My thinking is that a whale generates a sound which starts at level A and as it travels from the whale to another point the densities between the two points distorts it to level B, where it is recorded. I would think then playing *that* back would distort it more. Sort of like "making a copy of a copy."
Think of it this way, someone is playing a loud stereo in a room. Someone in an adjacent room hears the slightly distorted sound muffled and changed by the shared wall. He records it. He then takes his recording and plays *it* loudly. Does the person in the first room hear the exact same thing his neighbor was hearing the first time around? Or is it different because now that distorted sound is going to be further distorted by moving through air and the shared wall?
I don't think the distinction matters, because sharks would hear real orcas over a wide range of distances, water temperatures and densities, etc. So if they did respond to the sound of orcas, they'd have to be able to recognize it through a range of different acoustical conditions and distortions. You're still going to recognize that voice distorted through the wall as a human voice.
It was on last night? My DVR seems to have betrayed me.
the show had a strange subtitle, so it didn't register as "Mythbusters".
It was on last night? My DVR seems to have betrayed me.
the show had a strange subtitle, so it didn't register as "Mythbusters".
To the On Demand Channel, Robin!
Similar threads
